IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE EJAZ AFZAL KHAN 
MR. JUSTICE SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD 
MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB 
 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1033 OF 2014 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 20.06.2014 
passed by the Election Tribunal-II, Quetta in 
Election Petition No. 28/2013) 
 
Muhammad Arif Muhammad Hassani 
… Appellant 
VERSUS 
 
Amanullah and others 
… Respondents 
 
For the Appellant: 
Mr. Kamran Murtaza, ASC 
 
Mr. Qahir Shah, AOR 
 
For the Respondent (1): Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Abdul Sattar, ASC 
 
Date of Hearing:  
06.04.2016 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
FAISAL ARAB, J.- In the General Elections that were held on 
11.5.2013, the appellant and respondent No. 1 were the main 
contesting candidates from Balochistan Provincial Assembly seat 
PB-39 Chagai-I. For 66842 registered voters of this constituency, 
the Election Commission setup 73 polling stations. In all 35197 
valid votes were polled. The turnout was 55%. The appellant 
bagged 12289 votes and the respondent No. 1 bagged 13376 votes. 
The rest went to other candidates. Leading with a margin of 1087 
votes, the respondent No. 1 was declared returned candidate. The 
appellant was not satisfied with the result. He alleged rigging on 
Civil Appeal No. 1033/2014 
2 
the part of respondent No. 1 and filed an election petition before 
the Election Tribunal, Quetta. The challenge was mainly based on 
the grounds that (i) the respondent No. 1 employed corrupt and 
illegal practices in 25 polling stations and did not allow his polling 
agents to enter their respective polling stations; (ii) the Returning 
Officer had changed locations of certain polling stations without 
seeking prior permission from the Election Commission and 
without notice to the contesting candidates due to which voters of 
such polling stations could not cast their votes; and (iii) the 
Returning Officer, in connivance with respondent No. 1 made 
changes in the polling staff after appointment of the Presiding 
Officer and other polling staff without intimation to the Election 
Commission.  
 
2. 
 
During the pendency of the election petition, the 
appellant filed an application before the Election Tribunal seeking 
verification of thumb impressions on the counterfoils of the votes 
polled in 25 disputed polling stations through biometric system of 
NADRA, which was granted. Record reflects that the election 
material was dispatched to NADRA for verification. As per NADRA’s 
report out of 25 polling stations, it did not receive election material 
of two polling stations i.e. Polling Station Nos. 64 and 73. The 
Election Tribunal after recording evidence of the parties dismissed 
the election petition. Aggrieved by such decision, the appellant filed 
the present appeal.  
 
Civil Appeal No. 1033/2014 
3 
3. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Kamran 
Murtaza straightaway took us to paragraph 22 of the impugned 
judgment. This paragraph contains a table based on the figures 
taken from NADRA’s report. For the sake of convenience, this table 
is reproduced below:- 
 
 
4. 
 
From NADRA’s report, the above table was taken. It 
shows that out of 10273 votes that were cast, CNIC numbers on 
748 counterfoils were either missing or contained incorrect CNIC 
numbers; 41 votes were cast by 20 voters; 91 counterfoils did not 
contain thumb impressions; thumb impressions on 61 counterfoils 
could not be authenticated; on 5399 counterfoils thumb 
impressions were of bad quality as inedible ink was not used hence 
the same could not be deciphered; and, thumb impressions on 
3933 counterfoils were authenticated. After adding up the figures 
contained in serial numbers 2, 3, 4 and 6 of the above table, 
learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when these 941 
bogus votes are deducted from the vote count of respondent No. 1 
1 
Votes polled in polling stations whose election 
material was received by NADRA 
 
10,273 
2 
Invalid 
NIC 
number 
mentioned 
on 
used 
counterfoils, this also includes such counterfoils 
that do not have CNIC mentioned over it.  
 
748 
3 
Duplicate voters on used counterfoils 
41 
4 
Used counterfoils without fingerprints 
91 
5 
Fingerprints successfully authenticated on used 
counterfoils and ER 
 
