In the context of Article 62 (1) (d) (h) and 199 National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999), section 9 (a) constitutional petition, false affidavit on false allegations of good character evidence and allegations of corruption Respondents filed a false affidavit. Time to nominate for election to the Senate seat, to suppress the fact that the accountability court found him guilty of corruption and corruption and sentenced, for theft and theft of the respondent from corruption and public treasury. Was convicted of a charge he admitted. Therefore, a good character cannot be classified or generally not known as an individual who violates Islamic purposes and does not own the bar contained in Article 62 (1) (d) of the Constitution. It finds that the provisions of Article 62 (1) (d) were not related to the disqualification in the Constitution, but that the respondents confessed inadvertently about the declaration and the certificate and on its oath Such false declaration was not valid in Islam and the respondents would violate Article 62 (1) (d) of the Constitution for corruption, misappropriation and misappropriation of public money and deliberately. The two convictions of making a false declaration on oath cannot be regarded as good or one that is not commonly known as a violation of Islamic purposes in accordance with Article 62 (1) (d) of the Constitution. Yes, the respondent is not eligible to be elected, elected or elected as a Member of Parliament High Court. And instructed the defendant to pay for all the payments and privileges he received while working as a senator, or to spend on himself.
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2012
