ISLAMABAD, Feb 18 (APP):The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Wednesday heard multiple cases involving the PTI founder and Bushra Bibi, including petitions seeking cancellation of bail, an appeal for suspension of conviction in the Toshakhana case, the cipher appeal case, and appeals in a defamation matter.
A three-member bench headed by Justice Hashim Khan Kakar, and comprising Justice Salahuddin Panhwar and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim, conducted the hearing.
During the proceedings, the Punjab government withdrew three petitions seeking cancellation of bail of the PTI founder and Bushra Bibi in cases related to the alleged misuse of authority in the acquisition of land. These cases had been registered in Lahore, Okara, and Dera Ghazi Khan. The court disposed of the petitions accordingly.
The Punjab government also withdrew its appeals against the grant of bail in cases related to Zaman Park, which were similarly disposed of by the court.
In the Toshakhana case, counsel for the PTI founder, Latif Khosa, argued that while the Islamabad High Court had suspended the sentence, it had not suspended the conviction, which resulted in his client being barred from contesting elections.
Justice Hashim Kakar observed that if a sentence is suspended in appeal, there should ordinarily be no obstacle to contesting elections. The court issued notice to the Election Commission of Pakistan and sought its response. The next hearing date will be fixed later.
During the hearing of the cipher appeal case, the Prosecutor General submitted that the detailed judgment had not yet been filed and requested time. Barrister Salman Safdar informed the court that he had not been issued notice in the case. The court observed that the maintainability of the appeal was yet to be determined and granted time for submission of the detailed judgment, adjourning the matter indefinitely.
In the defamation case filed against Shehbaz Sharif, counsel for the PTI founder, Mian Muhammad Hussain, argued that defamation trials fall within the jurisdiction of a District and Sessions Court, whereas in this instance the trial had been conducted by an Additional Sessions Court, whose jurisdiction has been challenged.
Justice Hashim Kakar questioned why cross-examination was conducted and witnesses were produced when issues had not yet been framed. The counsel replied that the trial court had warned that the right of cross-examination would be forfeited if not exercised, adding that the case was at its final stage. He requested the Supreme Court to restrain the trial court from announcing its verdict.