FIA challenges Imran, Qureshi’s cipher case acquittal in Supreme Court

Islamabad: The Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) on Thursday moved the Supreme Court against the acquittal of senior PTI leaders Imran Khan and Shah Mahmood Qureshi in the encryption case.
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on June 3 acquitted the PTI founder who was arrested along with Qureshi in the impeachment case on charges of misappropriation and misappropriation of secret diplomatic documents.
The former prime minister and foreign minister were each sentenced to 10 years in prison in January this year for encryption, days before the February 8 election.
The diplomatic cable scandal first surfaced on March 27, 2022, when he addressed a public meeting and wrote a letter in front of a crowd, alleging that he was a foreign talisman conspiring with political opponents to topple the PTI government.
He did not reveal the contents of the letter and did not name the nation. But days later, he accused the United States of conspiring against him and demanded the resignation of Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Donald Lu.
In its petition to the apex court, the FIA ​​said that the order of the high court “must be null and void” and is contrary to the material on record, without merit and against the facts.
The agency said that the IHC did not rule in the decision that it has the power or authority to create rights that are not provided for in the Constitution or existing laws.
The petition alleged that the respondents – Imran and Qureshi – did not cooperate during the trial and “made all possible efforts” to delay the trial.
The witness remained in court but was not cross-examined by the defense attorney.”
The petition submitted that the prosecution has produced documentary evidence through credible and convincing evidence and judicial review, which was not reviewed in the trial but the matter was not to acquit the respondent”.
“… the judgment rendered does not show any reason why the respondent should be released, nor does it seem that the prosecutor has failed to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt.”