Dawn News

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court observed that conviction from any court of law led to disqualification from election to the Parliament. – File Photo by AP

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday observed that a person who was awarded conviction in a criminal case stood disqualified for holding a public office and it did not require judicial verdict from the highest forum.

A three-judge bench of Justice Mian Shakirullah Jan, Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja and Justice Khilji Arif Hussain on an appeal of Muhammad Ali Rind observed that conviction from any court of law led to disqualification from election to the Parliament.

Syed Iftikhar Gillani, counsel for Ali Mohammad Rind, appeared and said that conviction of his client ended on June 28 whereas a plea for declaring him as disqualified was filed on August 25 this year.

He contended that the plea against his client was not maintainable and should be rejected forthwith.

He said the petitioner was not a candidate for the senate seat against his client and had not locus standi in the case.

Gillani argued that unless the apex Court gave final verdict over an issue of conviction, the same punishment could not be treated as having attained finality.

Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja observed that Rind was awarded ten years punishment, therefore, Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution were applicable to him.

Further hearing was adjourned till September 21. On August 25, the Balochistan High Court had disqualified Senator Muhammad Ali Rind to hold public office of Senate as he had concealed the fact in nomination forms that he was convicted in corrupt practices and misappropriation of public property.

A Division Bench of Balochistan High Court comprising Chief Justice Qazi Faez Essa had announced the verdict on a plea filed by Mir Muhammad Akram Baloch, a former information minister of Balochistan.

He had moved the plea in October 2009 in which it was stated that Mir Muhammad Ali Rind could not be elected as Senator as he had been convicted and disqualified for a period of 10 years in two different cases.

Email feedback and queries to Dawn.com's editorial team, or visit our contact page


Comments (0) Closed