MUHAMMAD MOAVIA Versus RETURNING OFFICER NA-109, JHANG-II
ORDER
ASJAD JAVAID GHURAL, J.--- Through this appeal under Section 63 of the Election Act, 2017, appellant Muhammad Moavia has called in question validity of order dated 30.12.2023 passed by the Returning Officer NA-109, Jhang-II whereby his nomination papers were rejected on the basis of concealment of facts.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Returning Officer committed material illegality and irregularity while rejecting the nomination papers of the appellant; that registration of criminal cases bearing FIR No. 302/14 was not in his knowledge, however, on coming to know about this case, appellant has availed pre-arrest bail which is effective; that the amount mentioned in the Tax Returns for the year 2023 has been utilized prior to submission of the nomination form; that the explanation so offered by the appellant was sufficient to accept his nomination papers.
3. On the converse, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that appellant's name has been listed in 4th Schedule of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 vide order dated 26.12.2023; that CNIC and account of such a person has been blocked under the law; that active account is mandatory requirement for a candidate, which could not be fulfilled by the appellant; that the appellant was proclaimed offender in two criminal cases but he intentionally avoided to disclose the same in the nomination papers; that availing of anticipatory bail in one of said cases after objections of the respondent does not bring the appellant out of the definition of proclaimed offender.
4. Heard. It is a matter of record that appellant's name had been included in the list of 4th Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 by the Government of the Punjab, Home Department firstly, in the year 2018, secondly 2021 which was excluded on 24.07.2023, however, keeping in view appellant's activities his name has again been included in the said list vide order dated 26.12.2023. According to the said order money or anyother property owned or controlled wholly or partly, directly or indirectly shall stand frozen. According to Section 60(2)(b) of the Elections Act, 2017, opening of a dedicated account for the purpose of election expenses is essential for every candidate. Since, during the existence of aforesaid order, appellant's account remained frozen and he is unable to utilize the same for the purpose of election expenses, therefore, this fact alone is sufficient to preclude him from contesing the forthcoming elections.
5. Moreover, admittedly, the appellant is proclaimed offender in case FIR No.302/14 since 29.09.2015 and challan against him under section 512, Cr.P.C. was submitted in the Trial Court on 15.12.2015 but this case was not disclosed by him in his affidavit. Although the appellant claimed ignorance of registration of any such case against him and also secured pre-arrest bail in the aforesaid case but the explanation qua non-awareness of said case does not appeal to reasons. Appellant was declared proclaimed offender after adopting proper procedure of law, as such he cannot claim that he was not aware of said case. Further, he is fugitive from law in the aforesaid criminal case for the last more than eight years, therefore, securing him pre-arrest bail in the said case, after objections of the objectors does not change his status of proclaimed offender. Reliance is placed on case reported as "Hussain Bux and another v. District and Sessions Judge/District Returning Officer and Appellate Authority, Sanghar and others (2002 CLC 281)" wherein it has been laid down as under;-
"The proclamation was issued under section 87, Cr.P.C. by the Trial Court which was followed by the order of the attachment of property under section 88, Cr.P.C. However, after the nomination forms were rejected on this ground, the petitioner approached this Court and obtained protective bail. The conduct and behavior that the petitioner No.1 demonstrates that petitioner No.1 has thwarted the process of the Court and is fugitive from law. Merely because the petitioner No.1 had sought protective bail, therefore it cannot be said that the absconsion order and proclamation orders have been undone by the grant of protective bail which was granted for a limited period."
6. Furthermore, Police Officer, in attendance, further disclosed that the appellant is also proclaimed offender in case FIR No.222/11 dated 08.04.2011 for the last many years and in this case admittedly the appellant has not surrendered before the Court of law. Appellant has also concealed this case in his affidavit which amounts to concealment of facts, rendering the appellant ineligible to contest the elections. Reliance is placed on case reported as "Muzafar Abbas v. Maulana Muhammad Ahmad Ludhianvi and 31 others (PLD 2017 Lahore 394)".
7. Impugned order of the Returning Officer being within the four corners of law needs no intervention in appeal and the same stands dismissed.
UN/M-188/L Appeal dismissed.