ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
(APPELLATE TRIBUNAL)
Election Appeal No.15 of 2024
Mir Asghar Ali Panhwar
v/s.
Aijaz Hussain Jakhrani and another
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE |
1. For orders on office objections at flag "A".
2. For hearing of main case.
------
08.01.2024
M/s. Ebrahim Saifuddin and Sher Ali Jatoi, Advocates for the Appellant.
Mr. Muhammad Haseeb Jamali, Advocate for Respondent No.1 a/w Respondent No.1.
Mr. Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, Additional Advocate General, Sindh a/w Mr. Abdul Waris Bhutto, Assistant Advocate General, Sindh.
Mr. Ghulam Asghar Khichi, Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan.
Mr. Shafqat Rasool Narejo, Assistant Director/Law Officer, Election Commission of Pakistan, Larkana Division a/w Irshad Ali, ADC-I/Returning Officer, N.A-190, Jacobabad.
------
O R D E R
Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J.- Through instant appeal, the appellant has assailed the acceptance of nomination papers of respondent No.1, on the ground that he has not disclosed certain accounts being operated by him in various Banks as well as he was nominated in a Direct Complaint registered against him. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that respondent No.1 has not come with clean hands; hence, being proposed as representative of the area is not entitled to contest the current elections, as he does not stand Saadiq and Ameen. He next submits that by granting instant appeal the nomination papers submitted by respondent No.1, may be rejected. He, however, admits that Direct Complaint No.35 of 2023, filed before Assistant Sessions Judge-II, Jacobabad for offence under sections 324, 109, 427, 506(ii), 337-H(ii), 337-L(ii), 148, 149 P.P.C, in which the respondent No.1 was nominated, has ended in his acquittal on 07.09.2023. Even, the appellant’s Counsel is not in a position to pinpoint the accounts which have not been disclosed by respondent No.1 showing the name of Banks or authority in a manner in which the bank statement should have been issued.
2. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposing the appeal, submits that respondent No.1 has disclosed all the facts as well as the accounts being maintained by him. As far as question about his not disclosing the fact of Direct Complaint is concerned, the respondent No.1 was not nominated in the F.I.R and later he was arrayed as accused by the complainant through a Direct Complaint in terms of section 200 Cr.PC and after bringing the case on file, he was acquitted under section 265-K Cr.PC, hence at the moment he is no more accused in any criminal case. He further submits that so far the land allegedly purchased by respondent No.1 from Mst. Saeeda Baloch, the appellant has not adduced registered sale deed in support of his contention; however, he submitted investigation report of Investigating Officer of NAB, who too, in his investigation did not adduce the document showing registered sale deed to have been executed by Mst. Saeeda Baloch in favour of respondent No.1.
3. The Assistant Director/Law Officer, Election Commission of Pakistan, Larkana Division, assisted by Additional Deputy Commissioner-I/Returning Officer, N.A-190, Jacobabad submits that the appellant has not raised objection before the Returning Officer and at this juncture he has no competency to maintain this appeal, which in view of above legal position cannot be entertained. Learned Additional Advocate General, Sindh as well as Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan, have adopted the arguments of the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and seek dismissal of instant appeal.
4. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. From perusal of record, it appears that since the appellant had neither raised any objection before the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny of nomination papers nor he had adduced any document showing the anxiety regarding the nomination papers of respondent No.1 and at this juncture, which is belated one, such assertion cannot be acceded to. Resultantly, there is no reason to set aside the impugned order. In such eventuality, the appeal in hand, being hit by mandatory provision of law, is not maintainable. Consequently, instant appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed, impugned order is hereby maintained.
Judge
Manzoor