Suspension of sentence has no effect on candidates’ eligibility: SC
Justice Ahsan says unless conviction is suspended by appellate court, disqualification will remain intact
A view of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Islamabad. PHOTO: REUTERS
ISLAMABAD:
The top court has ruled that suspension of sentence awarded to an election candidate has no effect on his/her qualification to contest elections.
“The suspension of sentence would have no consequence on the conviction of appellants for the purpose of being qualified to 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 therefore, or the appeal of the appellant is ultimately allowed and his conviction as well as sentence are set aside by the appellate court, the conviction of the appellant would continue to hold the field and the disqualification incurred by him by reason of this conviction shall remain intact,” says a seven-page order authored by Supreme Court’s Justice Ijazul Ahsan.
IHC rejects Nawaz's plea seeking suspension of sentence on medical grounds
Justice Ahsan issued the order while hearing an appeal filed by local body representative Nasir Mehmood against Lahore High Court’s October 27, 2015 judgement to declare him ineligible to contest the elections for the chairman and vice-chairman of Union Council 3, Gujrat Municipal Corporation.
Interestingly, a three-judge bench, headed by former chief justice Mian Saqib Nisar, on October 10, 2018 heard the appeal filed by Mehmood against the LHC order.
The factual background of the case is that Mehmood was declared a returned candidate in 2018 general elections. However, his election was set aside by the tribunal on the grounds of misdeclaration. The apex court also upheld the decision.
Later, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) initiated criminal proceedings against him. He was tried and convicted on four counts, for a term of one year and six months against each count in January 2011. These sentences were ordered by the trial court to run concurrently.
Justice Ahsan in his verdict said that the pivotal issue was whether conviction awarded to Mahmood would be taken on a whole in cumulative manner, the effect whereof would be a conviction, followed by a sentence on four counts for an aggregate period of six years in terms of provision of Punjab Local Government Act.
NAB reply sought on withdrawal of suspension of sentence plea in Al Azizia verdict
The judgement held that it was the conviction and sentencing that was the determining factor rather than the actual time spent behind bars, adding that any other interpretation would lead to absurd results.
The court also held that for the purposes of Article 63 (1) (h) of Constitution and Section 27 (2) (i) of Punjab Local Government Act, the portion of sentence actually served was of no relevance and the disqualification was attracted on the bases of conviction and sentence awarded as opposed to served.
The court also dismissed the petition.
It is learnt that Mahmood filed a review petition against this judgement. The counsel for petitioner told that the review plea had been admitted and notice issued to respondents.
The top court has ruled that suspension of sentence awarded to an election candidate has no effect on his/her qualification to contest elections.
“The suspension of sentence would have no consequence on the conviction of appellants for the purpose of being qualified to 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 therefore, or the appeal of the appellant is ultimately allowed and his conviction as well as sentence are set aside by the appellate court, the conviction of the appellant would continue to hold the field and the disqualification incurred by him by reason of this conviction shall remain intact,” says a seven-page order authored by Supreme Court’s Justice Ijazul Ahsan.
IHC rejects Nawaz's plea seeking suspension of sentence on medical grounds
Justice Ahsan issued the order while hearing an appeal filed by local body representative Nasir Mehmood against Lahore High Court’s October 27, 2015 judgement to declare him ineligible to contest the elections for the chairman and vice-chairman of Union Council 3, Gujrat Municipal Corporation.
Interestingly, a three-judge bench, headed by former chief justice Mian Saqib Nisar, on October 10, 2018 heard the appeal filed by Mehmood against the LHC order.
The factual background of the case is that Mehmood was declared a returned candidate in 2018 general elections. However, his election was set aside by the tribunal on the grounds of misdeclaration. The apex court also upheld the decision.
Later, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) initiated criminal proceedings against him. He was tried and convicted on four counts, for a term of one year and six months against each count in January 2011. These sentences were ordered by the trial court to run concurrently.
Justice Ahsan in his verdict said that the pivotal issue was whether conviction awarded to Mahmood would be taken on a whole in cumulative manner, the effect whereof would be a conviction, followed by a sentence on four counts for an aggregate period of six years in terms of provision of Punjab Local Government Act.
NAB reply sought on withdrawal of suspension of sentence plea in Al Azizia verdict
The judgement held that it was the conviction and sentencing that was the determining factor rather than the actual time spent behind bars, adding that any other interpretation would lead to absurd results.
The court also held that for the purposes of Article 63 (1) (h) of Constitution and Section 27 (2) (i) of Punjab Local Government Act, the portion of sentence actually served was of no relevance and the disqualification was attracted on the bases of conviction and sentence awarded as opposed to served.
The court also dismissed the petition.
It is learnt that Mahmood filed a review petition against this judgement. The counsel for petitioner told that the review plea had been admitted and notice issued to respondents.