This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is directed against the order of learned Additional District Judge, Okara/Election Tribunal for Tehsil Chunian District Kasur dated 9.5.2003 whereby election petition of Respondents Nos, 2 and 3 was accepted and the election of petitioner was declared void for lack of his requisite academic qualification.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that Respondents Nos, 2 and 3 called in question the election of Union Council Kull in which Sardar Muhammad Aslam (petitioner) and Akbar Ali were declared returned candidates for the office of Nazim and Naib Nazim. Respondent No, 2 in, his election petition stated that basic qualification for a candidate contesting said election was that he would be at least holding a certificate of secondary school. Petitioner alongwith his nomination ' papers filed photo-copy of secondary school certificate according to which he, in the year 1972 appeared in annual examination under Roll No, 7964 and was declared successful by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore. However, when Respondent No, 2 made an inquiry, it revealed that petitioner has fabricated and forged certificate in his name, although according to the record of the Board, one S. Badar Ali appeared in the said year under aforesaid roll number who could not qualify the matriculation exam. Since Respondent No, 1 therein was not a matriculate, therefore, could not contest for the post of Nazim in the election of local Government and his result as successful candidate is liable to be declared as void and illegal on the aforesaid ground.
3. In reply to the election petition petitioner apart from raising few preliminary objections claimed that he was holding a certificate of secondary school examination issued by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan from where he had appeared under Roll No, 25295.
It was also contended by him that Respondent No, 2 might have tampered with the record of the Returning Officer as the record remained in un-safe hands of Secretary Union Council who had been receiving and scrutizing the nomination papers. According to him Respondent No, 2 in connivance with said Secretary Union Council might have taken away photo-copy of his original certificate and replaced the same in collusion with some other element with forged document.
4. Election Tribunal on divergent pleadings of the parties framed issues, recorded evidence of the parties and after its evaluation accepted the election petition of Respondent No, 2 against the petitioner mainly on the ground that the petitioner is not a matriculate, produced fictitious and forged certificate with the nomination papers, he lacked the educational qualification prescribed for a candidate, therefore, his election was declared void.
5. Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Election Tribunal has not attended to the preliminary legal objections raised in the reply to the election petition. Copies of the petition were not delivered in advance to the petitioner by Respondent No, 2, therefore, the election petition was not competent. He further argued that the learned Tribunal has not properly assessed the evidence of the parties on the record while declaring his election void. He also argued that the petitioner matriculated from Multan Board and AW-4 produced by Respondent No, 1 was a fictitious person whose particulars are different from the petitioner. His evidence has wrongly been given weight while disqualifying the petitioner.
6. Heard. Record perused. The crucial issues involved in the election petition were Issues Nos, 1 and 10 which are reproduced hereunder:--
1. Whether the Respondent No, 1 produced a forged and fabricated certificate of matriculation against Roll No, 7964 issued from the Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Lahore, and if so, what is its effect? OPA 10. Whether the Respondent No, 1 has passed the matric examination against Roll No, 25295 from Multan Board and the same was produced by him with nomination form ? OPR The findings of the Election Tribunal on Issues Nos, 1 and 10 are as under :-- Issue No, 1.
7. The onus of this issue was upon the petitioners who in order to discharge the same, have produced as many as' 7 witnesses in the witness box. The witness relevant for disposal of this issue, who appeared as AW-2 is Zulfiqar Ali Copy Clerk/Record Keeper of the office of Returning Office, Chunian, District Kasur who verified that the matriculation certificates of Respondent No, 1 was available of the record of the Returning Officer at Page No,
21. The said document is, the secondary school certificate of Humanities Group with regard to annual examination of the year 1970.
According to said document, one Muhammad Aslam s/o Sardar Sharif appeared under Roll No, 7964 whose date of birth was mentioned in the said certificate as 1.10.1955 and who qualified the said examination in second division. A copy of said certificate has also been brought on record as Ex. A-1. In order to prove that it was a forged and fabricated certificate, Ikram-Ul-Haq Assistant of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Lahore, appeared in the witness box as AW-1 who having brought the record of the board pertaining to the year 1972 which was a Gazette notification, deposed that under Roll No, 7964 one S. Badar Ali appeared in annual examination 1972, who failed in the exam. During cross examination it was got verified from him by the Respondent No, 1, through his counsel, that his record do not contain any forme of admission to appear in examination by Sardar Muhammad Aslam. He was thereafter not cross-examined on behalf of Respondent No,
1. The statement of this witness thus proves through authentic record that matriculation certificate annexed with `nomination paper of Respondent No, 1 and submitted at the time of presentation of the same before the Returning Officer, was a forged and fabricated document which had no relevancy with the candidate (Respondent No, 1) who then wanted to contest the election for the slot of Nazim of Union Council Kull. When AW-2, the copy Clerk of Returning Officer was cross-examined on behalf of the respondents, a suggestion was put to him, that nomination papers were received by the Returning Officer himself who himself scrutinized the said papers, and the witness admitted the said suggestion as correct. This suggestion was again repeated after few questions and the witness again admitted the said suggestion to be correct.
