Thread by @salmanAraja

On 3.8.2023 the IHC CJ issued notice for 'next week' in the revision application filed by Mr Imran Khan against refusal by the trial judge to allow him to present witnesses in his defence. At the same time the CJ IHC directed the trial court to hear final arguments on 4.8. 2023!

While the IHC is yet to decide the question of defence evidence the trial court has given its verdict convicting IK. This is an absurd situation. It needs to be noted that there is no finding in the judgment that any gift was bought at an undervalued price.

There is no finding that any gift, in particular the watch, was sold for a price greater than that disclosed. For 2018/19 the only finding is that the gifts bought for Rs 21 mi were sold for Rs 58 mi but the full amount of Rs 58 million is not reflected in the bank statement.

Only Rs 30 mi is reflected. How is this misdeclaration? Full sale proceeds have been disclosed in Form B. Rs 28 million out of the sale price of Rs 58 million was cash in hand and expenditure made between the date of the sale and the cut off date for Form B, 30.6
2019.

Proposed defence witnesses who were the financial consultants/accountants who had filled the forms would have explained this. They were not allowed to testify. For 2019-20 the finding is that three gifts (valuing Rs 1.7 mi) were acquired but none is disclosed in Form B.

Mr Khan took the position that 3 personal use gifts whose value (1.7 mi) was declared were further gifted by him; hence were not stated in Form B as they were not held by him on 30.6.2020. This was the advice of his financial advisers who should be allowed to testify.

Trial court disallowed all defence witnesses. For 2020-21 the finding is that 5 gifts were acquired. The value of these is correctly mentioned in Form B under the head of Precious Items. Judgment says these should have been separately listed. That's all that the judgment says.

The judgment also makes comments about no jewelry having been disclosed and about the declared cost of furniture at Mr Khan's homes. These are irrelevant as no charge was ever framed in this regard.

Mr Khan had raised various objections to the maintainability of the complaint, including the 120 day limit for filing such a complaint after the filing of Form B. The judgment offers no justification except a reference to judgments in other cases that stand set aside by the IHC.