Judge’s controversial posts
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court referred to the FIA a Judge’s controversial posts on Facebook who was hearing the Toshakhana case.
Meanwhile, the IHC Chief Justice considered the petitions of Imran Khan, wherein he sought the transfer of his case from Additional District and Sessions Judge Humayun Dilawar to another court.
At this time, the trial of Imran Khan in the Toshakhana Case is in its final stage. The court has already summoned Khan to record his statement under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This section allows the judge to question an accused person before concluding trial proceedings.
Former prime minister Imran Khan is facing corruption charges in the Toshakhana gifts case. The IHC referred the posts of a Judge to FIA for verification as Khan termed the Judge biased.
In the Toshakhana case, PTI chairman Imran Khan sought multiple reliefs, including the transfer of the case. Khan also demanded records from the Election Commission of Pakistan.
Khan also challenged the maintainability of the ECP’s complaint against him for concealing details of state gifts in his assets declarations.
Moreover, the IHC chief justice noted that Mr. Khan’s petition against the maintainability of the complaint is the second round of litigation. In the petition, Khan questioned the authority of the person filing the complaint on behalf of the ECP.
The former prime minister also took up the matter with the Supreme Court but did not achieve the desired outcome.
Imran Khan raised the issue of transfer of the case to another court claiming bias of the judge hearing the Toshakhana case.
In this regard, Khan presented certain posts on the judge’s Facebook account to the IHC Chief Justice.
The court was informed that the trial court judge denied the authenticity of the posts.
Justice Farooq directed the registrar’s office to “remit the issue of the authenticity of the posts to the Cyber Crime Wing of the Federal Investigation Agency, Islamabad, with the direction to submit the report positively before the next date of hearing.”
The court sought assistance from the ECP and adjourned further hearing until next week.