Putting of this suggestion twice on behalf of the respondents and admission of the said suggestion by the witness falsified the stance taken by the respondent that, the nomination paper alongwith relevant documents were received by Secretary Union Council and were scrutinized by him. In view of the statements of both AW-1 and AW2 there remains no doubt to the fact that matriculation certificate annexed with the nomination paper of Respondent No, 1, was a forged and fabricated document.
8. Now comes the question as to what benefit if any, the petitioners were to draw, by re-placing such certificate on record as is the claimed by the Respondent No, 1 in his written reply. Had the petitioners done this act, they would have agitated this matter there and then, and would have produced the relevant record of the Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Lahore to get disqualification of Respondent-No, 1 at the initial stage. Admittedly, it did not happen so.
Admittedly, no appeal was preferred by the petitioners after acceptance of said papers of the Respondent No,
1. These facts tend to show that the petitioners had, by then no idea that a forged and fabricated certificate has been placed on record. Obviously it were later efforts made by the plaintiffs, after the election was over and the Respondent No, 1 had been declared a returned candidate, that the petitioners came to know about this forgery which brought them with this objection/election petition. Therefore, this contention of the Respondent No, 1 has no force in it, that the petitioner got re-placed the certificate which was issued in his name from. Multan Board under Roll No, 25295. The genuineness and authenticity of the said certificate of Roll No, 25295 is to be discussed in later part of this judgment while deciding Issue No,
10. Therefore, it is held that the Respondent No, 1 submitted a forged and fabricated document at the time of presentation of his nomination paper in order to draw benefit for which he was not entitled. The issue is accordingly answered in affirmative.
Issue No, 10.
9. Although it has been proved on record and has been held so, that at the time of submission of nomination papers, the Respondent No, 1 had submitted fake, forged and fabricated matriculation certificate thus rendering him disqualified for the election of the post of Nazim, let's see and scrutinize the version of the Respondent No, 1 that he had the requisite qualification by remaining successful in passing secondary school examination under Roll No, 25295 from Multan Board and that said certificate was produced by him at the time of submission of his nomination form.
10.The onus of this issue was on the Respondent No,
1. He has produced in the witness box one Alamgir, Record incharge of Multan Board as RW-1 and has himself appeared as RW-2. RW-1 placed on record copy of admission form Exh. R. 1 & copy of result sheet containing Roll No, 25295 for the year annual 1969 as Exh. R.
2. He also deposed that a duplicate certificate Bearing No, 170897 was issued on 6.11.2001. In his cross-examination the witness admitted that certain additions/over writing was made in the name/caste (Dogar) of the candidate in his admission form. It was also admitted by him that the name, Muhammad Aslam and other particulars regarding the subjects in which the candidate wanted to appear, were made with black ink whereas the word `Dogar' was written with blue ink. The witness could not admit or deny that before subjects Math & Science, some letter was rewritten as G. The witness first of all denied that the said register was bound many times, but then it was admitted by him that it was re-bound. All these things tend to show that tampering with record has been made. One fact which remains proved on record is, that whosoever. Muhammad Aslam or Muhammad Aslam Dogar was the real candidate was that who was issued original certificate bearing Sr. No, 34590, as is evident from result statement Ex. R-2.
Admittedly, the Respondent No, 1 was not in possession of the original and he has produced a duplicate certificate as Ex. R-3. The original certificate bearing Sr. No, 34590 has come on record through one Muhammad Aslam Dogar who appeared as AW-4. While appearing in the witness box he stated that he had appeared from Multan Board under Roll No, 25295 and on the basis of said certificate he was recruited as a constable in police Department in the year 1973. Said origihal certificate was later brought on record though Muhammad Jameel record keeper of S.P. Office, Vehari. AW-4 was not suggested during cross-examination that his name was not Muhammad Aslam or that his father's name was not Muhammad Sharif. He was also not suggested that he had assumed the name of Muhammad Aslam s/o Muhammad Sharif having found matriculation certificate of the Respondent No, 1 to get service in police Department. It is needless to mention here that name of Respondent No, 1 is Sardar Muhammad Aslam and the certificate holder is Muhammad Aslam and not Sardar Muhammad Aslam. Had the original certificate come on record from the custody of Respondent No, 1 some advantage could have been given to him but when he was not found in possession of the original certificate, it could no be presumed that it was he, who appeared in the said exam as a candidate and qualified the said exam. It may be added here that since, with the production of AW-4 in the witness box, the intention of the petitioner's side was clear to the Respondent No, 1, that even his certificate alleged to have been issued from Multan Board was being challenged, therefore, the Respondent No, 1 should have summoned and brought on record the Head-Master or record keeper of his school at Pakpattan Sharif, through which he allegedly appeared in the exam of Multan Board. He has failed to summon the said witness in the witness box and has thus failed to proved the missing link with regard to his qualification. It may be noted here that according to said certificate Ex. R-3, the candidate's year of birth was 1953 whereas according to the National Identity Card of the Respondent No, 1, a copy of which is annexed with his nomination paper, shows that year of his birth as 1956. This fact also falsifies his claim that matriculation certificate of Roll No, 25295 was issued to him having appeared in matriculation examination. Therefore, it could not be said in view of the evidence available on record that he had passed a secondary school examination even, under Roll No, 25295 from Multan Board. Now comes the question as to whether he had produced with his nomination from a copy of the said duplicate certificate. Admittedly, the said duplicate certificate was issued to him on 6.11.2001 whereas the nomination paper was submitted by him on 29.5.2001, therefore, it could not be presumed that he was able to annex a photo-copy of the same alongwith his nomination form. Now comes the other question as to whether he had annexed with his nomination form a copy of original certificate, bearing Sr. No, 34590. Obviously the said certificate has come on record through another person who is serving police Department. Had the said document not come on record with the clear assertion that on the basis of said certificate the holder of said certificate got his recruitment in the year 1973, even then it could have been presumed that after submission of photocopy of the original certificate, the Respondent No, 1 might have lost the said certificate. Therefore, from which every angle seen, the Respondent No, 1 has absolutely failed to discharge the onus of this issue which is accordingly answered in negative."
