ISLAMABAD -  The Supreme Court on Tuesday said the documents submitted by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan and General Secretary Jahangir Tareen did not meet the requirement of proof as their authenticity and credibility was challenged.

A three-member bench headed by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar is hearing the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader Hanif Abbasi’s petition against Imran Khan and Jahangir Tareen for having offshore companies.

The chief justice noted that there was always a disconnect and no documents met the requirement of proof.

He asked Imran’s counsel Naeem Bukhari where was the proof of utilisation of 100,000 pounds.

About the documents filed by Tareen, Justice Saqib said that there was a clear contradiction in documents, therefore, the official record was pivotal.

Whether Jahangir Tareen had cultivation right of 18,000 acres of leased land could be proved through ‘Jamabandi and Khasra Gardawari’, he said.

PTI Chairman Imran Khan on October 16 had filed additional documents regarding non-disclosure of 100,000 pounds, while Jahangir Tareen submitted documents related to 18,000 acres of leased land.

The chief justice said that there was no bank statement of Tahir Nawaz, who was accountant of Niazi Services Limited (NSL) and Jemima Khan.

The CJP observed that Akram Sheikh’s stance is that there was disparity in the signatures of Imran Khan, and also there was no written agreement or commitment on behalf of Imran that the balance amount of 100,000 pounds will be retained by the NSL directors.

Naeem Bukhari accepted that there was no written agreement, but said there was decree of London court.

Justice Bandial said according to the latest documents PTI chairman received Euros 40,000 from the tenant, who was living in his UK flat.

He further said that earlier it was Imran’s stance that he did not recover anything from the tenant.

The judge said Abbasi’s counsel was right in his claim that why NSL was kept alive till 2015 despite it had no asset for over a decade, as the London flat was sold in 2003.

Why annul company fee of 27,000 pounds was paid till 2015? he asked.

Sikandar Bashir, representing Tareen, informed the court that he had submitted lease agreements, ‘Jamabandi’ and cross cheques relating to the 18,000 acres of leased land.

He said this land was situated in Rahim Yar Khan and Rajanpur and lease agreements, which numbered 161, were entered with the head of family.

The chief justice said Tareen had not filed ‘khasra gardawari’.

He asked the counsel that lease agreements, cross-cheques did not corroborate or buttress Tareen’s case.

The chief justice said that lease was for the cultivation of the land and asked him to show from any lease that Tareen had cultivation right.

“You have no official proof of the cultivation of the land and the possession of the land could only be proved through ‘khasra gardawari’,” he said.

The chief justice inquired from the counsel if he wanted the court to summon any officer of the revenue department, or constitute a commission or summon the land record of that area.

Bashir replied that the apex court had the right to do whatever it wanted.

Tareen’s counsel informed that the lease of 18,000 acres was for five years.

The chief justice asked how without registration the lease agreement was signed for five years.

Justice Umar Atta Bandial noted that the cross-cheques were not for the leasors but the head of the family of the leasors.

Justice Faisal Arab questioned whether crushing of sugarcane done in Tareen Mills cultivated on that land.

He said in sugar industries the agents purchased sugarcane from the cultivator and pay them in cross-cheques. Justice Bandial said all those factors could be established through the documents.

Bashir argued that sugarcane was crushed by Jamal Din Wali (JDW), which was a public company and the cheques were issued by the JDW to the leasors.

The chief justice asked the counsel to get information from Jahangir Tareen whether Haji Khan and Allah Yar were really driver and cook of Tareen.

Bashir pleaded that the petitioner’s position was legally incorrect as the Section 15E in Security and Exchange Ordinance 1969 was inserted later on.

He argued whether this law could be applied for the disqualification of his client under Article 62(1)(f) of Constitution.

The chief justice said they were examining the question of honesty.

The case was adjourned till today.