Case Details

Citation(s)
2023 SLG 2209 2023 SLD 2209 2023 YLR 2241
Sindh High Court, Hyderabad Bench
Election Petition No.S-12 of 2018, decided on 12th March,2022. Date of hearing: 12th February, 2022.
Before Amjad Ali Sahito, J
Noorul Haq Qureshi and Saad Salman Ghani for Petitioner. Fazal Qadir Memon, Assistant Attorney General for Pakistan along with Zaheer Abbas (Law Officer ECP) for
Respondent No.1. Ex: parte
Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 and 7 to 14. Ali Almani for
Respondents No

ALI NAWAZ SHAH through duly authorized attorney---Petitioner

VERSUS

ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary and 14 others---Respondents

Law: Elections Act, 2017

Section: 174,183,139

(a) Elections Act (XXXIII of 2017)--- ----S. 174---Corrupt practice---Proof---Charge of corrupt practice cannot be proved on mere suspicion or doubt without giving date and time of a specific place/polling station. (b) Elections Act (XXXIII of 2017)--- ----Ss. 174 & 183---Corrupt and illegal practice--- Presumption--- Scope---Presumption of innocence is available to the person charged---Charge is to be proved to standard of proof as in a criminal trial. (c) Elections Act (XXXIII of 2017)--- ----Ss. 139, 174 & 183---Election Rules, 2017, R.142---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 117 & 120---Corrupt and illegal practice---Proof---Onus to prove---Principle--- Material facts---Petitioner contested election for Provincial Assembly but remained unsuccessful---Petitioner assailed election of respondent/ returned candidate on the plea of use of corrupt and illegal practices by the latter---Validity---Onus of proof was not discharged merely on preponderance of probabilities but standard of proof was required to be proved like a criminal or quasi-criminal charge, for which credible and reliable evidence was required to prove the charge beyond any reasonable doubt---Burden to prove illegal and corrupt practices was heavily upon petitioner and allegations were to be proved with such standard as was required for proving charge in criminal trial---In case of doubt arising out of material placed before Election Tribunal, its benefit was to go to the returned candidate---Election results were not to be set aside lightly---Will of electorates should ordinarily be respected---Setting aside an election result was a serious matter and should not be done lightly---Transparency of elections was the core of democratic system---Material facts were to include complete chain of material event and basis in support of allegations---Material facts meant a complete bundle of facts which were sufficient for giving cause of action and must be specifically averted as to how the result of petitioner was materially affected---There should not be any vagueness in allegation and in case the petitioner does not comply with such requirement, there will be lack of material facts and particulars…
🔒
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