Chief Justice of Pakistan( CJP) Umar Ata Bandial has raised enterprises over the hasty nature of the verdict pronounced by the trial court judge in the Toshakhana case involving former Prime Minister Imran Khan.
These commentary were made during a Supreme Court( SC) hail in response to a solicitation filed by Imran Khan, who queried the Islamabad High Court’s( IHC) decision to transfer the Toshakhana case to another court. The IHC had abrogated the sessions court’s verdict on the case related to contended loose practices concerning the state gift depository, furnishing temporary relief to Khan.
still, the IHC rejected his request to shift the case to a different court. Imran Khan’s solicitation was heard by a three- member bench of the Supreme Court, headed by CJP Bandial and including judges Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Jamal Khan Mandokhel. During the hail, Imran Khan’s counsel, Latif Khosa, presented arguments before the court. The CJP expressed dissatisfaction with the trial court’s rapid-fire decision- making process and questioned the timeframe given to the indicted for their right to defend themselves.
The Supreme Court also refocused out that the trial court’s decision was made hastily, violating orders from both the Supreme Court and the high court in the Toshakhana case. The bench emphasized that the indicted must have the occasion to produce substantiations and that the trial judge had acted unilaterally. likewise, the SC ordered the high court to consider the request for suspending the judgment and examine the serious issues raised before the court.
The court suspended the hail until the following day and expressed prospects that the high court would make opinions regarding the pending desires. In his appeal, Imran Khan sought to capsize the high court’s order that directed him to reappear in the court of fresh Sessions Judge Humayun Dilawar. He also requested that the trial court’s proceedings be halted until a verdict on the new solicitation was reached. The solicitation argued that the trial judge had precociously supposed the Toshakhana case justifiable and that the IHC had committed a legal error by returning the case to Judge Dilawar. It also questioned the capability of a judge who had supposed a case justifiable to rehear it.