3,933 
6 
Fingerprints on used counterfoils and ER failing 
authentication 
 
61 
7 
Fingerprints of bad quality affixed on used 
counterfoils resultantly NADRA was unable to 
decipher them due to non-utilization of proposed 
ink beside other possibilities.  
5,399 
Civil Appeal No. 1033/2014 
4 
then keeping in view the small margin of 1087 votes with which 
the respondent No. 1 was declared successful and the fact that 
election material of polling station Nos. 64 & 73 was not 
dispatched to NADRA for verification, it would be sufficient to hold 
that election result of the constituency had been materially affected 
as envisaged under Sections 68 & 70 of the Representation of the 
Peoples Act, 1976 and the entire election of PB-39 is to be declared 
as void. The whole thrust of the argument of appellant’s counsel 
was based only on the data contained in NADRA’s report. In 
support of his contentions, he relied upon the case of Dr. Raja 
Aamir Zaman Vs. Omar Ayub Khan (2015 SCMR 890) as well as on 
a recent unreported judgment of this Court rendered on 2.3.2016 
in Civil Appeal No. 1219 of 2014 (Khalid Hussain Magsi Vs. Mir 
Abdul Rahim Rind) where this Court upheld the judgment of the 
Election Tribunal which nullified the entire election result of NA-
267 and ordered re-election in the entire constituency. The 
decision of this Court in the case of ‘Khalid Hussain Magsi Vs. Mir 
Abdul Rahim Rind is distinguishable from the facts of the present 
case as the same was the result of phenomenal turnout of 96% 
shown on 54 polling stations of NA-267 and not only this but all 
such votes were shown to have been cast in favour of only one of 
the contesting candidates whereas the rival contesting candidate 
was shown to have bagged not a single vote. For the sake of 
convenience certain excerpts from the judgment in the case of 
‘Khalid Hussain Magsi Vs. Mir Abdul Rahim Rind are reproduced as 
follows:-   
 
Civil Appeal No. 1033/2014 
5 
6. 
 
……………………..we have scrutinized the data of 
Form XVI which is a consolidated statement of the results of 
the 
vote-count 
of 
the 
entire 
constituency. 
From 
the 
consolidated statement it is apparent that on 54 polling 
stations, where one of the two contesting candidate had 
obtained no vote at all, the other contesting candidate had 
obtained almost all votes that were polled. …………………… 
 
7. 
 
From the ……….tables containing vote count of 54 
polling stations, it is surprising to note that on 21 polling 
stations where the appellant obtained not a single vote, the 
respondent No.1 bagged 98.4% of the total votes that were 
cast. Similarly, on the remaining 33 polling stations where 
respondent No. 1 obtained not a single vote, the appellant 
bagged 99.8% of the total votes cast. It is also surprising to 
note that in the above discussed 54 polling stations, in all 
50,922 votes were polled, the average of vote count comes to 
943 votes per polling station whereas in the rest of 111 polling 
stations, where the remaining 37,358 votes were polled, this 
average stands at only 337 votes per polling station. The first 
question that comes to our mind is why on the above referred 
54 polling stations where one contesting candidate had not 
even bagged a single vote, the percentage of polled votes in 
fovour of the other is phenomenal i.e. around 99%. The other 
question that arises is why on these 54 polling stations the 
turnout was almost triple in comparison to turnout on the rest 
of 111 polling stations i.e. the percentage of turnout on the 
above mentioned 54 polling stations was 96% whereas 
turnout in the remaining 111 polling stations stood around 
40% only. These unimaginable differences in the voting 
pattern on 54 polling stations as against the remaining 111 
polling stations cannot be a simple case of mere coincidence, 
given the fact that both the contesting candidates were not 
candidates with marginal following. They were politically 
popular figures of the constituency as 92% of the total votes 
that were polled went to both of them only. When the issue is 
analysed from this perspective, the preponderance of 
probabilities leads us to believe that both the candidates must 
have exerted their respective political clout in their respective 
areas of influence in order to bag maximum number of votes.  
 
5. 
 
From the above findings of this Court in the case of 
Khalid Hussain Magsi it is evident that unimaginable voting figures 
of 54 polling stations noticed by this Court coupled with the 
findings contained in NADRA’s verification report confirmed 
prevalence of illegal practices on a very large scale which lead us to 
declare the elections of NA-267 constituency as a whole void in 
Civil Appeal No. 1033/2014 
6 
terms of Section 70(b) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 
1976. There is no similarity of facts and circumstances between 
the above referred unreported case and the present one. In the 
present case, there were 21899 registered votes in the disputed 25 
polling stations and a total of 11570 votes were cast in these 
polling stations. The turnout was 53% as against the turnout of 
55% on the rest of the undisputed 48 polling stations. A 
comparative table of the voting pattern and the turnout on the 
disputed and undisputed polling stations is as follows:- 
 
Result of 25 disputed polling 
stations 
Result of 48 undisputed 
polling stations 
 
Total registered 
votes 
21899 
 
44943 
 
Total 
votes 
polled 
 
11570 
(53%) 
turnout 
24887 (55%) turnout 
Total valid votes 
cast 
 
11005 
24192 
Votes 
obtained 
by appellant 
 
2149 
10140 
Votes 
obtained 
by 
respondent 
No. 1 
5447 
7929 
Lead of votes 
3298 votes lead 
gained 
by 
respondent No. 1 
2213 votes lead gained by 
the appellant 
 
6. 
 
