The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday dismissed a petition seeking the suspension of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Imran Khan’s conviction in the Toshakhana reference, hampering his desire to contest the Feb. 8, 2024 elections, as his five-year disqualification remains intact.
Convicted in the Toshakhana case on Aug. 5, Khan was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100,000, and subsequently detained initially at Attock Jail before being transferred to Adiala Jail. On Aug. 28, the IHC suspended his sentence, but maintained his conviction. Khan’s lawyer subsequently moved an application to modify the order suspending the sentence, seeking suspension of the conviction so he is eligible to contest polls.
Taking up the case, a division bench of the IHC comprising Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri rejected the application, which had argued the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP)’s disqualification of Khan infringed on his constitutional rights. The ECP counsel, however, argued that the IHC had already suspended Khan’s sentence, adding the PTI leader’s counsel had not raised the issue of suspension of conviction during earlier proceedings.
The bench noted that Khan’s counsel was seeking the sentence’s suspension by maintaining “a verbal request for suspension of the order/judgement was also made and that this court had omitted to pass the order on the same inadvertently.” In this regard, the bench ruled that it must examine whether it had jurisdiction under Section 426 of the Criminal Procedure Code to suspend the judgement.
Referring to a Supreme Court precedent that had declared appellate courts lack the jurisdiction to suspend the conviction, it stressed that the suspension of a sentence was a “concession” under Section 426, but did not mean the conviction was erased. The court also observed that the former prime minister had already challenged his conviction before the Lahore High Court and the matter was still pending. It added that the petitioner’s counsel had failed to substantiate “extraordinary or exceptional circumstances” requiring the suspension of conviction.