2003 PLP 256 (CLC)

In Constitutional Petition No.D‑1674 of 2002 petitioner's nomination paper in respect of Constituency NA‑227 Mirpurkhas‑II and in Constitutional Petition No.D‑1675 of 2002, his nomination paper for Constituency No. PS‑65 Mirpurkhas‑II were rejected by Returning Officer, Mirpurkhas‑II, vide order, dated 30th August, 2002 and 31st August, 2002 respectively. Petitioner challenged these two' orders by filing two separate appeals bearing Nos. 23 and 65 of 2002 before Election Tribunal. Both these appeals met the same fate vide common order, dated 30th September; 2002 which has been challenged through these two petitions. We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned A.A. ‑G. who was present in Court in other case. It may be noted that the rejection of nomination papers referred to above is, inter alia, based on the ground that the petitioner was convicted by the Accountability Court on his plea of bargain on a Reference No. 28 of 2001 filed by the Chairman, National Accountability Bureau. Learned Returning Officer, Mirpurkhas‑II while rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner in respect of Constituency NA‑227 adverted to the following passage from the judgment, dated 11‑3‑2002 passed by learned Accountability Court, Sindh, whereby conviction was awarded to the petitioner:‑‑ "The accused Abdul Khaliq, Muhammad Alam, Syed Khadim Ali Shah, Syed Ali Nawaz Shah, Syed Imtiaz Ali Shah, Syed Ali Qutub Shah, Muhammad Yasin, Nazeer, Karim Bux, Gahi, Nazeer Ahmed, Mukhtar Ahmed, Muhammad Salik, Fateh Khan Mari, Muhammad Anwar and Abdul Ghafoor have been released on their return of amounts alleged to have been received by them in excess under section 25 of National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 and their return of amount is an admission, and they are deemed to have been convicted for the offence of corruption and corrupt practices and therefore they stand disqualified for a period of ten years from the date of this judgment for seeking or from being elected, chosen, appointed or nominated' as member of representative of any public body or any statutory or local authority or in service of Pakistan or of any Province. They shall also be not allowed to apply or be granted any financial facility in the form of any loan or advances by any bank or financial institutions owned or controlled by the Government for a period of ten years from the date of this judgment." It is admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Appeal No.23 of 2002 filed by the petitioner whereby, he challenged his conviction stood dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide I orders, dated 27th September, 2002. A copy of the said order has been placed on record by learned counsel for petitioner, during the course of his oral submissions. Relevant provisions of the law to the case of the petitioner is as follows:‑‑ "S.99 (lA)(h) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976. (1A) A person shall be disqualified from being elected as, and from being, a member of an Assembly, if‑‑‑ (a) to (g) .................................................................................... (h) has been convicted by Court of competent jurisdiction on a charge of corrupt practice, moral turpitude or misuse of power or authority under any law for the time being in force; or." Perusal of above provision of law makes it abundantly clear that a person who has been convicted by Court of law on the charge of corruption is disqualified to be elected to or chosen as a member of any assembly. It is evident from the foregoing paras. that the petitioner is convict and his conviction is deemed to be on the charge of corrupt practices. His appeal challenging the conviction stands dismissed. He is, therefore disqualified to participate in the election. Both the lower forums have rendered concurrent findings of facts wherein no illegality is found. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the same. In view of whatever is stated above, we are of the considered opinion that both the above petitions are not maintainable. The same are dismissed in limine alongwith listed applications. S.A.K./A‑288/K Petitions dismissed