ISLAMABAD - The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Thursday issued its detailed verdict in a contempt of court case against Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chairman Imran Khan. In its detailed judgment, the five-member bench of the IHC comprising the then IHC chief justice Athar Minallah, Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri and Justice Babar Sattar expressed satisfaction over the apology tendered by former prime minister Khan. The16-page verdict authored by Justice Athar said, “There is no reason to further proceed with the contempt and therefore, we hereby discharge the respondent [Imran Khan] and consequently the show cause notice served upon him is withdrawn.” However, Justice Kayani and Justice Sattar disagreed with the paragraph relating to the giving benefit of doubt to the respondent in the case. Khan was facing contempt of court charges for his controversial remarks about Judicial Magistrate Zeba Chaudhry at a rally in Islamabad on August 20. In its detailed verdict, the IHC, however, said that the language, tone, and context were indeed inappropriate and definitely not expected from a political leader who had recently served as the prime minister. It stated that in the case in hand, the contempt stems from a speech made by the respondent before a charged protesting assembly, consisting of his political workers and supporters. The relevant portion of the speech has been reproduced above. The language, tone and context were indeed inappropriate and definitely not expected from a political leader and who had recently served as the Prime Minister of the country. The bench said, “It was alarming that an honourable judge of the district courts was addressed by name. The speech was not followed by any other action. Later, the respondent attempted to explain in public meetings the context which had led him to make the undesirable utterances.” It further said, “He had tendered his appearance before us and had expressly stated that he held the judiciary in high esteem and that he had no intent to threaten or to bring the honourable judge of the district court into hatred or ridicule. Though we were satisfied with his explanation and apology but he was asked to submit an affidavit. The respondent filed his affidavit reiterating therein what he had stated before us. He had also appeared in the court of the district judge with the intent to tender his apology but she was on leave.” The judgment said that the conduct of the respondent, his explanation and apology, particularly his appearance in the court of the district judge, manifest that the regretful acknowledgment regarding the utterances made by him was bonafide. It further said that bench has no reason to dispute the bonafide of regretful acknowledgment on the part of the respondent manifested through his conduct, tendering appearances before the court, explaining his stance and reiterating it by executing the affidavit.