SC challenges Imran and Qureshi’s acquittal in the cipher case

Earlier on Thursday, the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) objected to the acquittal of Imran Khan and Shah Mahmood Qureshi, founders of Pakistan’s largest party and director general, in the cipher case, which was heard in the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

On June 3, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) ruled that the PTI founder and former prime minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi will not be convicted in the infamous case in which the college founder and former president were charged with having misused and misplaced classified diplomatic material.

Earlier this year, the former prime minister and foreign minister were found guilty of the cipher case against them and sentenced to 10 years in prison each, just days before the upcoming election on February 8.

During Khan’s public rally on March 27, 2022, during which he was addressing a large crowd, he waved a letter before the crowd, claiming that it was a cipher from a foreign nation committed to overthrowing the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf government in cooperation with Khan’s political rivals. According to Khan, the letter was a cipher from the US.

The contents of the letter are unknown, as well as the country from which the letter was sent, and he did not mention which country sent the letter, or what the letter was about. However, he changed his story a few days later, accusing the United States of conspiring against him. He also claimed that Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Affairs Donald Lu had sought to have him removed from his position.

In the former premier’s statement, he claimed to be reading contents from the code, and he said that if Imran Khan were removed from power, then all will have been forgiven for Pakistan.

It was stated in the petition submitted by the FIA to the high court that the judgment of the high court, according to the document on the record, was perverse, arbitrary, and contrary to the evidence available and as such was liable to be set aside.

As per the agency, the IHC, when a decision was made regarding a matter, had not considered or appreciated that it does not have the jurisdiction or power to create rights, which are not provided for by either the Constitution or a law that was validly enacted.

In a statement in the petition, the petitioner asserted that neither the case was one of casus omissus nor one that required the application of the doctrine of reading in because no constitutional guarantees had been violated.

In their plea, the respondent – Imran and Qureshi – stated that they were non-cooperative throughout the trial and attempted to delay it in any way they could in order to delay the trial.

In the hearing, the matter was adjourned a number of times during which time the respondents or their counsels requested a continuance. While the witnesses continued to appear in court, the defense counsels did not have the opportunity to cross examine them.

It is stated in the petition that the prosecution produced documentary evidence, along with its forensic analysis, and that it was reliable and convincing evidence that was not negated during the cross-examination. However, the Honourable Division Bench of the Islamabad High Court did not appreciate the importance of this aspect in acquitting the respondents.

This makes sense, since the impugned judgment does not contain any grounds for the respondents to be acquitted, and it is not even mentioned that the prosecution has been found to have failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt in any way.

Timenews1 provided that news.