Relief for Imran Khan in Toshakhana case

• Next hearing of Toshakhana case fixed on June 8.
• "Complaint filed sans competent authority can't be heard," Khan's counsel says.
• Adds complaint by ECP was filed after prescribed time.

ISLAMABAD: Two days after Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan's indictment in the Toshakhana case, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) Friday issued a stay order on criminal proceedings on the matter.

The stay order will remain effective till the next hearing of the case on June 8.

On May 10, Additional Sessions Judge Humayun Dilawar indicted the PTI chief, rejecting objections raised by Khan’s lawyers.

IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq, today, heard Khan's petition against the order restraining the lower court from further proceedings.

The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) had filed a complaint seeking proceedings under criminal law for not disclosing information pertaining to the gifts the former premier received during his time in office.

During the IHC hearing, PTI chief’s lawyer Khawaja Haris argued that the complaint against his client was submitted by a district election commissioner and not by a competent authority. He added that the ECP did not submit a letter to appoint someone as competent authority.

“Election Commission only asked its office to file a complaint. The complaint filed without the competent authority cannot be heard,” the lawyer said, adding that he’s relying on the documents provided with the record by the prosecution.

Meanwhile, the chief justice remarked that there are other pleas of similar nature and petitions against the interim order.

“Should this be heard as a main petition?” CJ Farooq asked.

Khan’s counsel, however, said that there is an objection over the matter as it should have been first heard by a magistrate.

He added that the complaint was filed after the prescribed time.

Imran Khan's indictment

The order issued by the court in the Toshakhana case said that charges had been framed against the accused, adding that Imran Khan had not answered the questions of the court during the hearing.

The accused had also refused to sign the charge sheet, it said.

The court added that it was issuing notices to the prosecution witnesses for May 13, to record their statements. It said that Imran's lawyer had raised an objection against the judge and requested to transfer the case to any other court.

The lawyer had stated that they wanted to challenge the decision of May 5, and this court couldn't hear the matter until the verdict on the appeal. The order further said that the defence also raised the objection to changing the location of the court only one day before the hearing.

They had stated that transferring the court location was a hindrance in the way of justice. Meanwhile, it also mentioned that the accused had neither challenged the decision of May 5, nor any stay was issued against it.