IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL, CJ  
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI  
MR. JUSTICE JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL 
 
CRL.P.921/2023, CRL.P.938/2023 AND CRL.P.922/2023 
 
1. 
Crl.P.921/2023 
Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi v. District Election 
Commissioner, Islamabad 
 
 
 
2. 
Crl.P.938/2023 
Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi v. District Election 
Commissioner, Islamabad and another 
 
 
 
3. 
Crl.P.922/2023 
Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi v. District Election 
Commissioner, Islamabad 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s) 
: Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa, 
Sr. ASC 
Mr. Gohar Ali Khan, ASC assisted by 
Mr. Intazar Hussain, Advocate HC and 
Ms. Surain Jehan Khan, Advocate HC 
 
  
On Court’s call 
: Mr. Amjad Pervez, ASC 
 
  
ECP 
: Mr. Khurram Shahzad, Addl. DG Law, 
ECP 
Mr. Falak Sher, Consultant 
 
  
Date of Hearing 
: 23.08.2023 
 
  
O R D E R 
 
 
 
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner 
who has read to us from the impugned order of the High Court 
dated 03.08.2023 whereby a number of jurisdictional and 
maintainability objections were remanded for consideration by 
the Trial Court. The proceedings before the Trial Court were 
already fixed for hearing on 05.08.2023. The case was called a 
number of times but neither the petitioner nor his authorized 
representative were present in the court. As a result, the Trial 
Court proceeded ex-parte and decided the complaint filed by the 
CRL.P.921/2023 etc 
2
Election Commission of Pakistan (“ECP”) without hearing the 
petitioner on 05.08.2023 convicting him for offences under 
Sections 167 and 173 of the Elections Act, 2017 and sentencing 
him to 03 years S.I. We are also informed that the petitioner in 
his statement recorded under Section 342 Cr.PC on 01.08.2023 
had expressed the intention to produce defence witnesses. That 
application was turned down by the Trial Court on 02.08.2023 
for the reason that the four witnesses mentioned in the list were 
not relevant to the controversy in issue.  
 
2. 
 
We asked the learned ASC, who represents the           
ECP-Complainant before the Trial Court as well as the High 
Court, whether the aforementioned two points are correct. He 
has candidly acknowledged the claim made by the learned 
counsel for the petitioner to be true. He has also admitted that 
notwithstanding the remand order passed by the High Court on 
03.08.2023 whereby the jurisdictional and maintainability 
objections were returned to the Trial Court, the final judgment of 
the Trial Court dated 05.08.2023 failed to decide the same 
afresh. Instead the final judgment reaffirms the Trial Court’s 
earlier orders dated 05.05.2023 and 08.07.2023 which had 
considered these points. However, the same were set aside by 
the High Court through order dated 03.08.2023 that is impugned 
before us. In this respect, the final judgment of the Trial Court 
dated 05.08.2023, prima facie, defies the direction of remand 
issued by the High Court by relying on its earlier point of view 
that already stands rejected by the High Court.  
CRL.P.921/2023 etc 
3
3. 
 
These are serious points of law that deserve 
consideration but we are told that an appeal against the final 
judgment passed by the Trial Court on 05.08.2023 has been filed 
before the High Court on 08.08.2023. The petitioner is in jail 
since 05.08.2023. Therefore, an application for suspension of 
sentence of the petitioner has also been filed before the High 
Court which is fixed for hearing tomorrow i.e., 24.08.2023. 
Notwithstanding the legal issues highlighted to us and noted 
above regarding the jurisdiction of the Trial Court and the 
maintainability of the complaint, the procedural propriety of the 
trial and compliance with the due process requirements ordained 
by the Constitution, we consider that the High Court is the first 
Court which should hear and decide such matters. As the 
petitioner’s application for suspension of sentence is fixed for 
hearing tomorrow, it is appropriate that out of respect for the 
High Court we first await its decision.  
 
4. 
 
Mr. Khurram Shahzad, Addl. DG Law has appeared 
on behalf of the respondent-ECP and waives notice. These 
petitions to come up for hearing at 02:00 PM on 24.08.2023. 
 
 
 
 
 
Sd/- 
Chief Justice   
 
 
 
Sd/- 
Judge 
 
 
Sd/- 
Judge 
Islamabad 
23.08.2023 
Rashid/*  
 
CRL.P.921/2023 etc 
4
Not approved for reporting  
