2011 C L C 1649
[Election T ribunal Balochistan]
Before Muhammad Noor Meskanzai, J
Sardar MUHAMMAD YAQOOB KHAN NASIR ----Petitioner
Versus
Sardar MUHAMMAD ISRAR TAREEN and 9 others ----Respondents
Election Petition No.8 of 2008, decided on 13th June, 2011.
(a) Represent ation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976) ---
----Ss. 50, 52 & 63 ---Election petition -Non-filing of return of election expenses ---Effect on
competency of election petition ---Counsel for returned candidate had urged that the election
petition by the petition er/unreturned candidate was incompetent for non filing of return of
election expenses and that non -submission of return of election expenses within a stipulated
period would constitute a valid ground for the dismissal of petition ---Validity ---Provision of
section 63 of Representation of the People Act, 1976, whereby election petition could be
dismissed, had left no room for doubt that S.50 of the Act, could not be pressed into service
for the dismissal of election petition ---Said provision could only be res orted to by the Chief
Election Commissioner and not by Election Tribunal ---Even if, a person was found to be
guilty of an illegal practice for his failure to submit the election expenses, the order of
disqualification could only be made by the Chief Electi on Commissioner and not by the
Election Tribunal, as the power under S.50 of Representation of the People Act, 1976 was
not exercisable by the Tribunal ---Petitioner, in circumstances, had not lost his locus standi to
file election petition on account of violating provisions of S.50 of Representation of the
People Act, 1976.
2008 SCMR 1 ref.
Meraj Khalid v. Ashiq Ali Dial 1993 MLD 1911 rel.
(b) Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976) ---
----Ss. 52, 54 & 55 ---Election petition ---Objection o n maintainability of petition ---Issue
involved. in the case was whether election petition was liable to be dismissed for non -
compliance of provisions of Ss.54 & 55 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 ---
Returned candidate raised objection on maint ainability of the petition for want of
compliance of Ss.54 & 55 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 ---Validity ---
Contention with regard to strict compliance of Ss.54 and 55(3) of the Representation of the
People Act, 1976, were of no avail ---Retu rned candidate filed application before Election
Tribunal seeking dismissal of petition on said ground ---Tribunal while allowing said
application dismissed the petition ---Order passed by Election Tribunal was set aside by the
Supreme Court ---No court, Trib unal or authority, could re -open a matter closed by the apex
court ---In view of the judgment of the apex court issue "whether the petition was liable to be
dismissed for non -compliance of provisions of Ss.54 & 55 of the Representation of the
People Act, 19 76", was resolved in the negative and petition was found to be maintainable; in
circumstances.
Iqbal Zafar Jhagra v. Khalilur Rehman 2000 SCMR 250 and S.M. Ayub v. Yousaf Shah PLD
1967 SC 486 rel.
(c) Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976) ---
----Ss. 33, 52, 68 & 69 ---Election petition ---Petitioner/unreturned candidate had levelled
allegations of commission of illegal and corrupt practices and massive rigging in process of
election in 23 Polling Stations ---To prove said allegations, petition er, besides himself had
produced ten prosecution witnesses and court witness ---Statements of said witnesses,
particularly those witnesses who conducted the election and performed their duties as Polling
Staff/Officials, had established the fact that illega l and corrupt practice was committed and
massive rigging was done in the Polling Stations ---Statement of court witness had fully
corroborated the statements of prosecution witnesses which showed that massive rigging was
committed and provisions of S.33 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 had been
violated ---Statements of Polling Staff, particularly the Presiding Officer and others had fully
established allegations levelled by the petitioner ---Rigging had taken place under a planned
and managed pro gramme for and the object was achieved through the process which was
carried out by Booth Capturing ---Allegations of illegal, corrupt and massive rigging in
process of election levelled by the petitioner, in circumstances, had fully been proved ---
Propositi on that the election petitions were treated to be quasi criminal proceedings, the
benefit of doubt had to be extended to the returned candidate, was not applicable in the case
as the returned candidate had not been able to create any doubt or dent in the c ase of the
petitioner justifying the dismissal of election petition on such ground ---Election in 23 Polling
Stations was established to have been conducted in utter disregard of provisions of S.33 of
the Representation of the People Act, 1976, which had ba dly affected the result ---Such
violation could not be lightly ignored ---Votes of said Polling Stations were declared invalid
and in the circumstances declaring the entire election void, would be unjustified ---Valid votes
polled in said 23 Polling Stations, even if counted in favour of returned candidate, he could
not be declared to have been legally elected as returned candidate ---Notification whereby
respondent was declared as returned candidate, was set aside and the petitioner was declared
returned candi date---Election Commission was directed to notify the petitioner as returned
candidate from the constituency in question.