Thus it is apparent from the above table that on both 
the sets of polling stations no phenomenal difference in the polling 
pattern or the voters’ turnout was noticeable as was noticed in the 
case of Khalid Hussain Magsi referred above. Then the argument of 
appellant’s counsel for deduction of 941 votes from the tally of 
respondent No. 1’s vote count also does not appeal to reason. If we 
accept the argument of the appellant’s counsel that based on 
NADRA’s report 941 votes be deducted from the tally of the votes 
Civil Appeal No. 1033/2014 
7 
cast in favour of respondent No.1 then it would mean to lay down a 
principle that all disputed votes on a certain set of polling stations 
should be deducted from the vote-count of such candidate who 
had secured the highest number of votes in such polling stations, 
in absence of the evidence as to which of the contesting party was 
involved in corrupt practices. One cannot rule out the possibility 
that a candidate may still loose though he may have himself 
indulged in rigging practice. Without any substantial material 
coming on record why it should be assumed that the winning 
candidate has indulged in rigging. When the principle suggested by 
appellant’s counsel is made applicable to a selected number of 
polling stations of a constituency then the winning candidate may 
also come up with his own list of selected polling stations of the 
constituency where the runner-up candidate had secured the 
highest number of votes in order to seek verification and then get 
all the disputed votes, in case such are pointed out by NADRA, 
deducted from the tally of votes bagged by the runner-up 
candidate. We may mention here that in the remaining 48 polling 
stations, it was the appellant, who was runner-up, had secured the 
highest number of votes i.e. 10,140 as against 7927 votes secured 
by respondent No.1 the winning candidate. We see no reason to 
deduct all disputed votes from the vote count of respondent No. 1. 
Therefore, the principle sought to be devised by appellant’s counsel 
on the basis of NADRA’s verification of selected polling stations of a 
constituency would not resolve the controversy but would further 
complicate the controversy.  
 
Civil Appeal No. 1033/2014 
8 
7. 
 
Furthermore, in NADRA’s report it is stated that 748 
used counterfoils had invalid CNIC numbers. The report describes 
invalid CNIC numbers to mean such counterfoils on which either 
CNIC numbers do not relate to the voters of the constituency or on 
which CNIC numbers were missing. NADRA’s report does not say 
that on these 748 counterfoils thumb impressions were missing or 
that the thumb impressions were not verifiable. We don’t know 
that the thumb impressions on all or some of these 748 
counterfoils were found to be correct. If thumb impressions on any 
of these 748 counterfoils had matched with that of the voters of the 
constituency then such votes cannot be described as invalid votes, 
irrespective of the fact that they contained incorrect CNIC numbers 
or CNIC numbers were altogether missing. The reason being that 
the possibility that the polling staff may have wrongly written or 
omitted to write CNIC numbers on these 748 counterfoils cannot 
be ruled out. Why a candidate be penalized for such an error or 
omission. So the figure of 748 votes, as contained in NADRA’s 
report, cannot be treated as invalid votes that were cast at the 
behest of respondent No. 1. Furthermore, NADRA’s report shows 
that there was duplication with regard to 41 votes as all these 41 
votes were polled by 20 voters of the constituency. This shows that 
20 duly registered voters polled more than once so in reality 21 
votes were invalidly cast by them and not all of 41. It also cannot 
be ascertained as to in whose favour these 21 bogus votes were 
polled. Apart from the above analysis of NADRA’s report, if the 
voting pattern and the turnout of voters, as discussed earlier, on 
25 disputed polling stations is compared with the voting pattern 
Civil Appeal No. 1033/2014 
9 
and the turnout on rest of the 48 polling stations, nothing 
phenomenal is noticeable to hold prevalence of corrupt practices so 
as to nullify the entire election result.  
 
8. 
 
In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that 
NADRA’s verification report relating to election material of only 25 
polling stations cannot be made basis for nullifying the entire 
election result of the constituency. There has to be some 
convincing material or record to reach the conclusion that the 
election as a whole needs to be declared void. We may mention 
here that in the election petition, it was claimed that appellant’s 25 
polling agents were denied entry in the polling stations. We have 
noticed that appellant examined 14 witnesses of which only 10 
were polling agents of the appellant. Of these polling agents 6 
claimed that they were denied entry in the polling stations. Four 
polling agents did not even deny their entry in the polling stations. 
None of the 15 remaining polling agents of 15 disputed polling 
stations were even examined as witnesses. No attempt was made 
by the appellant to even call Presiding Officers of the disputed 
polling stations as court witnesses in order to establish that 
appellant’s polling agents were denied entry in the polling stations 
on the polling day. Apparently on account of lack of evidence that 
the counsel for the appellant did not even refer to any piece of 
evidence to establish that respondent No.1 had in any manner 
resorted to rigging practices except for the figures of disputed votes 
contained 
in 
NADRA’s 
report. 
Unsubstantiated 
and 
bald 
Civil Appeal No. 1033/2014 
10 
allegations of rigging cannot be made basis to nullify the entire 
election result. 
 
