IHC grants PTI chief 14-day protective bail in lawyer murder case n Court sets aside lower court order of dismissing Imran’s plea in Toshakhana case n SC rejects Imran plea for stay in lawyer murder case.
ISLAMABAD - Former prime minister and PTI chief Imran Khan and his wife Bushra Bibi appeared before the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) at its Rawalpindi office on Tuesday in a £190 million settlement scandal - also known as the Al-Qadir Trust case.
The official sources informed that the couple also brought with them some documentary evidence and answered questions to the investigators.
Earlier in the day, senior counsel Khawaja Haris, during the hearing of the settlement case, told an accountability court that the bureau had summoned Khan and his spouse simultaneously for the first time.
Bushra Bibi had not appeared before the bureau in response to its three notices.
Former first lady had responded to all notices with the plea that she would appear before the investigation team along with her spouse.
Separately, chairman PTI Imran Khan also appeared before NAB team to give answers in the Toshakhana (state treasury) case. Last week, the bureau had served a second notice on Khan in Toshakhana case, asking him to appear in person before its probe team on July 4.
The notice was issued under section 19 of National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999 in an inquiry against holders of public office regarding ‘misuse of authority, criminal breach of trust and illegal gain in selling gifted state assets. ’
“Whereas, the inquiry proceedings have revealed that during your tenure as former prime minister of Pakistan, you were presented 108 gifted state assets, out of the same, 58 gifted state assets were retained by you,” read the notice.
The notice said that Khan did not deposit the state gifts in Toshakhana for fair price assessment in contravention of the rules and subsequently retained the gifts worth millions of rupees. It further said, “Moreover, you sold/misappropriated some of the gifted state assets for your personal benefit.”
NAB through the notice alleged that Khan, being former prime minister, influenced the process of price evaluation by the government and private appraisers. The notice further asked the PTI chief to appear as accused before its combined investigation team (CIT) at the bureau’s Rawalpindi office on July 4 for recording his statement. It further asked him to produce a complete record of the state gifts received, as well as sold, and physically present the state gifts retained by him for their price evaluation by the experts.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of Pakistan Tuesday turned down Chairman Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Imran Khan’s petition seeking stay against the ongoing proceedings in the murder of senior lawyer Abdul Razzaq Shar.
A two-member bench of the apex court comprising Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan and Justice Ayesha A Malik conducted hearing of Imran’s appeal against the BHC order. Justice Ijaz said how this bench can rule against the order of a division bench of the BHC.
Later, an IHC division bench comprising Chief Justice of IHC Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Miagul Hassan Aurangzeb granted the PTI chief 14-day protective bail in the Quetta’s lawyer murder case.
Earlier, Advocate Sardar Latif Khosa, appearing on behalf of Imran Khan before the apex court, prayed to the court to constitute a three-judge bench for hearing of this petition. However, Justice Ijaz stated they could not constitute a bench, as this is the prerogative of the Chief Justice. He further said that they would refer the matter to the chief justice for this purpose. Imran Khan after the proceeding filed an application requesting the chief justice to form a three-judge bench and fix the case today.
The bench also turned down his plea for interim relief, and issued notices to the Prosecutor General and Advocate General Balochistan. Justice Ijaz said without hearing the other party they could not grant stay.
Khosa informed that his client’s life is in danger, and requested the bench to order that his client not be arrested. Justice Ayesha said the petitioner’s presence is not necessary for suspension of the proceeding.
Onset of the proceeding, Latif Khosa read the FIR, and said that Shar’s son had lodged an FIR against the petitioner wherein sections of Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) have been included. Justice Ijaz questioned which forum determines about the ATA provisions.
Imran’s lawyer responded that basically that was the responsibility of the SHO of a police station. Justice Ijaz said if SHO order is wrong then where it could be challenged. He inquired whether the petitioner had approached relevant forum against the inclusion of ATA provision in the FIR.
Latif Khosa said non-bailable warrant have been issued of his client. Justice Ayesha inquired whether the petitioner has challenged the Joint Investigation Team. Upon that the lawyer stated his client is unaware how many cases have been registered against him. He said during investigation the SHO cannot include sections of ATA.
A division bench of the BHC comprising Chief Justice Naeem Afghan and Justice Aamir Nawaz Rana on 15-06-23 had dismissed the PTI chief’s application to quash an FIR registered against him regarding assassination of Shar.
Shar was shot dead by unidentified assailants near Alamo Chowk on Airport Road on June 06, this year. According to the police, the senior Supreme Court lawyer received 15 bullet injuries on his body and died on the spot. Two days later, the police booked Imran Khan in the case on the complaint of the lawyer’s son.
The murdered lawyer, Shar, had filed a constitutional petition against the former PM in the BHC, seeking proceedings against the former premier under Article 6 (high treason) of the Constitution.
Then the bench deferred the hearing of the sine die.
Meanwhile, the IHC set aside the order of a sessions court wherein it had dismissed his petition to declare the Toshkhana case as inadmissible.
A single bench of IHC headed by Chief Justice Aamer Farooq announced the verdict which he had reserved on June 23 in a petition filed by Imran Khan challenging the Toshakhana trial proceedings.
Imran was indicted in the Toshakhana case on May 10, as Additional Sessions Judge (West) had dismissed his objections regarding the admissibility of the case. Later, Khan approached the IHC, which granted a stay on criminal proceedings till June 8. After the hearing resumed last month, Justice Farooq reserved his judgment in the petition on June 23 which he announced on Tuesday.
In the verdict, the IHC bench asked the sessions court to consider the the PTI chairman’s petition as pending and decide it afresh within seven days. It noted, “The instant petition is allowed and the impugned order to the extent of dismissal of application, mentioned above, is set aside; consequently, the application in question shall be deemed to be pending and decided afresh by the learned trial court within seven days from the receipt of this judgment, keeping in view the law in question and observations made above.” The bench observed that the sessions court had left the “issue undecided and dismissed the application of the petitioner with scanty reasons which left the main legal issues undecided or unresolved”.
It added that it would be only proper for the trial court to decide the application afresh after hearing the parties with detailed reasons keeping in view the provisions of Article 10-A of the Constitution.
“The examination of the impugned order shows that issues have not been dealt with in a proper manner, as it should have been and in such a situation, to substitute the findings, this Court would be supplementing the findings which would be inappropriate exercise of the jurisdiction as detailed findings ought to have been given in a proper manner in order for this Court to examine the same in supervisory jurisdiction whether legal issues have been dealt with rightly,” said the verdict.
It added, “The Court, in its exercise of jurisdiction, has the power to do complete justice and should avoid supplementing the findings.”
“It is reiterated that learned trial court has left the issues undecided and has dismissed the application of the petitioner with scanty reasons which left the main legal issues undecided or unresolved. It would be only proper for the learned trial court to decide the application afresh after hearing the parties with detailed reasons keeping in view the provisions of Article 10-A of the Constitution as the foremost consideration,” maintained the judgment.