' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.---Through the instant petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner calls in question the validity and legality of order dated 25.5.2016 of the Election Commission of Pakistan (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") whereby Bachelor's Degree obtained by him was declared as forged one and on that ground his election of Member Provincial Assembly from PP-159 Lahore XXIII has been declared void ab initio and consequently his notification as the returned candidate withdrawn with the direction to D.G. To file a criminal complaint against him before the Sessions Judge, Lahore.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction; that the respondent-Commission had no authority to adjudicate upon the question of fact in respect of qualification of the petitioner; that degree of the petitioner could not be held bogus without recording evidence and providing an opportunity of defense to the petitioner; that the respondent-Commission had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings against the petitioner after completion of the tenure of the Provincial Assembly of Punjab; that under section 103AA(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 after expiry of sixty days, the election of the returned candidate shall be deemed to have become final, subject to a decision of a Tribunal; that the Election Petition No,11/2008 filed by one Mansha Sandhu was dismissed by the Election Tribunal vide order dated 12.3.2010, which has attained finality as having not been challenged before the higher forum; that election of the petitioner could not be held void ab initio by the respondent- Commission as this can be done only in an Election Petition by a Tribunal as envisaged in section 52 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1976; that the findings recorded by the respondent- Commission are based on surmises and conjectures; that degree of the petitioner is genuine and this fact has been verified by the University of Punjab, vide receipt No,3458-A dated 20.11.2007; and that the respondent has wrongly applied the dictum laid down in the case of Muhammad Rizwan Gill v. Nadia Aziz and others (PLD 2010 SC 828) for passing the impugned order against the petitioner; that the impugned order is against the principles of natural justice, hence, liable to be set aside. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of Ms. Shabina Riaz Khan v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2016 CLC 458).
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly put stress upon the arguments that the learned respondent- Commission had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the issue of genuineness or otherwise of the degree of the petitioner and as such it has exceeded its jurisdiction. And that the learned Commission has misinterpreted the direction of the Humble Supreme Court of Pakistan given in the case of Muhammad Rizwan Gill v. Nadia Aziz and others (supra). Before commenting upon or recording any finding on the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner I feel it necessary to reproduce the relevant portion of the directions issued by the Humble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cited' case which is as under: "18. The Election Commission is, therefore, directed to initiate action against all such persons who are accused of commission of corrupt practices; of committing forgery and of using, as genuine, documents which they knew or at least had reason to believe to be forged. The Election Commission shall ensure that the investigation in these matters are conducted honestly, efficiently and expeditiously and shall depute one of its senior officers to supervise the same. The learned Sessions Judges to whom these trials shall then be entrusted, are also directed to conclude the same without any delay, in consonance with the spirit of the Elections laws as displayed, inter alia, by the Provisos newly-added to subsection (I-A) of section 67 of the said Act of 1976 through the Amending Act No IV of 2009 promulgated on 2.11.2009. In any case, it should not take each learned Sessions Judge who gets seized of the matter, more than three months to conclude the same."
' A bare reading of the above order shows that there are two limbs of the directions of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan. The first one is "investigation" by the Election Commission of Pakistan and the second one is "trial" by the learned Sessions Judges. A careful perusal of the impugned order shows that the respondent-Commission has not at all done any kind of adjudication as a Court of law. It has only investigated the allegation of production of a bogus B.A. Degree at the time of filing his nomination papers for contesting election for the seat of Member Provincial Assembly, Punjab during General Election 2008 and having found the petitioner's degree as bogus directed for filing a criminal complaint against him before the Sessions Judge, Lahore.
5. In the impugned order it has been observed that in presence of learned counsel for the petitioner the Assistant Controller of Examination, University of the Punjab produced the original result of B.A.
Examination, 1992, original admission Form of the petitioner and original relevant page of the results statement for perusal of the Commission. A perusal of the said record revealed that in the Admission Form the petitioner had left certain columns blank. The petitioner was required to mention the detail of his passing matriculation and intermediate examinations but he left the relevant columns blank. Attestation of the Form was compulsory but the petitioner failed to fulfill the said requirement. Even the requisite admission fee was not paid by the petitioner. All these facts led the Commission to draw an inference that the admission form was inserted through back door with connivance of some official .Of the university. The petitioner had not passed his matriculation and intermediate examinations which was a sine qua non for appearing in examination for obtaining a Bachelor's Degree from University of the Punjab. During investigation, the Commission, vide order dated 16.9.2013 directed the petitioner to produce his matriculation and intermediate certificates but till the date of passing of the impugned order the petitioner failed to comply with the said direction. Even during the course `Of hearing of this writ petition, the petitioner was asked to produce his matriculation and intermediate certificates but he failed to do so. When the petitioner has not passed his Matriculation and Intermediate examination how could he take the examination of B.A. The Commission has thus rightly observed that the petitioner had obtained the B.A. Degree with connivance of staff of University of the Punjab. As the investigation of the 'Commission resulted in recording findings that the petitioner was accused of committing forgery and of using as genuine the document which he knew or at least h-d reason to believe to be forged, therefore, as a consequence 'the notification of the petitioner declaring him as returned candidate has rightly been withdrawn. As the petitioner has been found involved in commission of "Corrupt practice" as defined under section 78(3)(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), which is a cognizable offence under section 94(1) of the said Act, punishable under section 82 ibid, therefore, the Commission has directed its D.G. Elections to file a complaint against him before the learned. Sessions Judge, Lahore. As per direction of the Humble Supreme Court of Pakistan now adjudication on the complaint filed by the Commission will be done by the learned Sessions Judge while conducting trial of the petitioner.
6. I see no weight in the argument that as the tenure of the Provincial Assembly of which the petitioner was elected as a Member has completed its term, therefore, the Commission lacked jurisdiction to investigate the allegations leveled against him. The Commission started action against the petitioner in compliance with the directions of the Humble Supreme Court of Pakistan and when his B.A. Degree has been found bogus criminal proceedings have been ordered to be initiated against him. There is no limitation for initiation of criminal proceedings against any accused of a cognizable offence. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Muhammad Fiaz Khan v. Ajmer Khan and another (2010 SCM R 105). Even otherwise, the record shows that he has been adopting delaying tactics to avoid probe into the genuineness or otherwise of his B.A. Degree.
Such a conduct of the petitioner is contumacious, so he is not entitled to any equitable relief from this Court.
7. The facts and findings recorded by this Court in the case of Ms. Shabina Riaz Khan v. Federation of Pakistan and others (supra) are quite distinguishable from the case in hand. In the cited case, which has been relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his case, the Election Commission had not got verified the degree of the petitioner and there was no positive and tangible evidence available on record on the basis of which complaint could be filed before the Sessions Judge. On the contrary, in the present case, during thorough investigation, the Commission has collected sufficient incriminating material/evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence falling within the mischief of section 82 of the Act. So, the action taken by the Commission against the petitioner was within the mandate given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. This Court does not find any legal or jurisdictional defect in the impugned order calling for interference by this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction.
This Court, however, has noticed with great concern that the Commission while withdrawing notification of the petitioner as returned candidate has not issued any direction for recovery of the remunerations and all perks and privileges which the petitioner has drawn as Member Provincial Assembly. The Commission has also not initiated any proceedings to approach the University of the Punjab for taking action against the officers/officials who are involved in issuing bogus B.A.
Degree to the petitioner and as such are privy to the criminal act of the petitioner. A copy of this order shall, therefore, be sent to the Election Commission of Pakistan with a direction to initiate proceedings as indicated above and submit compliance report to this Court within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
For what has been discussed above, the instant wit petition has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed in limited.