ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday turned down a request by PTI Chairman Imran Khan to stay the trial in the Toshakhana reference being heard at an Islamabad sessions court.

However, the three-judge apex court bench, headed by Justice Yahya Afridi, granted relief to Mr Khan by postponing further proceedings until Friday (tomorrow) so that the PTI chief could come again in case of any adverse order passed by the Islamabad High Court (IHC).

Both the IHC and the sessions court will resume simultaneous proceedings in the Toshakhana reference today. The Supreme Court also put to notice the respondents in the application, which would again be taken up on Thursday.

On Wednesday, the apex court took up an urgent application moved by Mr Khan’s counsel Khawaja Haris Ahmed to get an interim relief in the Toshakhana reference.

Contentious Facebook posts not by sessions judge, FIA tells high court

The trial court has already recorded Mr Khan’s statement under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but his presence was again required before Additional Sessions Judge Humayun Dilawar on Thursday since he was facing a criminal complaint.

At the outset of the hearing on Wednesday, Justice Afridi reminded that the applicant had come before the Supreme Court without challenging any order of the high court, adding that the earlier Supreme Court direction of July 26 was a consent order.

Moreover, that order would have been sufficient since it carried an inbuilt stay as it required the high court to hear all the pending criminal revisions, such as the transfer of the case to any other forum, along with the challenge to the trial court’s jurisdiction.

Thus, the applicant had got the relief he was seeking for, since the last order of the court required from the high court not to pass any final order without deciding all the pending issues before it, including the challenge to the jurisdiction of the trial court, Justice Afridi observed.

FIA clears sessions judge

Meanwhile, the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) has told the IHC that some contentious Facebook posts had not been published from the account of Additional Sessions Judge Dilawar, who has been hearing the Toshakhana case against Mr Khan and was accused by the PTI of being biased.

The FIA’s cybercrime wing submitted a report to the IHC in response to the direction issued by Chief Justice Aamer Farooq, who has also been hearing a petition filed by Mr Khan seeking the transfer of the Toshakhana case.

The PTI’s legal team had submitted screenshots of three posts and accused the judge of being biased.

The FIA told the court that the analysis of the screenshots revealed that two screenshots dated Aug 21, 2014, and one screenshot dated March 1, 2014, were allegedly posted by a profile named Dilawar Dilawar.

“The analysis of the said screenshots revealed that the alleged posts do not contain any Universal Resources Locator (URL)/Web Link,” the report said, adding that Facebook automatically assigned a unique web address to each Facebook profile, page and post, which was necessary to access and authenticate the specific item on the Internet.

Therefore, in the absence of a URL, the identity and authenticity of a Facebook post in the form of screenshots could not be determined, the agency argued.

Hearing of Toshakhana case

During Wednesday’s hearing, Judge Dilawar sought final arguments on the complaint filed by the Election Commission of Pakistan against the PTI chief on the charge of concealing Toshakhana gifts.

The court declined to entertain an application submitted by PTI’s legal team seeking the recording of the statement of four private witnesses.

The judge said that the defence counsel was supposed to produce these witnesses on Tuesday instead.

PTI’s counsel Barrister Gohar Ali Khan sought time to produce the witnesses, but the judge pointed out that the hearing was adjourned a couple of times on Tuesday and there was ample time to bring the witnesses to the courtroom.

ECP’s counsel Amjad Pervaiz argued that the production of private witnesses was the sole responsibility of the accused person and the suspect was using delaying tactics by not producing them in the witness box.

The judge asked the defence counsel to conclude the arguments, or else the court would reserve an order on the complaint.

Published in Dawn, August 3rd, 2023