ISLAMABAD: PTI appealed to the IHC to declare the trial court’s verdict and sentence against party chairman Imran Khan “illegal”.
“Its most respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Court may graciously pleased to set aside the impugned judgement dated 05.08.2023. Declare the conviction, sentence imposed upon the Appellant illegal. Without lawful authority and to acquit the Appellant of the charges framed against him,” the petition read.
On August 5, 2023, Additional District and Sessions Judge (ADSJ) Humayun Dilawar sentenced Khan to three years in prison. Also a Rs100,000 fine for graft in the Toshakhana case, potentially excluding him from running in following elections.
The party’s third plea since the PTI chief’s detention submitted at the Supreme Court.
The previous IHC appeal sought to move Khan from Attock Jail to Adiala Jail. But this 22-page plea wants to denounce and overturn the conviction.
The petition states that the challenged judgement “totally misdirected”. As the prosecution must prove the actus reus and men reus to prove a criminal accusation.
“The prosecution has miserably failed to discharge its onus against the appellant. As such, the impugned judgement is unwarranted by law,” the petition stated.
Ruiling was hyper technical
The petition further claimed that ADSJ Dilawar’s ruling was “hyper-technical” and “misreading”.
“The learned trial judge returned a finding of guilt against the accused on hyper-technical grounds, that too by misreading and misconceiving the law, and not on the basis of any tangible evidence in support of the charge framed against the accused, which evidence, nonetheless, utterly lacking in the instant case.”
The appeal also claimed that the judge failed to consider Khan’s accountant’s “relevant column of Form-B” under “Precious Items” stating the cost of these assets.
“As a matter of fact all that the learned judge has to say regarding the defence of the appellant is to make a cursory almost derisive reference to it,” the lawsuit stated.
The petition also claimed that the trial was unfair and the decision was pre-determined because it “seemingly took him [the judge] just 30 minutes to dictate more than 35 pages which constitute the impugned judgement”.
