ISLAMABAD: The federal government has challenged in Islamabad High Court the verdict by an anti-terrorism court wherein former prime minister Imran Khan was acquitted in the 2014 PTV attack case.
In its appeal filed in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) by the advocate general, the government noted that an anti-terrorism court in Islamabad acquitted Imran Khan on October 29, 2020. The court also acquitted President Arif Alvi in the Parliament House attack case on March 15, 2022.
The federal government, nonetheless, contended that the trial court had passed the order arbitrarily, without legal justification in a slipshod and hasty manner against facts and law.
The government also pleaded in the petition that “The trial court did not not consider the gravity of the offence, injuries to law enforcement personnel, loss of lives and extensive damage to public property.”
The respondents and accused were nominated in the FIR and supplementary statements with specific roles and incriminating evidence on record to connect them with the offence.
“The trial court has not exercised its discretion judiciously. That the reasons for acquittal of respondents recorded by the trial court below are not in accordance with facts of the case and law and the court below has exercised its jurisdiction illegally and unlawfully.”
The government believe that sufficient documentary and visual evidence is available on record to connect the accused with the serious offence but the learned trial court did not consider the same while announcing the impugned order, the appeal contended.
It added that statements recorded by eyewitnesses “clearly speaks about the role of the respondents during the occurrence but the learned trial court did not consider this solid/cogent evidence which clearly connects the accused / respondents with the commission of the offence.
The state contended that the court did not issue notices to victims to hear their side before deciding on the petition nor were actual victims made aware of proceedings of the court contrary to the law.
“That the prosecutors conceded without lawful authority and instructions and in derogation of their legal duty,” it contended.
The court prayed to set aside the trial court’s order and conduct a trial in accordance with the law.