2010 SCMR 1271; 2008 SCMR 1; 1986 CLC 1119; PLD 1966 E.C. 121 and 1998 CLC 2033
ref.
PLD 1996 Lah. 98; 1987 MLD 1372; 2003 YLR 3 039; 1986 CLC 2499; 1989 MLD 4882 and
1995 CLC 1426 distinguished.
Ehsanullah Reki v. Lt. General (R) Abdul Qadir Baloch and others 2010 SCMR 1272; Abdul
Hafeez Khan v. Muhammad Tahir Khan Loni and 13 others 1999 SCMR 284 and Mukhtar
Hussain Shah v. Wasi m Sajjad PLD 1986 SC 178 rel.
(d) Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976) ---
----S. 52---Election petition ---Allegation was that ballot papers in two Polling Stations were
issued more than the total registered votes and cast ---Burden to prove the allegation was on
the petitioner, who produced 10 witnesses besides recording his own statement and of court
witness ---No material was found in said statements to prove the fact that more ballot papers
than the actual registered votes were issued ---Petitioner, in circumstances had failed to prove
the allegation, which was resolved in the negative.
(e) Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976) ---
---S. 52---Election petition --Allegation was that fake votes were stuffed in a Polling Station
by putting forged thumb -impressions and fictitious number of Identity Cards ---Petitioner had
levelled the allegation of massive rigging and corrupt and illegal practice with regard to 23
Polling Stations, but Polling Station in question did not find mention in the list of the 23
Polling Stations ---Returned candidate in the Polling Station in question had obtained 36
votes, whereas the majority of votes were obtained by the petitioner ---Number of rejected
votes were more than the votes obtained by any of the candidates --Petitioner, in
circumstances, had not been able to prove the allegation, which was decided against him.
(f) Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976) ---
----S. 33---Voting procedure ---Object behind provisions of S.33 of Representat ion of the
People Act, 1976 was to ensure fair, free and transparency of election ---Violation of said
provision, would lead to contrary view; and departure therefrom would tantamount to
make the law ineffective; and would pave a way for bogus votes.
Dr. Hamid Khan Achakzai v. Vehram Khan Achakzai 2000 MLD 1832 rel.
Muhammad Riaz Ahmed, Ayaz Swati and Syed Ikhlaq Shah for Petitioner.
Ch. Ali Muhammad, Baz Muhammad Kakar and Iqbal Tareen for Respondents.
Dates of hearing: 10th, 11th, 17th, 18th and 20th May, 2011.
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD NOOR MESKANZAI, J .--- Through this judgment, I propose to dispose
of the Election Petition No.8 of 2008 filed by Sardar Yaqoob Khan Nasar, the petitioner,
assailing the Notification No.F.2(4)/2008 -Cord 'dated 1st Ma rch, 2008 declaring respondent
No.1 Sardar Muhammad Israr Tareen as returned candidate from NA -263, Loralai -Cum -
Nusakhail -Cum, Barkhan.
2. Facts relevant for the disposal of instant petition, are that the petitioner and respondents
Nos.l to 10 contested election from NA -263, Loralai -Cum -Musakhail -Cum, Barkhan held
on 18th February, 2008. In the said election the respondent No.1 secured/obtained 52818
votes, whereas the petitioner got 34985 votes, as such respondent No.1 was declared as
returned candidate from the constituency by a margin of 17833 votes vide Notification
No.F.2 (4)/2008 -Cord dated 1st March, 2003. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of the result
filed an application before Election Commission of Pakistan, which was entertained and
ultimately petitioner was directed to approach the Election Tribunal, constituted for the
purpose of disposal of election petition of the concerned constituency of Balochistan.
3. Against the order of Election Commission of Pakistan, the petitioner approached the
High Court of Balochistan, by way of filing C.P. No.61 of 2008. The same too was
dismissed on the ground that Election Tribunal has been constituted, as such the petitioner
should approach to the proper forum. Hence this petition.
