کراچی: ملک میں براہِ راست غیر ملکی سرمایہ کاری کو راغب کرنے اور اسے برقرار رکھنے کیلیے انٹیلیکچوئل پراپرٹی حقوق کا موثر تحفظ ضرورہے۔ی
ISLAMABAD:Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday observed that since it has been established that the cypher did land in the hands of the former prime minister – PTI founder Imran Khan – the focal point of the case now revolved around the retrieval and vanishing of the confidential document.
A division bench led by Chief Justice Aamer Farooq, accompanied by Justice Miangul Hasan Aurangzeb, presided over the appeals of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan and senior party leader Shah Mahmood Qureshi challenging their convictions in the cypher case by a special court operating under the Official Secrets Act (OSA).
During the hearing, Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) Prosecutor Hamid Ali Shah contended that the PTI founder, who held the position of the prime minister at the time, neglected protocol by retaining possession of the cypher document instead of returning it to the foreign ministry, thereby flouting established regulations.
The cypher case originated from Imran’s public display of a paper during a rally in Islamabad on March 27, 2022, claiming it as evidence of an “international conspiracy” before a vote of no-confidence in the National Assembly that led to his government’s ouster.
The FIA initiated its probe into the so-called “cipher-gate” on July 19, 2023, after the then coalition government announced an official inquiry against Imran and his close associates for violating the OSA. Later, Imran was arrested in the cypher case on August 29.
Read Sentences in cypher case will be ‘put off’, FIA warned
On January 30, a special court sentenced the former prime minister and his foreign minister Qureshi to 10 years in prison each under the OSA, for misusing the diplomatic cypher telegram during the final days of the PTI’s government. The appeals against the verdict are being heard by the IHC.
During the hearing on Tuesday, the chief justice noted that if the cypher’s copy reached Azam Khan, then the principal secretary to the prime minister at the time, it would likely have been passed on to the prime minister as well. He said that the former prime minister did not refute receiving the cypher copy.
The prosecutor informed the court that witness Azam Khan had testified that the former prime minister showed excitement upon reading the cypher copy and chose to retain it. Subsequently, a few days later, when asked to return the copy, Imran claimed it had been misplaced.
Justice Miangul Hasan Aurangzeb pointed out that the sole evidence linking the cypher document to its transmission from Azam Khan to the prime minister rested on Azam Khan’s testimony. He also pointed out that PTI lawyers had raised objections regarding Azam Khan’s statement.
Later, an interesting exchange unfolded between the bench and the prosecutor when Shah read out Imran’s speech at a public rally held on March 27, 2022. Justice Miangul Hasan Aurangzeb said that if a politician took something out of his pocket in a rally, how could it be considered a cypher?
The chief justice, addressing the prosecutor, posed a hypothetical scenario asking if he were to pick up a piece of paper and declare it to be an FIR, would the prosecutor accept it as such? In response, Shah stated that he had no right to challenge the judge’s words.
Justice Miangul emphasised that the bench was presiding over the hearing within the framework of criminal law. He noted that Imran, being a politician, delivered his remarks at a public rally, suggesting that a politician’s speech at such an event was typically intended to garner support.
The judge also asked the prosecutor regarding the case registered concerning the abduction of witness Azam Khan. The chief justice asked whether the case had been contested or dismissed. He requested information regarding the status of the case, authenticated by the advocate general if it remained unresolved.
Justice Miangul brought up the issue of the confidentiality of the cypher, questioning whether all information transmitted through it was deemed confidential. The chief justice posed a hypothetical scenario, questioning whether a weather report sent from abroad would also qualify as a secret document.
In response, the prosecutor stressed the importance of discerning the motive behind sending such information. Justice Miangul countered, asking if there were threats involved, wouldn’t it be the right of the people to be informed?
As Shah continued his argument, the court adjourned the hearing until May 2.
