The Supreme Court has held that under Article 63 (1) (h) of the Constitution and Section 27 (2) (i) of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013 (PLGA), the disqualification of a candidate is on the basis of conviction and 'sentence awarded as opposed to the sentence served.'
The benefit of running of sentences concurrently is only to the extent of the period of incarceration in jail and the same would have no effect on the sentences awarded to a person on different counts which have to be read cumulatively for the purposes of disqualification envisaged by Article 63 (l)(h) and Section 27 (2) (i).
A three-member bench headed by then Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar and comprising Faisal Arab and Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan on 10-10-2018 after hearing the arguments had reserved the judgement, which was issued on Monday.
According to the case, Nasir Mehmood (appellant) contested for and was declared returned candidate in the General Elections 2008. His victory was challenged by Umar Sajjad (respondent) before the Election Tribunal, which set aside it vide judgement dated 03.02.2010. Nasir filed an appeal in the apex court, which overruled the verdict of Tribunal reported as Haji Nasir Mahmood vs Mian 1mran Masood (PLD 2010 sec 1089).
The deputy election commissioner, Gujranwala, later on filed a written complaint against the appellant for action under the criminal laws. An FIR was lodged on 31.01.2011 (U/s 199/200/471 PPC & Section 82 r/w S 78 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1976) for hiding facts. He was tried and convicted on four counts; for a term of one year and six months against each count. These sentences were ordered by the trial court to run concurrently. In appeal the Lahore High Court suspended the sentence.
After that Nasir Mehmood contested election for chairman union council No. 3, Municipal Corporation Gujrat. The respondent opposed him on the ground that he had been convicted of criminal offences in an earlier round of litigation. Such litigation emanated from a declaration of dishonesty, given by the high court and upheld by this court, against the appellant.
The moot question before the apex court was whether conviction on four counts and a sentence of one-and-half-year on each count is to be seen cumulatively or in the perspective of being served consecutively in the context of Section 27(2)(i) of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013 (PLGA) read with Artic1e 63 (1) (h) of the Constitution.
The judgement noted that the suspension of the sentence awarded to the appellant would have no consequence on the conviction of the appellant which is complete as soon as the person charged has been found guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction. It said that is the conviction of the accused which is relevant in the context of Article 63(1)(h) of the Constitution and Section 27(2)(i) of the PLGA.
The suspension of sentence would have no consequence on the conviction of the appellants for the purposes of being qualified to contest either the local bodies elections or the elections for the legislative assemblies unless the conviction is specifically suspended by the appellate court by assigning cogent reasons.
Comments
Comments are closed.