4. It is the grievance o f the petitioner that out of 280 polling stations, detail whereof is
given in Form -XVI, in 23 polling stations the respondent No.1 in -league and connivance of
Returning Officer and polling staff committed illegal and corrupt practices. There was a
massive rigging owing to misuse of authority, transgressing of powers, exercise of arbitrary
actions with mala fide intentions. It is further alleged that as the respondent No.1 was
contesting the election on the ticket of Pakistan Muslim League (Q) "KING PARTY"
threatened the Presiding Officers of the polling stations and taken away the ballot boxes
and other relevant articles including ballot papers, Counterfoils, under the threats of dire
consequences and thereafter with the help and assistance of the security f orces by way of
massive rigging put ballot papers, filled counterfoils by the persons other than the voters
and filled ballot boxes with ballot papers and procured the election result in his favour. It is
also the case of petitioner that respondent No.1 fo rcibly took away election material and the
polling staff were restrained to act in accordance with law. The petitioner made oral
complaint and intimation to the Returning Officer and District Returning Officer followed
by written complaint to both the abov e officers. A meeting was also held with Commandant
Loralai Scouts, who was apprised of the massive rigging, but as all the Polling Official
Staff, i.e. Returning Officer and District. Returning Officer and personnel of Security
Forces were in -league with the respondent No.1 and were bent upon to get the respondent
No.1 successful at all cost. Therefore, the efforts made by the petitioner borne no fruit. The
petitioner alleged massive rigging in following 23 Polling Stations: -
S.
No. Name and No. of Polling Station Votes cast in
favour of
respondent
No.1 Votes cast
in favour of
petitioner Rejected
1. Polling Station No.54 Manzai 990 115 -
2. Polling Station No.49 Wahooi 36 263 284
3. Polling Station No.59 Nizam Machali 439 31
4. Polling Station No.4 8 Banhar 484 16
5. Polling Station No.22 Primary School Mohla
Moin Shah 1981 1 11
6. Polling Station No.20 Primary School Killi
Raz Muhammad Tareen 1762 0 0
7. Polling Station No.21 Primary School Murad
Khan Zarkoon 1186 0 0
8. Polling Station No. 17 Primary School Thathi
Killi 2368 3 0
9. Polling Station No.23 Primary School Mohla
Ismail Tareen 2583 0 0
10. Polling Station No.15 Girls Middle School
Duki 1963 8 0
'11. Polling Station No.7 Primary School Killa
Jan Muhammad Duki 0 0 0
12. Pollin g Station No.19 Primary School
Akhtar Muhammad Tareen 1920 0 0
13. Polling Station No.16 Girls Primary School
Duki 2090 0 0
14. Polling Station No.25 Primary School
Jangle Duki 136 '152 0
15. Polling Station No.13 Primary School
Wakam Rabat Salam Baloch 1510 16 50
16. Polling Station No.14 Primary School
Wakamr Babat 1246 3 50
17. Polling Station No.37 Middle School Habib
Killa 293 86 50
18. Polling Station No.27 Middle School Killi
Karim Khan 1714 15 0
19. Polling Station No.29 Neechal Subandi
Killi Habibullah Karim Khan 1852 0 27
20.. Polling Station No.30 Primary School
Madrassa Killi Karim Khan 1629 0 0
21. Polling Station No.18 Zachao Bacha Centre
Killi Akbar Khan 2395 0 5
22. Polling Station No.28 Girls Primary School
Karim Dad Duki 0 0 0
23. Polling Station No.31 Primary School Essa
Khan Duki 2236 0 0
Along with petition, the petitioner filed affidavits of 38 witnesses.
5. The petition was contested by respondents Nos. 1 and 6 by way of filing separate
written statements, wherein besid es raising certain legal objections qua maintainability of
petition, the petition was resisted on factual grounds. It was contended that allegations of
mala fide are aimed at conventional mud -slinging by a defeated candidate. The elections
were fair, trans parent and held peacefully. The election staff after due checking of I.D.
Cards issued ballot papers to the voters. However, an allegation of Booth capturing was
levelled against the petitioner. For the sake of convenience, the Para No.11 of written
statem ent filed by respondent No.1 is reproduced hereinbelow: ---
"This para is utterly false and hence denied. The allegations are mala fide and aimed at
conventional mud -slinging by a defeated candidate. The election was held quite peacefully.
