GHULAM RABBANI, 3.--- These two petitions arise out of common questions of facts and the law and are being disposed of through this single order.
2. In C.P. No. D-1674/2002 petitioner's nomination paper in respect of constituency NA-227 Mirpurkhas-II and in C.P. No. D-1675/2002, his nomination paper for constituency No. PS-65 Mirpurkhas-Il were rejected by Returning Officer, Mirpurkhas-ll, vide orders dated 30th August, 2002 and 31st August, 2002 respectively. Petitioner, challenged these two orders by filing two separate appeals being Nos. 23 and 65 of 2002 before Election Tribunal. Both these appeals met the same fate vide common order dated 30th September, 2002 which has been challenged through these two petitions.
3., We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned A.A.G. Who was present in Court in other cases.
4. It may be noted that the rejection of nomination papers referred to above is, inter alia, based on the ground that the petitioner was convicted by the Accountability Court on his plea of bargain on a Reference No. 28/2001 filed by /he Chairman, National Accountability .Bureau. Learned Returning .Officer, Mirpurkhas-II while rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner in respect of constituency NA-227 adverted to the following passage from the judgment dated 11.3.2002 passed by learned Accountability Court Sindh, whereby conviction was awarded to the petitioner: "The accused Abdul Khaliq, Muhammad Alain, Syed Khadim All Shah, Syed A.I Nawaz Shah, Syed Imtiaz A.I Shah, Syed A.I Qutub Shah, Muhammad Yasin, Nazeer, Karim ,Bux, Gahi, Nazeer Ahmed, Mukhtar Ahmed, Muhammad Salim Fateh Khan Mari, Muhammad Anwer and Abdul Ghafoor have been released on their return of amounts alleged to have been received by them in excess under Section 25 of National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 and their return of amount is an admission, and they are deemed to have been convicted for the offence of corruption and corrupt practices and therefore they stand disqualified for a period of ten years from the date of this judgment for seeking or from being elected, chosen, appointed or nominated as member of representative of any public body or any statutory or local authority or in service of Pakistan or of any Province. They shall also be not allowed to apply or be granted any financial facility in the from of any loan or advances by any bank on financial institutions owned or controlled by the Government for a period of ten years from the date of this judgment."
It is admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he appeal No. 23/2002 filed by the petitioner whereby, he challenged his conviction stood dismissed by a Division. Bench of this Court vide orders dated 27th September, 2002., A copy of the said order has been placed on record by learned counsel for petitioner, during the course of his oral submissions.
5. Relevant provisions of the law to the case of the petitioner is as follows: "S. 99(1A)(h) of the Representation of People Act, 1976.
( 1 A) A person shall be disqualified from being elected as, and from being, a member of an Assembly, if".
(a) to (g) ........................................ (h) has been convicted by Court of competent jurisdiction on a charge of corrupt practice, moral turpitude or misuse of power or authority under any law for the time being in force; or"
6. Perusal of above provision of law makes it abundantly clear that a person who has been convicted by Court of law on the charge of corruption is disqualified to be elected to or chosen as a member of any assembly. It is evident from the foregoing paras that the petitioner is a convict and his conviction is deemed to be on the charge of corrupt practices. His appeal challenging the conviction stands dismissed. He is, therefore, disqualified to participate in the election. Both the lower forums have rendered concurrent findings of facts wherein no illegality is found. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the same. .