ISLAMABAD: PTI Chairman Imran Khan challenged the ongoing inquiry into the cipher controversy and audio leaks in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday, while also rushing to the Supreme Court (SC) for an early hearing of his plea on Aug 1, as the Toshakhana trial court has summoned him for recording his statement under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The IHC registrar’s office raised an objection on the petition, stating that the matter was already pending before the court, and a separate petition might not be filed in the same case.

Click to see more

In the petition, Mr Khan argued that since the Supreme Court is already examining the audio leaks, the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) could not initiate a probe in this matter.

It may be mentioned that an investigation team of the FIA has summoned Mr Khan for an inquiry into cipher and audio leaks.

Seeks early hearing before SC; trial court summons PTI chief to record statement in Toshakhana case

According to the petition, the FIA’s inquiry is a violation of Article 10-A of the Constitution and requests the court to set aside the ongoing inquiry.

Toshakhana case

Separately, the Additional District and Sessions Judge Humayun Dilawar gave a day to Mr Khan for recording his statement under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code under which the judge can put a question to an accused person before concluding the trial.

PTI’s counsel sought time to submit the written reply to the 35 questions raised by the trial court.

The lawyer of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) argued that Mr Khan was summoned on July 28 for recording his statement and the court had handed over him the questionnaire, already extending maximum favour to him.

Mr Khan told the court that he received the questionnaire on Sunday and he needed time to peruse it. The court adjourned further proceeding until Tuesday (today).

Early hearing plea in SC

Afterwards, Mr Khan rushed to the SC for an early hearing of his plea on Aug 1 in the interest of justice.

This is the same case which a two-judge SC bench, consisting of Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Mussarat Hilali, had disposed of on July 26, 2023, with an observation that the IHC will take up the number of challenges to the Toshakhana trial.

Now in a single-page petition, the applicant pleaded before the SC that all the pending petitions before the IHC will become infructuous if the Additional Session Judge (ASJ) Islamabad seized with the Toshakhana case proceeds with the matter for the recording of Section 342 statement since no stay had been granted by IHC against the challenge to the jurisdiction of the trial court.

The District Election Commissioner (DEC) filed Toshakhana-related complaint before ASJ Islamabad under the Election Act 2017, in which the petitioner was also summoned to appear in person.

Subsequently, two applications were filed on legal points, highlighting that the complaints were time barred and that the complaint was filed without any authorisation, and that the complaint could not be entertained directly by ASJ, rather it should have come through the magistrate.

But these applications were dismissed by ASJ on May 5, 2023, with an observation that charges would be framed against the petitioner on May 10, 2023.

Since ASJ cannot pass such an order on his own, the petitioner pleaded; therefore, the order was challenged before the IHC by filing three criminal revisions concerning taking cognizance directly, only maintainability of the complaint by the DEC and against the order of summoning of the petitioner.

The petitioner also filed a case for the transfer of case to any other ASJ in view of the strong objections.

However, the IHC heard only the case which relates to the transfer of the case to some other ASJ, while other cases were adjourned for July 5, 2023 but later through a supplementary cause list, the case was fixed on July 4 for the announcement of judgement in which the high court had framed certain questions regarding issues of authorisation and limitation for filing the complaint under Section 190 of the Election Act 2017, and then remanded the matter back to the trial court.

The petition pleaded that one matter remanded for the decision within a week, whereas other revisions were still pending.

Now the petitioner has pleaded before the top court to take up the matter on Tuesday in the interest of justice otherwise the matters pending before the high court would become infructuous.

Published in Dawn, August 1st, 2023