The allegations are nothing but a concoction. Besides, they are vague. The entire story is an
afterthought. No such complaint was filed before or received; by the Returning Officer as
confirmed order dated 26 -2-2008 passed by the learned Commission. Following table
would , on the other hand demonstrate how the petitioner himself polled bogus votes by
booth capturing: -
S.
No. Name and number of polling station Votes polled by
The answering
Respondent Votes polled by
the petitioner
1. P/S Killi Karim Dad 12 4 1273
2. P/S Faqir Muhammad 24 - 1939
3. P/S Zabto 26 - 908
4. P/S Abdul Majeed 32 - 1148
5. Girls M/S Nasir Abad 35 - 2390
6. Girls P/S Nasir Abad 36 - 2184
7. P/S Jilal Chinna 38 8 2251
8. P/S Safdar Nasir 39 - 977
9. Civil Dispensary Zinda 62 7 384
10. Arba Seen 143 1 245
As regards the remaining respondents i.e. respondents Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 did
not appear, as such were proceeded against ex parte.
6. On filing of the written statement by the respondents No.1 and 6, on 19th December,
2008 , the following issues were framed: ---
(1) Whether petitioner has lost locus standi to file el ection petition on account of violating
provisions of section 50 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
(2) Whether the petition is liable to be dism issed for non -compliance of provisions of sections
54 and 55 of the Act, 1976?
(3) Whether respondent No.1 with connivance of polling staff committed illegal,
corrupt and massive rigging in the process of election and procured result in his
favour?
(4) Whether in polling stations Killi Tatti Zucha Bucha Centre Akbar Khan and Killi
Jan Muhammad ballot papers were issued more than total registered votes and
cast?
(5) Whether fake votes were stuffed in polling station Wavy by putting forged thumb -
impress ion and fictitious number of I.D Card?
(6) Whether respondent No.1 casts bogus votes with the connivance of polling staff
and security personnel?
(7) Relief ?
7. After framing of the above issues, petitioner, in order to substantiate the allegations
produced following ten P. Ws.: --
P.W.1 Abdul Salam, Manager Technical, NADRA deposed that they were
provided a list of 25385 Manual 1.D Cards and computerized Cards by P.A. to
Sardar Yaqoob Khan Nasar (petitioner) for verification. The said list was sent to
NADRA Headquarter, Islamabad. They received result showing verification of
1115 MNIC and CNIC, whereas 24270 MNIC and CNIC could not be verified
from NADRA base. He produced verification report along with his letter as
Exh.P/1 -A and record as Art:/1 co ntaining 176 pages and Art:/2 containing 168
pages.
In cross -examination he denied the suggestion that he has produced the list,
wherein number and names of voters have been mentioned. He further deposed
that MINC and CNIC were given to them for verifica tion of genuineness of the
same. He also denied that he has filed false verification report at the instance of
Muhammad Akram and petitioner.
P.W.2 Kamal -ud-Din, Assistant Presiding Officer, Wakam Rabat, Polling Station
Tehsil, Duki produced the affidavi ts as Exh.P/2 -A. He deposed that the same was
got attested from Ayaz Mandokhail, Notary Public. He owned the contents of the
affidavit Exh.P/2 -A.
In cross -examination he denied to have made a false statement.
P.W.3 Allah Noor, Presiding Officer, Pollin g Station No.30, Primary School.
Madrassa Killi Karim Khan produced his affidavit, which bears his signature. He
owned the contents of affidavit. In cross -examination, he admitted hat he and
petitioner belong to same tribe. He denied the suggestion that he has wrongly
stated in Exh.P/3A on account of friendship.
P.W.4 Muhammad Anwar, Assistant Presiding Officer, Polling Station Mohalla
Moeen Shah, produced his affidavit as Exh.P/4 -A and certified that the same was
executed under his instructions and attes ted by Mr. Ayaz Mandokhail, Advocate.
Besides owning the contents of affidavit, he identified. his signature thereon.
In cross -examination, he stated that the contents of affidavits were narrated by him
to the Oath Commissioner/Notary Public. He stated t hat he cannot tell the names
of the persons for whom forged ballot papers were prepared, stamped and polled.
He admitted that he had not filed any application before the Presiding Officer or
Retuning Officer with regard to the incident stated in his affida vit. He denied to
have made a false statement.
