Citation Name: 2024 PLD 502 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case IMRAN AHMED KHAN NIAZI vs The RETURNING

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2024 PLD 502 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case IMRAN AHMED KHAN NIAZI VS The RETURNING OFFICER FOR NA-122, LAHORE-VI S.63---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 426---Election dispute---Nomination papers, rejection of---Conviction and sentence---Scope---Suspension of sentence---Effect---Appellant/candidate was convicted and sentenced by Court of competent jurisdiction for commission of a criminal offence---Appellate Court suspended sentence of appellant/candidate but his conviction was intact---Returning Officer rejected nomination papers of appellant/candidate as he had been convicted for commission of a criminal offence---Validity---There was no order of any court of competent jurisdiction regarding suspension of appellant/candidate's conviction---Suspension of sentence under S. 426, Cr.P.C. and suspension of conviction were poles apart---Conviction attained finality upon determination of guilt by Court of competent jurisdiction---During pendency of appeal, the Appellate Court, pursuant to S. 426, Cr.P.C., suspended execution of appellant/ candidate's sentence---Suspension pertained solely to the sentence and not the conviction, which remained operative until set aside by higher Appellate Courts---Mere pendency of appeal did not automatically nullify conviction---Appellate Court under S. 426, Cr.P.C., was not empowered to suspend conviction rather, it was a discretionary measure extended to accused---Suspension of sentence did not imply expungement of underlying conviction---Suspension of sentence imposed on appellant/candidatedid not affect the completed conviction, which had arisen upon determination of guilt by a Court of competent jurisdiction and that conviction held the field---Election Appellate Tribunal declined to interfere in the order passed by Returning Officer as the same was speaking, well-reasoned and neither illegal nor without lawful authority---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 502 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case IMRAN AHMED KHAN NIAZI VS The RETURNING OFFICER FOR NA-122, LAHORE-VI S. 63(1)(h)---Word "moral turpitude"---Defined---Action can be considered "moral turpitude" if it violates a person's moral fiber, diminishes his moral standards, or involves an act of inherent baseness in fulfilling one's private, social, or public obligations to one's fellow citizens, society, country, institutions and government.

Citation Name: 2024 PLD 502 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case IMRAN AHMED KHAN NIAZI vs The RETURNING OFFICER FOR NA-122, LAHORE-VI S — 2024 PLD 502 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLD