ISLAMABAD: After receiving the Toshakhana reference from the Pakistani Election Commission on Monday, the district court in Islamabad began criminal proceedings against Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman and former Prime Minister Imran Khan.
In accordance with sections 137, 170, and 167 of the Election Act, the ECP had sent the reference to the district and sessions judge in Islamabad. The hearing will now begin on Tuesday (today), and it will be presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Zafar Iqbal.
The district election commissioner (DEC), who sent the reference to the district court, stated in the complaint that Imran Khan should face trial for engaging in corrupt behaviour and providing false asset information.
The district court received the referral after the ECP, in its unanimous decision in the Toshakhana issue last month, ordered criminal prosecution of the PTI leader. Imran Khan could receive a three-year prison term as well as a fine if the corrupt acts were proven.
A four-member ECP bench’s decision further declared that the PTI leader was no longer a National Assembly member and disqualified the former prime minister.It went on to say that Imran was discovered to have submitted a fraudulent affidavit and to have committed corrupt actions in violation of Article 63(1)(p) of the Constitution.
The ECP found that Khan had engaged in “corrupt practises” as defined in Sections 167 and 173 of the Elections Act, an offence punishable under Section 174 of the Elections Act, by making “false representations and inappropriate declarations.”
In a petition submitted to the Lahore High Court (LHC) last week, the PTI contested the legal basis for Imran’s exclusion. Due to the “importance of the case,” the PTI’s attorneys requested that the court appoint a larger bench. The chief judge received the case file from LHC Justice Sajid Mehmood Sethi in order to assemble a larger bench.
Nasar Ahmed, an additional attorney general (AAG), questioned whether the petition could be maintained. Azhar Siddique, the petitioner’s attorney, urged the court to submit the case before a larger bench in light of the issue’s importance; the AAG did not object with this request.
The petitioner’s attorney added that it was still up for debate whether or not the ECP could invalidate any member of parliament, pointing out that neither it was a court nor did it have the authority to rule on the matter.
