- Additional Sessions Judge Humayun Dilawar delivered a safe verdict.
- The High Court had ordered the Sessions Court to take a decision in seven days.
- The court ruled only on the arguments of the Election Commission’s counsel.
The Islamabad district and sessions court on Saturday dismissed the plea of the PTI chairman to declare the Toshakhana criminal case maintainable.
Additional Sessions Judge Humayun Dilawar delivered a reserved verdict.
The High Court ordered the Sessions Court to take a decision on the case in seven days.
The court has revoked the PTI chairman’s lawyer’s right to be heard and rejected their request for additional time.
The court made this decision without hearing from the PTI chairman’s counsel, who was unable to attend and requested a delay until Monday.
However, the court dismissed the plea.
Earlier, the district and sessions judge expressed annoyance with the absence of both the PTI chairman and his lawyer, Khawaja Haris, in the Toshakhana criminal case hearing.
The judge questioned the reliability of the defense side’s commitments and criticized their lack of appearances.
The judge also questioned whether only the suspects had rights, while the petitioner’s rights were ignored.
The judge commented on the lawyer’s behavior toward the court and asked them to cite any instance where the PTI chairman appeared in court.
The lawyer representing the former premier mentioned security threats at the district courts as the reason for their client’s absence.
The judge remarked on the court’s leniency in the Toshakhana case and emphasized that such leniency is uncommon.
The PTI chairman had previously filed an application seeking an exemption from appearing in court, which was objected to by the election commission’s lawyer.
The PTI chairman’s lawyer also requested an adjournment, citing security threats. The election commission’s lawyer questioned the authority of the district and sessions court to hear the case.
The election commission’s lawyer stated that the complaint was filed at the direction of the commission and mentioned the commission’s constitutional obligations in addressing corrupt actions.
The lawyer added that the determination of whether the crime is proven or not will be decided during the trial.