7. The perusal of impugned order clearly shows that the petitioner had not appeared as a candidate under Roll No, 7964 which in fact belongs to S. -Badar Ali per statement of Ikram-ul-Haq Assistant of Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Lahore produced as Ex. A/1. The said candidate failed in the annual examination 1972. During cross-examination it was got verified from him through counsel that his record does not contain any form of admission of Sardar Muhammad Aslam (petitioner). The contradictory plea taken by the petitioner in his written statement that he appeared from Multan Board under Roll No, 25295 is also false. Record Incharge of Multan Board was produced by the petitioner as RW-1 and he himself appeared as RW-2. Copy of admission form Ex. R-1 copy of result sheet pertaining to Roll No, 25295 for annual 1969 as Ex. R-2. He deposed that duplicate certificate Bearing No, 170897 was issued on 6.11.2001. In his cross-examination witness admitted that certain additions/over writings were made in the name/cast (Dogar) of the candidate in his admission form.
He also admitted that the name Muhammad Aslam and other particulars regarding the subject in which the candidate wanted to appear were made with black ink whereas the word dogar was written with blue ink. The witness admitted that the register was rebound. The record pertaining to aforesaid roll number was tampered with. The forgery and fraud of the petitioner is further proved when Muhammad Aslam or Muhammad Aslam Dogar the real candidate who was issued the original certificate bearing Serial No, 34590 evident from the result statement Ex. R-2, admitted that the petitioner was not in possession of original and he has produced duplicate certificate as Ex. R-
2. The original certificate Bearing No, 34590 has come on record through one Muhammad Aslam Dogar who appeared as AW-4. He deposed that he appeared under Roll No, 25295 and on the basis of said certificate he was recruited as constable in the police department in the year 1973.
The original certificate was later on brought on record through Muhammad Jamil record keeper of S.P. Office Vehari. The petitioner firstly committed fraud by producing a fictitious and forged duplicate matric certificate allegedly issued by the Board of Intermediate and ,Secondary Education Lahore and attached with his nomination papers at the time of election and for the second time in producing another forged duplicate certificate of Muhammad Aslam Dogar AW-4 during trial of the election petition. It is proved by evidence on record that the petitioner is not a matriculate and through fraudulent means he posed himself to be so to contest the election for the office of Nazim for which he was not qualified at all. He lacked requisite educational qualification, therefore, his election is void. The findings of Election Tribunal are based on proper appreciation of evidence and warrant no interference.
8. The preliminary objection of the petitioner that he did not receive copy of the election petition in advance is immaterial in the circumstances of the present case. Petitioner suffered inherent disqualification to contest the election and once this fact was brought into the notice of the Tribunal it was its duty to remove him from the office in exercise of the power conferred on him. The preliminary objections are of technical nature which do not affect the decision of the election petition on merit. I find no merit in the - contention of the petitioner on the basis of preliminary objection raised in his written statement before the Election Tribunal. The petition has no merit and is dismissed in limine.
9. Before parting with the judgment it has been noticed that the people play fraud with the Courts and institutions without any fear of consequences. Courts are over burdened with real litigation, therefore, have been avoiding to take stern penal action against the fraudulent persons. This tendency has led to increase in commission of frauds, spoiled the society and C has created negative effect on social set up. These voices must be nipped in the bud to save the general public.
Such people should be dealt with iron hands by giving them deterrent punishment to curb and control increasing tendency of such crimes. The boldness shown by the petitioner in producing forged duplicate certificates in Court of law in his defence has forced me to refer the matter to S.P.
Kasur for inquiry and registration of a criminal case I under the relevant provisions of law against the petitioner. Copy of the judgment of the Election Tribunal and this order be forwarded to the S.P.
Kasur for compliance and necessary action. The action taken by the S,P. shall be reported to this Court through the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.