ISLAMABAD: The district and sessions judge (DSJ) on Tuesday adjourned hearing on the appeals against the conviction of former prime minister Imran Khan and his spouse Bushra Bibi in a case related to contracting Nikkah during the latter’s Iddat period.

The counsel for the complainant Khawar Fareed Manika remained absent.

Judge Shahrukh Arjumand resumed hearing on the appeals.

Barrister Chaudhry Usama Jameel, an associate of lead counsel of the complainant, informed the judge that the senior lawyer, Raja Rizwan Abbasi, could not appear before the court and sought adjournment.

Bushra Bibi’s counsel Usman Riaz Gill opposed the request saying that the trial court judges in the cases of Toshakhana, cipher and Iddat cases never accepted any request of adjournment, adding that the court-appointed state counsel for cross-examination for late arrival of the counsels of Mr Khan and Shah Mehmood Qureshi.

Barrister Salman Akram Raja, counsel for Mr Khan, argued that the former prime minister did not sign the chargesheet and the legal formalities were not fulfilled during the trial proceeding.

Mr Raja said the defence counsel as well as the accused persons repeatedly requested the court to grant reasonable time for preparation of arguments, but the trial judge completed the proceeding in haste.

On the other hand, Mr Gill said Bushra Bibi sought adjournment for medical reason and attached the doctor’s report, but to no avail.

He said the accused were never given the right of fair trial nor were they allowed to produce evidence in their defence.

The counsel further argued that a proxy application was filed before the same court, however, it had been withdrawn a day before Khawar Manika filed the application.

The prosecutor, Hassan Abbas, also argued before the court.

District and Sessions Judge Shahrukh Arjumand adjourned further hearing till April 15, and warned that the court would issue an appropriate order on the next date even if the counsel for the complainant did not appear.

Published in Dawn, April 10th, 2024

Opinion

Merging for what?

Merging for what?

The concern is that if the government is thinking of cutting costs through the merger, we might even lose the functionality levels we currently have.

Editorial

Dubai properties
Updated 16 May, 2024

Dubai properties

It is hoped that any investigation that is conducted will be fair and that no wrongdoing will be excused.
In good faith
16 May, 2024

In good faith

THE ‘P’ in PTI might as well stand for perplexing. After a constant yo-yoing around holding talks, the PTI has...
CTDs’ shortcomings
16 May, 2024

CTDs’ shortcomings

WHILE threats from terrorist groups need to be countered on the battlefield through military means, long-term ...
Reserved seats
Updated 15 May, 2024

Reserved seats

The ECP's decisions and actions clearly need to be reviewed in light of the country’s laws.
Secretive state
15 May, 2024

Secretive state

THERE is a fresh push by the state to stamp out all criticism by using the alibi of protecting national interests....
Plague of rape
15 May, 2024

Plague of rape

FLAWED narratives about women — from being weak and vulnerable to provocative and culpable — have led to...