P.W.5 Muhammad Karim Assistant Presiding Officer, Polling Station Killi Essa
Khan, Tehsil Dukki produced his affidavit as Exh.P/5 -A duly signed by Oath
Commissioner. He identified his signature thereon. He a ffirmed the contents
thereof.
In cross -examination he admitted that his CNIC bearing No.56301 -1076541 -7 was
issued to him by NADRA. He admitted that signature on his Service Card is in
English. Voluntarily stated that he used to sign both in English and Urdu. He
denied that the signatures on said affidavit are of some one else. He deposed that
he had given in writing to the Returning Officer and also informed the Returning
Officer about snatching the ballot papers. He did not mention names of person
who s natched the ballot papers. He stated that he had not resisted when the
persons were snatching the ballot papers. He denied to have made a false
statement.
P.W.6 Habib Ullah, Polling Officer, Girls Middle School, Killi Duki J.V. Teacher,
Killi Noor Muhamm ad, Killi Karim Dad, Tehsil Duki produced his affidavit duly
signed by Oath Commissioner as Exh.P/6 -A. He affirmed thy' contents of
affidavit.
In cross -examination he stated that total votes of the Polling Station were 2090.
He showed ignorance about n umber of polled votes. He denied that 13/14 '
Ghundas' did not come but only the representative of Muslim League (Q) came
there. He stated that persons/Ghundas had beaten them. He did not get himself
medically examined. He gave the names of said Ghundas to Asad Khan Presiding
Officer of the Polling Station. Voluntarily stated that he was man of Israr Tareen
(Respondent No.1). He admitted that he gave the names of the said persons and
also stated in his application that those persons belonged to Israr Tareen . He stated
that he had not mentioned the name of those persons who were putting the
marks/stamps on ballot papers. As nobody was ready to listen them, therefore, he
did not make a complaint in writing. He further stated that he had not made
complaint befo re the Provincial Election Commissioner or District Returning
Officer/Sessions Judge, Loralai or Returning Officer. He denied that he gave the
affidavit at the instance of Sardar Muhammad Yaqoob Khan (Petitioner). He also
denied that for this purpose Sarda r Muhammad Yaqoob has paid the expenses of
his affidavit. He denied to have made a false statement.
P.W.7 Raz Muhammad, petitioner's Polling Agent, Polling Station, Killi Thatti,
Killi Duki, produced his affidavit duly signed by him as Exh.P/7 -A. He affi rmed
the contents of the affidavit which were attested by Mr. Ayaz Mandokhail, Notary
Public.
In cross -examination he stated that the Police as well as Frontier Corps personnel
were present at the spot, therefore, he did not get registered any F.I.R. aga inst the
persons mentioned by him in the Affidavit. He admitted that he had not submitted
any written complaint against those persons. He admitted that he had not examined
himself by the medical officer. He showed his torn clothes to the police officials
and F.C. personnel. He admitted that he had not produced his torn clothes to the
police officials. He admitted that he is relative of Sardar Yaqoob Khan Nasar,
(petitioner). He denied to have made a false statement at the instance of petitioner.
P.W.8 Sam andar Khan, Assistant Presiding Officer, Killi Essa Khan produced his
affidavit duly signed by him as Exh.P/8 -A. He affirmed the contents thereof which
were attested by Mr. Ayaz Mandokhail, Notary Public.
In cross -examination he admitted that he is a gra duate. He admitted that he had not
named the persons belonging to Muslim League (Q) who entered into the polling
station. He admitted that he had not registered any case against those persons. He
admitted that he had not sent any application/complaint to t he
Election Commission of Pakistan. The Affidavit was written on 23rd. The
Elections were held on 18th; and he went to the Notary Public on 23rd. He denied
that the Assistant Presiding Officer is subordinate and part of election staff,
headed by the Chie f Election Commissioner of Pakistan. He admitted that he had
not registered any F.I.R. about this incident. He admitted that he had not submitted
any application to the Returning Officer. He denied to have made a false statement
before this Tribunal at the instance of Sardar Yaqoob Khan Nasar, petitioner.
P.W.9 Muhammad Umar, Polling Agent, Polling Station Killi Akbar Khan Tareen,
Duki produced his affidavit duly signed by him as Exh.P.9 -A. He affirmed the
contents of the same which were attested by Mr. A yaz Mandokhail, Notary Public.
