ISLAMABAD: The decision on a petition submitted by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) in the Toshakhana case against Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan has been reserved by a district and sessions court in Islamabad as of Monday.
On December 15 at 2:00 pm, the decision will be made public.
Khan was accused of engaging in fraudulent practises by the Election Commission, which the former premier disputes, and the trial court heard his case on November 22.
The trial court in Islamabad issued a notice to the PTI leader in the case that was launched against him in the Toshakhana reference in accordance with the directive of the electoral authority.
Additional Sessions Subsequently The hearing was postponed until December 8, 2022, by Judge Zafar Iqbal.
Hearing today
Saad Hassan, the attorney for ECP, entered the courtroom at the beginning of the hearing and made his points.
He added that a prime minister must deposit whatever present they receive with the Toshakhana. “Imran Khan mentioned that he created a road using the money [earned from] Toshakhana [gifts],” he remarked.
He added that until the PTI administration passed a new rule allowing taking Toshakhana presents after paying 50% of the price, the gifts may be retained by paying 20% of the gift’s cost.
He stated that Khan had neglected to disclose the price at which he had sold the Toshakhana watch, adding that it was “estimated” to be worth Rs85 million.
According to Hassan, any Toshakhana items that were moved had to be disclosed in the tax income statements.
An object from the Toshakhana cannot be personally owned without being declared, according to the attorney.
The Election Commission “believes the income tax statements supplied by the former premier in 2022-2021 are correct,” he added, adding that the Toshakhana subject was brought before the National Assembly and the case was brought before the high court in 2020-2021.
Hassan, a lawyer, said that Khan’s handling of the Toshakhana gifts amounted to money laundering.
The ECP’s attorney stated that Imran Khan “indicated that he has placed the sum [he paid for] for all the items in the same bank account” and added that any properties or gifts that Khan received in 2018–2019 would be included in his assets.
Hassan stated that Khan ought to have revealed all of his assets to the Election Commission. In addition to taking jewellery from the Toshakhana, the ex-premier failed to declare it.
The former prime minister also mentioned four goats and Rs. 500,000 in the statements, according to the lawyer.
The attorney insisted that over the course of three years, the former PM and his wife accepted 58 presents from Toshakhana totaling Rs142 million, or 20% of the value of the goods.
He claimed that out of the alleged Rs142 million in gifts from Toshakhana, Khan received presents worth Rs107 million in 2018–19.
The attorney added that Khan preferred not to disclose the 142 million rupees worth of gifts.
The attorney claimed, “In 2019/20 Khan declared Rs 8 million on account of tax returns but did not disclose which item’s price it was.
Disqualification
In a unanimous decision in the Toshakana case last month, the ECP declared that the PTI leader was no longer a member of the National Assembly and disqualified the former prime minister.
According to Article 63(1) of the Constitution, the PTI leader was found to have produced a fraudulent affidavit (p).
We are of the considered opinion that the Respondent has become disqualified under Article 63(1)(p) of the Constitution read with Sections 137,167, and 173 of the Elections Act, 2017 as a result of our abovementioned findings, facts on file, and keeping in mind the argument of learned counsel for parties herein, and as a result, he ceases to be a member of the National Assembly of Pakistan and his seat has accordingly become vacant.
The Elections Commission of Pakistan (ECP) further stated in its ruling that Khan had made “false statements and erroneous declarations, hence he has also committed the offence of corrupt practises outlined under Sections 167 and 173 of the Elections Act, 2017.”
In addition, it stated that the offence was penalised in accordance with Section 174 of the Elections Act of 2017, and it ordered legal action and additional follow-up under Section 190(2) of the Elections Act.