Lahore, Jan 17 (PTI) Beleaguered Imran Khan’s lawyer invoked what and how an Indian court enlists the offence of moral turpitude compared with financial corruption when fighting the rejection of the jailed former prime minister’s nomination papers from two constituencies ahead of the February 8 general elections.
Advocate Uzair Bhandari, representing Khan, the founder of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) party, made the comparison when the full bench of the Lahore High Court heard two petitions in connection with the rejection of Khan’s nomination papers on Tuesday, the Dawn newspaper reported on Wednesday.
The High Court reserved its verdict in the case, the report said.
The 71-year-old founder of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) party has been incarcerated at a high-security jail facing multiple cases.
The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) had rejected the nomination papers of Khan from the Lahore (NA-122) and Mianwali (NA-89) constituencies, both in Punjab province.
The ECP had rejected Khan’s nomination papers primarily on the grounds of being convicted in the Toshakhana corruption case. Also, his nomination papers from NA-122 were dismissed on the grounds that the proposer was not a voter from the constituency.
In the Toshakhana case, Khan is accused of taking luxurious vehicles from the national treasury in violation of the Toshakhana or state repository rules. All gifts given by foreign leaders to Pakistani top leaders on their trips are kept in the Toshakhana.
Bhandari argued that the conviction on the charge of moral turpitude did not fall under the definition of disqualification. He said the conviction of the petitioner could not be equated with the conviction for corruption or accumulating illegal assets and pointed out that an Indian court enlisted the offence of moral turpitude lower than the offence involving financial corruption, the Dawn said.
“However, the bench observed that the standards of morality in Pakistan were different from other regions,” it added.
Bhandari argued that the returning officer (RO) had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order on the basis of the conviction on moral turpitude. He stated that the Islamabad High Court had already suspended the sentence of the petitioner.
However, a lawyer for the ECP argued that the conviction of the petitioner was still in force and he had not been acquitted by the high court. PTI NPK AKJ NPK NPK
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.