<\/p>\n
\u2022 March 5 fixed for hearing of appeal in cipher case; Qureshi seeks suspension of sentence
\u2022 PTI says CJP cannot be \u2018fair\u2019 in Imran-related cases<\/p>\n
ISLAMABAD: Perturbed by the prosecution agencies\u2019 response to ex-prime minister Imran Khan\u2019s appeals against his conviction in cipher<\/a> and Toshakhana<\/a> cases, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday directed the federal government to appoint prosecutors before the next date of hearing.<\/p>\n The IHC division bench comprising Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb resumed hearing<\/a> on the appeals against the conviction of Mr Khan and ex-foreign minister Shah Mah\u00admood Qureshi in the cipher case.<\/p>\n Barrister Salman Safdar, counsel for the former premier, informed the court that Mr Qureshi had filed an application seeking suspension of his sentence.<\/p>\n The directive to the government came when Deputy Attorney General Azmat Tarar apprised the court that the appointment of two special prosecutors of Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) had not been finalised as the process was still ongoing.<\/p>\n Justice Aurangzeb expressed displeasure and remarked that the court wouldn\u2019t be bothered if the prosecutors were not appointed by March 5, the next date of hearing.<\/p>\n Justice Aurangzeb told Mr Tarar, \u201cYou are representing the state. You should take notes and share with the prosecution as the court continues the hearing.\u201d<\/p>\n Barrister Safdar invited the court\u2019s attention to Mr Khan\u2019s \u2018speedy\u2019 trial, saying that prosecution had produced 25 witnesses before the judge in one single day while trial court recorded their testimonies till midnight.<\/p>\n He pointed out that the judge moved the court to a \u201csecret\u201d location where the \u201cprosecution and the judge played a match together\u201d.<\/p>\n CJ Farooq remarked that since the hearing on the appeals had already been fixed, the counsel may advance his arguments at length on the same date and the court would examine the matter accordingly.<\/p>\n While dictating the order of the day, Justice Farooq said: \u201cThe conduct of state\/respondent is not prompt and is not appreciated.\u201d<\/p>\n The court directed the state to complete the process for the appointment of prosecutor before the next date of hearing.<\/p>\n The bench then took up the appeals of Mr Khan and his spouse, Bushra Bibi, against their conviction in the Toshakhana reference.<\/p>\n Barrister Syed Ali Zafar, counsel for the couple, argued that this matter was even graver as the judge had closed the right of cross-examination in this case.<\/p>\n NAB Deputy Prosecutor General Azhar Maqbool Shah informed the court that Special Prosecutor Amjad Sohail was not available owing to the death of his a relative.<\/p>\n He suggested the hearing may be adjourned till March 11.<\/p>\n Justice Farooq reminded him that it is the bench that schedules and regulates the hearing.<\/p>\n Barrister Safdar stated that Mr Khan, his spouse and Mr Qureshi had also filed petitions seeking suspension of their sentence and conviction.<\/p>\n Justice Aurangzeb remarked that IHC had already ruled in the matter related to suspension of conviction and the matter was pending before the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n \u201cWe have already fixed the appeals for a short date, if you want us to take up the petitions seeking suspension of conviction, then we would adjourn the hearing sine die,\u201d remarked the judge.<\/p>\n Barrister Zafar, however, reques\u00adted the court to hear the appeals.<\/p>\n Subsequently, the case was adjourned to March 5.<\/p>\n Iddat case<\/strong><\/p>\n District and Sessions Judge Shah\u00adrukh Arjumand took up Mr Khan and Bushra Bibi\u2019s appeals against their conviction in the Iddat<\/a> case.<\/p>\n The judge issued notices to complainant Khawar Farid Maneka and adjourned the hearing to March 11.<\/p>\n Salman Akram Raja, counsel for the PTI\u2019s founder, argued that Mr Khan married Bushra Bibi 70 days after the latter got divorce from Mr Maneka. He said that filing of complaint by Mr Maneka after a gap of six years was an afterthought.<\/p>\n He further said that the trial court had overlooked legal provisions and religious principles while convicting them in this case.<\/p>\n