ISLAMABAD: A division bench of Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday sought report from the investigation officer instructing him to record statement of former prime minister Imran Khan in a petition, seeking termination of a case registered under Anti-Terrorism Act against PTI’s chairman.
A two-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Saman Raffat Imtiaz heard the petition, seeking to dismiss FIR under Anti-Terrorism Act against Imran Khan registered following a “threatening statement” about a woman judge and police high ups.
As the hearing started, petitioner’s lawyer Suleman Safdar Advocate informed the court that the police had included three new sections in FIR against Imran Khan and they had filed a miscellaneous application against it as well.
Advocate General Islamabad Barrister Jahangir Jadoon informed the court that PTI’s chief was not joining the investigation despite notice of Investigation Officer (IO). The police was not being given access to Imran Khan, he added.
Imran’s Lawyer said that his client would join the investigation, adding that the case was at initial stage. The court remarked that a police personnel in uniform was representing the state, even if he had done something wrong then only the court would decide it. The chief justice said, “How we would ensure implementation on law when we don’t obey it.” The court said that it was also a test case for the IO, adding that the law would take its own course. Everyone should have confidence in the system, the IO would remove it itself in the investigation if a wrong offence was made, the court remarked.
The court also instructed the IO to investigate whether this matter fall under the law of anti terrorism act. The chief justice said nobody was above the law and instructed the police to tell the court if anyone didn’t cooperate with the IO.
He further remarked that the court wouldn’t entertain this case if the law was not followed and they didn’t cooperate. The court noted that the petitioner wanted it to quash FIR but how investigation could be completed without joining the process.
The court asked the IO to use its powers appropriately then submit its report. The advocate general said that a joint investigation team had been formed in this case at this the bench said that there was no need of it as the matter was just about a speech.
Further hearing of the case then adjourned till September 15.
