Shaikh Rahid Case Judgement
Shaikh Rahid Case Judgement
Shaikh Rahid Case Judgement
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
PRESENT:
MR. JUSTICE SH. AZMAT SAEED
MR. JUSTICE QAZI FAEZ ISA
MR. JUSTICE SAJJAD ALI SHAH
JUDGMENT
herein.
through the question raised a very wide net has been cast
not arise at the lis at hand, while the others have been
judgments.
Nasir and others Vs. The State and others (PLD 2018 SC
learned brother.
bridge and this aspect of the matter has been dealt with
a Member.
(Qazi Faez Isa, J.) himself in his note in the case reported
Constitution.
Nosherwani.
Isa, J., and I too was a Member of the said Bench. The
term was only made. This aspect of the matter was dealt
hand.
of a miscalculation.
and 13 Marlas for the year 2012 and 983 Kanals and 17
128 17 29.5.1986
199 18 03.5.1986
101 18 05.7.1986
427 16 28.02.1996
110 15 29.3.1997
08 04 18.6.1998
33 04 04.10.1999
Total
1081 17
Judge
Judge
Judge
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
Present:
MR. JUSTICE SH. AZMAT SAEED
MR. JUSTICE QAZI FAEZ ISA
MR. JUSTICE SAJJAD ALI SHAH
JUDGMENT
Qazi Faez Isa, J. This appeal assails the judgment of the Election
Ahmed (respondent No. 1), who won the National Assembly seat from
75,306 votes. The elections were held on May 11, 2013. The appellant
and misdeclared the value of his house. The other grounds taken in
the Election Petition and in this Appeal were not pressed before us.
dated March 28, 2013 and was submitted to the returning officer on
“12. The income tax paid by me during the last three years is given
hereunder:
Note I: Attach copies of income tax returns of the years mentioned above.
**If more than one sources of income, attach detail.”
“14. The agricultural income tax paid by me during the last three years is
given below:
Note II: Attach copies of agricultural tax returns of the last three years
mentioned above.”
land”). He also made a false declaration of his House No. 40, situated
rupees even though its value at the time of its sale was forty eight
million rupees.
allegation.
and Jamabandi (Exhibit P-2) for the years 2008-09 which show the
come to give evidence before the Tribunal and had produced Exhibit
Civil Appeal No. 467 of 2015 4
R-1 showing the respondent No. 1’s land holding, but before he could
reproduced hereunder:
the agricultural land holding of respondent No. 1 and thereby the fact
kanals and 4 marlas of land. The relevant portion from the affidavit-
respondent No. 1 also admits that he had not mentioned his entire
The learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal had also come to the
of assets”.
6. That as regards the said house the learned counsel for the
appellant states that respondent No. 1 did not purchase the said
issued by Bahria Town (Pvt.) Limited which shows that Bahria Town
(Pvt.) Limited had allotted the said house to respondent No. 1. This
witness testified that, “the market value of the said house at the time
respondent No. 1 however took the plea that he had paid only ten
million rupees and its balance price was adjusted by giving 15 kanals
however, when he was asked whether a sale deed was registered with
would mean that the said 15 kanals and 4 marlas was worth just a
in his Nomination Form, however, such value was false as the price
unbelievable that it was purchased for about one fifth of its price.
With regard to the said house, the learned Presiding Officer of the
that the Nomination Form requires both the declaration of the asset
as well as its “value” and the learned Presiding Officer could not have
material illegality.
section 12(2)(a) and (f), section 78(3)(d), and section 99(1)(f) of the
respondent No. 1. Reliance was also placed upon the following cases:
Muhammad Rizwan Gill v Nadia Aziz (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 828),
Chishti (PLD 2016 Supreme Court 689), Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi v
that the recent judgments of this Court and particularly those in the
Panama Papers’ cases hold that the court may look at any material
as per his own showing, was an old hand in politics having been a
learned counsel states that the appellant’s case is better than the
facts of the Panama Papers’ cases wherein the elected person had
denied the receipt of salary, but which was deemed to have become
his asset. In the present case respondent No. 1 admits that he had
not disclosed all of his agricultural land, and had falsely declared
payment for the purchase of the said house. The learned counsel
concludes by stating that the respondent No. 1 himself was one of the
standard himself.
states that the Election Petition did not specifically mention the
agricultural land which was not disclosed nor the correct value of the
took two fold pleas, firstly that the document titled “Details of
showing the real value of the said house. The learned counsel states
appeals filed under section 67(3) of the ROPA because the Panama
Papers’ cases arose out of a petition directly filed before this Court
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with
cases.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to
make out his case by recording additional evidence before this Court.
