The Islamabad High Court on Thursday dismissed a petition by incarcerated Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf founder Imran Khan, seeking suspension of the trial court’s verdict in the Toshakhana case.
On August 5, Additional District and Sessions Judge Humayun Dilawar had sentenced former prime minister Imran Khan to three years in prison after the latter was “found guilty” of graft in the Toshakhana case.
The PTI founder was convicted of misusing his position to sell state gifts worth more than Rs140 million ($490,000) that he received from foreign dignitaries.
Following his conviction, the Election Commission of Pakistan disqualified the former prime minister for five years under Section 167 of the Elections Act, 2017.
However, the Islamabad High Court on August 28 suspended the Imran Khan’s sentence awarded to him in the Toshakhana case but his conviction and disqualification remain intact.
Later, PTI founder moved IHC for rectification of its August 28 order, by suspending the judgment on August 5 passed by the trial court.
Thursday, IHC Chief Justice Amir Farooq and Justice Tariq Mahmour Jahangiri announced the reserved verdict, rejecting the petition to suspend the Toshakhana case decision.
The ruling emphasised the legal limitations regarding the revision or amendment of a suspended punishment order. It referenced the stance of the Supreme Court, clarifying that while a sentence might be suspended, it does not imply the suspension of the judgment itself.
The judgment referred to the Qaim Ali Shah case, reinforcing the understanding that the trial court had imposed the sentence based on a complaint lodged by the Election Commission under the Election Act.
The Toshakhana issue became a major sticking point in national politics after the Election Commission of Pakistan disqualified the PTI chief for making “false statements and incorrect declaration” last month.
The judgement added that the former premier was found to be indulged in corrupt practices under sections 167 and 173 of the constitution. “A criminal proceeding will be initiated against him over filing a false statement.”
“His disqualification under Article 63, 1(P) has been for his current parliament membership”, the ECP said in its 36-page detailed judgment of the reference.