9. 
 
We are therefore of the view that no evidence has come 
on record of the present case to nullify the election result of 
Balochistan Provincial Assembly seat PB-39. This appeal fails and 
is hereby dismissed.   
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
Islamabad, the 
Announced on ______________ by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Faisal Arab 
 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram 
Civil Appeal No. 1033/2014 
11 
 
Result of 24 out of 25 disputed polling stations where 
respondent No. 1 got lead: 
 
S.No. 
Polling 
Station 
No.  
Respondent’s 
votes 
 
Appellant’s votes 
Total 
of 
valid 
votes cast  
Percentage of 
rspdt No. 1’s  
Votes 
1 
4 
217 
205 
513 
 
2 
5 
132 
93 
358 
 
3 
6 
85 
68 
242 
 
4 
10 
441 
176 
742 
 
5 
11 
413 
188 
798 
 
6 
19 
364 
7 
518 
 
7 
20 
421 
17 
613 
 
8 
21 
198 
21 
335 
 
9 
22 
207 
70 
418 
 
10 
23 
189 
46 
313 
 
11 
25 
262 
126 
526 
 
12 
26 
182 
82 
344 
 
13 
35 
107 
94 
337 
 
14 
40 
309 
160 
634 
 
15 
53 
121 
39 
219 
 
16 
55 
244 
44 
490 
 
17 
57 
125 
21 
251 
 
18 
62 
365 
148 
801 
 
19 
63 
49 
5 
111 
 
20 
64 
143 
63 
344 
 
21 
65 
204 
45 
277 
 
22 
69 
154 
3 
316 
 
23 
71 
78 
62 
192 
 
24 
73 
137 
1 
178 
 
 
Total 
votes 
5147 
1784 
 
 
 
Result of 23 undisputed polling stations where respondent No. 
1 got lead: 
 
S.No 
Polling 
Station 
No.  
Respondent’s 
votes 
 
Appellant’s votes 
Total 
of 
valid 
votes cast  
Percentage of 
rspdt No. 1’s  
Votes 
1 
3 
325 
239 
731 
 
2 
7 
244 
221 
528 
 
3 
8 
174 
165 
388 
 
4 
9 
469 
242 
973 
 
5 
12 
223 
171 
547 
 
6 
13 
177 
118 
384 
 
7 
14 
335 
317 
908 
 
8 
15 
136 
2 
214 
 
9 
16 
124 
115 
315 
 
10 
24 
180 
63 
450 
 
11 
18 
97 
26 
233 
 
12 
29 
336 
139 
529 
 
13 
34 
205 
15 
332 
 
14 
36 
116 
43 
293 
 
15 
37 
469 
289 
989 
 
16 
38 
249 
206 
637 
 
17 
43 
293 
233 
800 
 
18 
54 
197 
8 
261 
 
19 
56 
102 
48 
186 
 
20 
58 
255 
116 
659 
 
21 
59 
223 
85 
524 
 
22 
60 
241 
157 
777 
 
23 
67 
119 
9 
177 
 
 
Total 
votes 
5289 
3027 
 
 
 
Result of 26 polling station (including one disputed polling 
station) where appellant got lead: 
Civil Appeal No. 1033/2014 
12 
 
S.No 
Polling 
Station 
No.  
Respondent’s 
votes 
 
Appellant’s votes 
Total 
of 
valid 
votes cast  
Percentage of 
rspdt No. 1’s  
Votes 
1 
1 
180 
242 
555 
 
2 
2 
143 
204 
453 
 
3 
17 
54 
268 
363 
 
4 
27 
126 
303 
507 
 
5 
28 
151 
243 
460 
 
6 
30 
105 
312 
443 
 
7 
31 
1 
627 
673 
 
8 
32 
55 
219 
293 
 
9 
33 
8 
646 
702 
 
10 
39 
99 
102 
426 
 
11 
41 
220 
407 
877 
 
12 
42 
156 
198 
499 
 
13 
44 
190 
587 
870 
 
14 
45 
230 
572 
895 
 
15 
46 
110 
275 
502 
 
16 
47 
34 
270 
446 
 
17 
48 
101 
280 
516 
 
18 
49 
107 
292 
366 
 
19 
50 
30 
157 
222 
 
20 
51 
90 
145 
347 
 
21 
52 
129 
221 
514 
 
22 
61 
21 
36 
165 
 
23 
66 
6 
144 
155 
 
24 
68 
3 
68 
87 
 
25 
70 
(Disputed) 
300 
365 
1135 
 
26 
72 
78 
175 
378 
 
 
Total 
votes 
2727 
7358 
 
 
 
 