11. That with regard to the agricultural land and the said house
Issue No. 9 was framed by the Tribunal: “Whether the respondent No.
per Exhibit R-1 which land was not disclosed by him in his
also does not help him because therein respondent No. 1’s land
12. As regards the value of the said house, the General Manager
the time of booking the price of the said house was forty eight million
the 15 kanals and 4 marlas of agricultural land despite the fact that
respondent No. 1 had acquired the said house in the year 2011, well
before the evidence in the case was recorded by the Tribunal. The
said Allotment Certificate (Exhibit P-8) does not mention the price of
the said house nor that it was issued in part exchange for 15 kanals
Form and Details of Immovable Assets also did not disclose this.
testify that the company had disclosed such land in its official
place for the “Buyer: Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed” to sign it. In the
would not be able to hold respondent No. 1 to this alleged sale. The
question also arises why would a limited liability company act in this
Whether respondent No. 1 did not have the requisite ‘white money’,
that respondent No. 1 misdeclared the value of the said house in his
Statement of Assets, the correct value of which was not less than
13. That having determined that respondent No. 1, did not disclose
all his agricultural land and misdeclared the value of the said house
But, if the strict liability rule is not applicable then the consequences
his Nomination Form did not disclose his conviction or give an earlier
offend any law, in that if he had disclosed his entire land holding and
had shown the value of the said house to be forty eight million rupees
14. There are judgments of this Court which apply the principle or
did not disclose the income said to have been earned by him as he had a
which was conditional on the iqama holder being paid a salary, therefore,
constitute his “earnings” and then deemed to have become his asset, the
terms that, “he is not honest in terms of section 99(1)(f) of the ROPA
and Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution”. Even though it was not held by
clearly apply the strict liability principle, however, they did not follow
under:
Papers-I were not discussed. Some may contend that the aforesaid
only authored by the learned Ejaz Afzal Khan, J, who held that:
“…we could not have shut our eyes when an asset of the
petitioner arising out of IQAMA (work permit) having
surfaced during the investigation of the case and admitted
by him to be his in no uncertain terms, was not found to
have been disclosed in his nomination papers in terms of
Section 12(2)(f) of ROPA.” (at page 19)
Returning Officer (2013 SCMR 1246). The learned Ejaz Afzal Khan, J,
stated that the judgments of this Court cited by the other side were
cases Hassan Nawaz and Sadiq Ali Memon, which were relied upon in
because this nondisclosure did not give the candidate any advantage.
made by a court of law, was also noted. The relevant portions from
19. After the Panama Papers-II and III the case of Muhammad
Hanif Abbasi v Imran Khan Niazi (PLD 2018 Supreme Court 189) was
20. Once the facts of a case have been ascertained the applicable
However, when a High Court passes an order under Article 199 of the
appeal. Precedents of this Court have held that the right of appeal is
a substantive right and not one of mere procedure (see, Manzoor Ali v
resolution and all the more so when, “Any decision of the Supreme
criticality in an election year. The terms of the National and the four
will be further perpetuated when, after the elections have been held,
the subject. Matters would then come up before this Court in its
make every effort to dispel any impression that different persons are
measure”.
bench, preferably the Full Court, since every judge of this Court has
which have arisen in this appeal, and which will also arise in other
cases:
participate in an election?
Q.2. If a petition does not disclose the particular facts, on the basis
Sharif (PLD 2015 Supreme Court 275, at pages 283-4) however the
27. We are aware that most probably by the time the aforesaid
finally.
for Pakistan, the Advocate-Generals of the four provinces and the law
and support their answers with reasons. Notices be also issued to the
Pakistan.
ORDER OF THE BENCH
enumerated by him.
Judge
Judge
Judge
Announced on ______________
At _______________
Judge