The Islamabad High Court on Tuesday set directed the trial court to hear afresh and decide within seven days an application filed by the former prime minister and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan for the dismissal of criminal proceedings against him over alleged corruption.
The eight-page decision read out by Islamabad High Court (IHC) Chief Justice Aamer Farooq noted that a reference had been moved by some parliamentarians against Imran Khan for allegedly making incorrect declarations about his wealth and assets for the tax years 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 and that they formed the basis for his disqualification.
The reference was submitted to the National Assembly Speaker for action, who then referred it to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).
The ECP decided the matter on October 21, 2022, and disqualified Imran. The ECP further directed to initiate criminal proceedings against Imran for alleged "corrupt practices" over false declarations.
An additional district and sessions judge, who heard the case. During hearings, Imran submitted an application to dismiss the case since the case was lodged without due authorization. Moreover, Imran had argued that the time limit to file such a reference over his assets had passed; hence it was not valid.
On May 5, 2023, Imran filed a second application to reject the complaint. But both of his applications were dismissed by the trial court through a consolidated order.
The dismissal was subsequently challenged in the IHC, citing the time 'limitation' and absence of requisite 'authorization'.
In his order, Justice Farooq said that they viewed the legal questions of:
a) whether the complaint has been filed on behalf of ECP by a duly authorized person;
b) whether the decision of ECP dated October 21, 2022, is a valid authorization to any
officer of ECP to file a complaint;
c) whether the question of authorization is a question of fact and evidence and can be ratified subsequently during the course of proceedings or is fatal to the complaint making it non est;
d) whether the limitation provided in section 137(4) of the Act is for complaint under section 190(2) of the Act to both ECP and any person;
e) the concept of limitation in section 137(4) is only with respect to ECP initiating criminal complaints and is not mandatory and is directory;
f) whether the introduction of limitation is putting a cap on the powers of the ECP as provided in Articles 218 (3) and 222 of the Constitution;
g) whether this court, while interpreting section 137(4) of the Act and the provisions of the Constitution, has to see the effect of limitation;
h) whether the limitation is purely a legal question in the facts and circumstances or makes it a question of law or facts;
Justice Farooq ruled that these issues were not addressed by the trial court. Rather they have been brushed aside and/or dealt with in a "very cursory and shoddy manner."
"Where it is felt that questions have been left undecided by such Tribunal or authority or a question has to be decided after the taking of fresh evidence, it is more appropriate to return the case to the authority or Tribunal concerned for a decision in accordance with the law, after quashing the order complained against."
Noting that the trial court left issues undecided and dismissed Imran's application with scanty reasons, which left the main legal issues undecided or unresolved, the court said it would be only proper for the learned trial court to decide the application afresh after hearing the parties with detailed reasons.
The court subsequently allowed Imran's petition.
"For the above reasons, the instant petition is allowed, and the impugned order to the extent of dismissal of application, mentioned above, is set aside; consequently, the application in question shall be deemed to be pending and decided afresh by the learned trial court within seven days from the receipt of this judgment, keeping in view the law in question and observations made above."
However, it rejected a request to hear a connected petition against an order of the ECP since an application for its withdrawal has been submitted.
The eight-page decision read out by Islamabad High Court (IHC) Chief Justice Aamer Farooq noted that a reference had been moved by some parliamentarians against Imran Khan for allegedly making incorrect declarations about his wealth and assets for the tax years 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 and that they formed the basis for his disqualification.
The reference was submitted to the National Assembly Speaker for action, who then referred it to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).
The ECP decided the matter on October 21, 2022, and disqualified Imran. The ECP further directed to initiate criminal proceedings against Imran for alleged "corrupt practices" over false declarations.
An additional district and sessions judge, who heard the case. During hearings, Imran submitted an application to dismiss the case since the case was lodged without due authorization. Moreover, Imran had argued that the time limit to file such a reference over his assets had passed; hence it was not valid.
On May 5, 2023, Imran filed a second application to reject the complaint. But both of his applications were dismissed by the trial court through a consolidated order.
The dismissal was subsequently challenged in the IHC, citing the time 'limitation' and absence of requisite 'authorization'.
In his order, Justice Farooq said that they viewed the legal questions of:
a) whether the complaint has been filed on behalf of ECP by a duly authorized person;
b) whether the decision of ECP dated October 21, 2022, is a valid authorization to any
officer of ECP to file a complaint;
c) whether the question of authorization is a question of fact and evidence and can be ratified subsequently during the course of proceedings or is fatal to the complaint making it non est;
d) whether the limitation provided in section 137(4) of the Act is for complaint under section 190(2) of the Act to both ECP and any person;
e) the concept of limitation in section 137(4) is only with respect to ECP initiating criminal complaints and is not mandatory and is directory;
f) whether the introduction of limitation is putting a cap on the powers of the ECP as provided in Articles 218 (3) and 222 of the Constitution;
g) whether this court, while interpreting section 137(4) of the Act and the provisions of the Constitution, has to see the effect of limitation;
h) whether the limitation is purely a legal question in the facts and circumstances or makes it a question of law or facts;
Justice Farooq ruled that these issues were not addressed by the trial court. Rather they have been brushed aside and/or dealt with in a "very cursory and shoddy manner."
"Where it is felt that questions have been left undecided by such Tribunal or authority or a question has to be decided after the taking of fresh evidence, it is more appropriate to return the case to the authority or Tribunal concerned for a decision in accordance with the law, after quashing the order complained against."
Noting that the trial court left issues undecided and dismissed Imran's application with scanty reasons, which left the main legal issues undecided or unresolved, the court said it would be only proper for the learned trial court to decide the application afresh after hearing the parties with detailed reasons.
The court subsequently allowed Imran's petition.
"For the above reasons, the instant petition is allowed, and the impugned order to the extent of dismissal of application, mentioned above, is set aside; consequently, the application in question shall be deemed to be pending and decided afresh by the learned trial court within seven days from the receipt of this judgment, keeping in view the law in question and observations made above."
However, it rejected a request to hear a connected petition against an order of the ECP since an application for its withdrawal has been submitted.
Imran Khan versus District Election Commissioner in IHC