P L D 1991 Lahore 200 (PLP)
PAKISTAN ISLAMABAD — Petitioner Versus Syed MASROOR AHSAN and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1991 Lahore 200 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | PAKISTAN ISLAMABAD — Petitioner Versus Syed MASROOR AHSAN and 3 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1991 Lahore 200 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1991 Lahore 200 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1991 Lahore 200 (PLP) (PAKISTAN ISLAMABAD — Petitioner Versus Syed MASROOR AHSAN and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch.Irshadullah Chatha and A.K. Dogar for Petitioner. Sharif Hussain Bokhari with Naseer Ahmad Chaudhary for Respondents. . Muhammad Farooq and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Dy. As.-G.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199(1)(b)(ii)
Constitutional petition
Constitutional petition alleging that respondent who was elected as member of Senate from Province of Sindh was disqualified to hold office of a Senator seeking direction to him to show, as to under what authority he was holding or purported to hold office of a Senator with consequential relief, restraining Chairman, Senate from administering the oath to him pending disposal of the petition
Pursuant to Notification issued at Islamabad the respondent was elected as-Member of the Senate and held that office situated at Islamabad within the territorial jurisdiction of Lahore High Court
Respondent being a person holding the public office situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Lahore High Court, said High Court had jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the matter
Mere pendency of a Constitutional petition on identical question against the respondent, in Sindh High Court for similar relief, would not divest jurisdiction of Lahore High Court to decide the petition--Election of respondent to seat in the Senate of Pakistan from the Province of Sindh would not divest jurisdiction of Lahore High Court otherwise duly vested in it under Art. 199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution to decide the matter. [pp. 208, 209] A & B
Art. 199(1)(b)
Provisions contained in Art.199 are controlled by other provisions of the Constitution.
Arts. 199 & 225
Constitutional petition
If the election dispute is about the conduct, or validity of election, it could only be challenged through election petition, a statutory remedy provided under the law
Where the dispute touches the title to the office and has not arisen in relation to election, writ of quo warranto could issue. [p. 213] H
Art. 63
Senate (Election) Act (LI of 1975), S.78
Law of election requires strict proof of disqualification through positive evidence
Public reports could not be relied -as--evidence of the correctness of facts mentioned therein
Correctness of the contents of F.I.Rs., press statements could not be established unless formally proved in evidence as they simply indicate that such cases were registered
Presumption of innocence of the accused facing trial continues until held guilty.
Art. 199
Constitutional petition
High Court under its Constitutional jurisdiction cannot record evidence or investigate in the matter, that being exclusive; function of Election Tribunal. [p. 216] L
S. 78
Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976), S. 99
Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Election) Order (15 of 1977), Art. 10(4) [as amended by Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) (Ninth Amendment) Order (P.0.17 of 1985)]
Election to the seat in question having been held under Senate (Election) Act, 1975 read with Representation of the People Act, 1976, disqualification contained in P.O. 5 of 1977 was not attracted. [p. 216] M
Judgment & Decree
Constitution was not available specially because it was subject to the provisions of the Constitution including Article 225. [p. 212] F Amirzada~Khan, M.N.A. v. The Chief Election Commissioner and 2 others PLD 1974 Lah. 178; Muhammad Afzal v. Miraj Din PLD 1967 Lah. 689; Niaz Ahmad Khan v. Province of Sindh and others PLD 1977 Kar. 604 and Election Commission of Pakistan through its Secretary v. Javaid Hashmi and others PLD 1989 SC 396 ref. (d) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
Arts. 199 & 225
Constitutional petition
If the election dispute is about the conduct, or validity of election, it could only be challenged through election petition, a statutory remedy provided under the law
Where the dispute touches the title to the office and has not arisen in relation to election, writ of quo warranto could issue. [p. 213] H Election Commission of Pakistan v. Javaid Hashmi PLD 1989 SC 396 and Ghulam Mustafa Khar's case PLD 1989 SC 26 ref. (e) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
Art. 63
Senate (Election) Act (LI of 1975), S.78
Law of election requires strict proof of disqualification through positive evidence
Public reports could not be relied -as--evidence of the correctness of facts mentioned therein
Correctness of the contents of F.I.Rs., press statements could not be established unless formally proved in evidence as they simply indicate that such cases were registered
Presumption of innocence of the accused facing trial continues until held guilty. Article 63(2), however, provides mode to oust a member of the Parliament if he incurred disqualification subsequent to his election as member. The Speaker of the National Assembly or the Chairman of the Senate as the case may be, may make a reference to the Election Commission for decision of the question as to whether a member, who had suffered disqualification ceased to hold his office or not. [p. 212] G Article 63(1)(h) of the Constitution provides that a person shall be disqualified from being elected or chosen as, or from being a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) if he has been, on conviction for any offence which in the opinion of the Chief Election Commissioner involves moral turpitude, sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than two years, unless a period of five years had elapsed since his release. [p. 214] I In the present case respondent was convicted in 1977 and sentenced for less than two years. Undoubtedly period of more than five years had already elapsed. He was, therefore, no more disqualified to be member of the Senate on account of his previous conviction under Martial Law Regulation No.13. Police reports cannot be relied as evidence of the correctness of facts mentioned therein. The correctness of the contents of F.I.Rs., press statements cannot be established unless formally proved in evidence. They simply indicate that such cases were registered. The presumption of innocence of the accused facing trial continues until held guilty. The law of election requires strict proof of disqualification through positive evidence. The chart relied upon by the petitioners containing) summary of individual instances, was neither signed nor certified by any responsible officer about the correctness of its contents, carried little evidentiary value to disqualify an elected member of the Senate. Penal Statute tending to deprive valuable right of franchise, must be strictly construed and in case of doubt the benefit must go to the person against whom such finding is sought. [p. 215] J The allegations, howsoever grave, are allegations and cannot take the place of proof or be admitted in evidence to reflect the correctness of the facts alleged therein unless they are proved in accordance with law. The disqualifications envisaged by Articles 62 and 63 were not attracted merely upon the allegations in the absence of any proof on the record. [p. 216] K Haji Muhammad Tariq v. Muhammad Naveed-uz-Zafar PLD 1984 Lah. 502; S'ardar Asseff Ahmad Ali v. Mr. Muhammad Khan Junejo and others PLD 1986 Lah. 310; Kamal Hussain v. Sirajul Islam PLD 1969 SC 42; Pir Allay Imrawn and another v. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and another 1991 CLC 1 and Abdul Rashid Mughal v.Muhammad Shabbir Abbasi 1984 SCMR 1172 ref. (f) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
Art. 199
Constitutional petition
High Court under its Constitutional jurisdiction cannot record evidence or investigate in the matter, that being exclusive; function of Election Tribunal. [p. 216] L (g) Senate (Election) Act (LI of 1975)
S. 78
Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976), S. 99
Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Election) Order (15 of 1977), Art. 10(4) [as amended by Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) (Ninth Amendment) Order (P.0.17 of 1985)]
Election to the seat in question having been held under Senate (Election) Act, 1975 read with Representation of the People Act, 1976, disqualification contained in P.O. 5 of 1977 was not attracted. [p. 216] M Ch.Irshadullah Chatha and A.K. Dogar for Petitioner. Sharif Hussain Bokhari with Naseer Ahmad Chaudhary for Respondents. . Muhammad Farooq and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Dy. As.-G. Dates of hearing: 13th, 15th, 19th, 20th, 29th January; 10th to 13th, 16th, to 20th and 24th February, 1991.