Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 1850 2018 SLD 1850 2018 SCMR 1432
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Review Petition No. 420 of 2013 in Civil Appeal No. 669-L of 2013, decision & hearing Dated: 09-06-2018. (To review the judgment Dated 28.10.2013 passed by the Court in Civil Appeal No. 669-L of 2013)
GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE
Mubeen Uddin Qazi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Hamid Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents. Asim Mansoor, DAG for the Federation.

MST. SUMAIRA MALIK

VS

MALIK UMAR ASLAM AWAN AND OTHERS

Law:

Section:

(a) Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976)--- ----S. 52---Election petition---Standard of proof---In election matters the standard of proof was much higher than the civil standard (balance of probabilities) though short of the criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt)---Any evidence tendered in an election matter must be considered and "appreciated" by adhering to such standard, and not otherwise. Muhammad Siddique Baloch v. Jehangir Khan Tareen and others PLD 2016 SC 97 ref. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 84---Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976), S. 78(3)(d)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 188---Review of Supreme Court ---Election petition---Visual examination/comparison by the Court itself of photographs and the signatures---Legality and the respondent were candidates in the contest for a seat for National Assembly in the General Election of 2008 was the candidate returned by the constituency---Respondent challenged petitioner's election by means of an election petition alleging that the petitioner did not have a graduate degree, which was at that time a mandatory requirement for all candidates, and that degree presented by the petitioner along with her nomination papers was fake as she had obtained it by impersonation, i.e., that some person other than the petitioner had sat for the examination---By means of the under review the Supreme Court held that the degree was indeed obtained by impersonation---Supreme Court itself examined and compared the two photographs that formed part of the University's record with the petitioner's photographs on her Computerized National Identity Card---On such visual comparison, the Court concluded that the photographs in the University record were different from those on the CNIC and the election poster; secondly, the Supreme Court itself examined and compared the signatures appearing in the University record with the petitioner's signature on her identity card as well as with a sample of the petitioner's handwriting---Again on a visual comparison, the Court concluded that they were discrepant---Resultantly the petitioner's election was set aside and it was also declared that she was…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492