In cross -examination he stated that he is a graduate. He was the only polling agent
of Sardar Muhammad Yaqoob Khan Nasar. He, admitted that that he had no
knowledge about the conduct of those persons who entered in the poll ing booth.
He admitted that they themselves told that they belong to Muslim League (Q). He
does not know them personally. He admitted that he had not submitted any
application against the said persons to the Returning Officer. The personnel
deployed at the polling station belonged to Police s well as Frontier Corps. He
admitted that he had not made any written complaint to F.C. authorities at the
relevant time. He stated that he went to the police station for lodging the F.I.R.
against those persons, who fo rcibly entered in the polling station, but no case was
registered by the police. He admitted that he had not submitted any application
before the higher police authorities. He denied to have made a false statement
before this Tribunal at the instance of Sa rdar Yaqoob Khan Nasar, petitioner.
P.W.10 Muhammad Anwar, Polling Agent, Killi Akhtar Muhammad, produced his
affidavit duly signed by him as Exh.P/10 -A. He affirmed the contents of the
affidavit which were attested by Mr. Ayaz Mandokhail, Notary Public.
In cross -examination he stated that he is a matriculate. The name of Presiding
Officer was Shah Jehan, who had threatened him to keep silent. He stated that he
had not submitted by application to the Returning Officer or the higher authorities
but made an oral complaint to the F.C. authorities. He stated that he does not know
those persons, who entered in the polling station. Since those persons belonged to
the Killi of returned candidate, therefore, he presumed that they are members of
Muslim League (Q) . He stated that he was abused by the Presiding Officer
namely Shah Jehan. He stated that he does not know that Presiding Officer was a
teacher or an officer/official of any other Department. He admitted that he did
not get himself examined medically, as h e was simply slept by those persons. He
denied that neither he was present at the polling station; nor any incident took
place and he was not beaten by the said persons. He denied to have made a false
statement before this Tribunal at the instance of Sarda r Yaqoob Khan Nasar.
8. As per the order of this Tribunal, recounting of votes pertaining to 23 Polling
Stations was carried out by the Provincial Election Commissioner. So the statement of
Provincial Election Commissioner was recorded and the report was produced as
Exh.C/1.
9. C.W.1 deposed that he was appointed Commission for recounting the votes by the
orders of this Tribunal vide order dated 6 -4-2011. Pursuant to notice, the parties
appeared and in their presence, the process of recounting was condu cted. The learned
counsel for respondent No.1 after attending one hearing did not propose to appear. As
per instructions of this Tribunal, after notifying the date to the parties he continued the
process and completed the same. After completing the process of recounting, he
compiled the report and kept the entire recounted material in a bag, which was sealed.
He saw the "sealed bag, which is the same and intact. He signed all the relevant
documents, which he produced as Exh.C/1 -A (In the paper -book, the sam e are marked
as G -2, G-1, G-5, 7-C, 13 -B, G -6, G-9, G-15, G -13, G -12, G -14, G -16, G -19, G -18, G -
22, G -23, G -24, G -7-B, 7-A), Exh.C -1/B (In the paper -book, the same are marked as 7 -
J, 7-F, 7-K, 7 -L, 7-M, 7 -N, 7 -0, 13 -A, 13 -D), Exh.C -1/C (In the paper -book, the same
are marked as 14 -B, 14 -A, 15 -A), Exh.C -1/D (In the paper -book, the same are marked
as 15 -A, 15 -B, 15 -C), Exh.C -1/E (In the paper -book, the same are marked as 15-D,16 -B,
16A,), .Exh.C -1/F (In the paper -book, the same are marked as 16 -C, 16 -E, 16 -F, 16-G,
17-A, 17 -B, 17 -C), Exh. C -1 /G (In the paper -book, the same are marked as 18 -B, 18 -A,
18-C, 18 -D), Exh.C -1/H (In the. paper -book, the same are marked as 18 -E, 18 -F, 19A),
Exh.C -1/I (In the paper -book, the same are marked as 19 -B, 19 -C,20 -A), Exh.C -1/J (In
the paper -book, the same are marked as 2 -D, 20 -G, 20 -F, 20 -H, 20 -I, 21 -A), Exh.C -1/K
(In the paper -book, the same are marked as 21 -C, 21 -D, 21 -E, 21 -F, 21 -G, .21 -H, 21 -I)
Exh.C -1/L (In the paper -book, the same are marked as 22-A, 22 -B, 22 -C), Exh.C -1/M
(In the paper -book, the same are marked as 25 -A), Exh.C -1/N (In the paper -book, the
same are marked as 25 -C, 25 -D, 25 -E, 27 -B, 27A, 27 -C), Exh.C -1/0 (In the paper -book,
the same are marked as 28 -A), Exh.C -1/P (In the paper -book, the same are marked as
28-B, 28 -C, 28 -D, 28 -E, 29 -A, 29 -B), Exh.C -1/Q (In the paper -book, the same contains
page pertaining to certificate dated 14th January, 2011), Exh. C -1/R (In the paper -book,
the same are marked as 30 -A, 30 -B, 30 -C, 30 -D, 31 -A), Exh.C -1/S (In the paper -book ,
the same are marked as 31 -B, 37 -A, 37 -B, 37 -C), Exh.C -1/T (In the paper -book, the
same are marked as 48 -A, 48 -C), Exh.C -1/U (In paper -book, the same are marked as 48 -
B, 49 -A), Exh.C -1/V (In the paper -book, the same are marked as 49 -B, 49 -C), Exh.C -
1/W (I n the paper -book, the same are marked as 54 -A, 54 -B, 59 -A) and Exh.C -1/X (In
the paper -book, the same are marked as 59 -B, 59 -C). He has annexed
synopsis/commentary, which starts from pages 1 to 109 and thereafter start annexures,
which come to Annexure -59-A to 59 -C. The conclusions drawn by him are available at
the last two pages, which contain his signatures. While drawing conclusions, he
mentioned at Serial No.1 the consolidated statement of result of General Election, 2007 -
2008 and recounting of NA -263 L oralai -cum-Musakhail -cum-Barkhan. Whereas Sheet
No.2 is the consolidated statement of result of recounting of Polling Stations Nos. 7, 13,
14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 37, 48, 49, 54S and 59
(Total Polling Stations 23). T he details are as under:
(i) Number of counterfoils 26100.
(ii) Number of counterfoils filled incompletely 4328.
(iii) Number of counterfoils found completely blank 6603 in violation of Clause
'E' of subsection (2) of section 33 of Representation of the People Act, 1976.
(iv) Number of counterfoils filled -in partially 13752 in violation of Clause 'E' of
subsection (2) of section 33 of Representation of the People Act, 1976.
(iv) (a) Number of counterfoils with stamp and signature of Presiding Offi cer 3191.
(v) Number of counterfoils without stamp and signature of Presiding Officer
22224 in violation of Clause 'E' of subsection (2) of section 33 of
Representation of the People Act, 1976.
(vi) Number of counterfoils without Serial number of voter s 7856 in violation of
Clause 'E' of subsection (2) of se c t i o n 33 of Representation of the People
Act, 1976.
(vii) Number of counterfoils without CNIC/MNIC 8115 in violation of Clause 'E'
of subsection (2) of section 33 of Representative of Peoples Act, 1976.
(viii) Number of counterfoils found missing in the books 685.
The valid votes cast in total 23 Polling Stations were 32715, out of which 3260 were
declared to be rejected. However, the total number of votes cast are 35975.
The details of votes of petitioner and respondent No.1 in Polling Stations Nos. 7, 13 to
23, 25, 27 to 31, 37, 48, 49, 54 and 59 are as under: ---
Polling Station
No. Number of
votes of
petitioner
(Sardar
Muhammad
Yaqoob Nasir) Number of
votes Of
respondent No.1
(Sardar
Muha mmad
Israr Tareen) To be rejected Total votes
7 101 924 4 1031
13 14 1742 24 1766
14 Nil 1080 64 1145
15 1 1940 19 1960
16 Nil 2127 28 2155
17 3 2162 225 2394
18 Nil 2279 114 2393
19 Nil 1919 9 1928
20 Nil 1640 112 1752
21 Nil 1180 4 1185
22 1 1678 .309 1995
23 Nil 2585 11 2595
25 141 133 30 400
27 16 1703 12 2304
28 Nil 1288 5 2283
29 Nil Nil Nil Nil
30 4 1568 4 1982
31 Nil Nil Nil Nil
37 83 238 62 415
48 16 Nil 1 179This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.