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. 1219 OF 2014 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 19.9.2014 
passed by the Election Tribunal-II, Quetta in 
Election Petition No. 178/2013) 
 
Khalid Hussain Magsi 
… Appellant 
VERSUS 
 
Mir Abdul Rahim Rind and others 
… Respondents 
 
For the Appellant: 
Kh. Saeed-uz-Zafar, ASC 
 
Mr. Muhammad Dawood Kasi, ASC 
 
For the Respondent (1): Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, Sr. ASC 
 
Date of Hearing:  
03.02.2016 
 
 
 
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 National Assembly seat NA-267 Kachi-
cum-Jhal 
Magsi. 
For 
1,47,595 
registered 
voters 
of 
this 
constituency, the Election Commission setup 165 polling stations. 
In all 90728 votes were polled out of which 2448 were rejected for 
one reason or the other, leaving the tally of valid votes to 88280. 
The appellant bagged 42240 votes (48%) and the respondent No. 1 
bagged 38915 votes (44%). Between them they both bagged 92% of 
the total valid votes that were cast in the constituency. Leading 
with a margin of 3325 votes the appellant was declared returned 
Civil Appeal No. 1219/2014 
2
candidate. The respondent No. 1 was not satisfied with the result. 
He alleged rigging on the part of the appellant and filed an election 
petition before the Election Tribunal, Quetta. The challenge was 
mainly based on two grounds i.e. (i) at the behest of the appellant, 
the District Returning Officer and Returning Officer were changed 
without prior notice to any of the contesting candidates and (ii) 
polling agents of respondent No1 were detained for the entire 
duration of the polling time which facilitated the appellant to cast 
bogus votes on 40 polling stations.  
 
2. 
 
During 
pendency 
of 
the 
election 
petition, 
the 
respondent No.1 filed an application before the Election Tribunal 
seeking verification of thumb impressions of the voters of 40 
disputed polling stations through biometric system of NADRA. This 
application was granted. Record reflects that the counterfoils and 
the ballot papers of 39 polling stations were dispatched to NADRA 
for verification. NADRA then submitted its report. In the report, it 
was stated that out of 30,649 votes that were cast on 39 disputed 
polling stations, there were no CNIC numbers on 2143 
counterfoils; 40 votes were not even registered in the constituency; 
783 votes were found to be issued more than once; counterfoils of 
151 votes did not have fingerprints on them and fingerprints on 
4438 counterfoils could not be authenticated through biometric 
system. Hence, doubt was cast on 7555 votes by NADRA that were 
polled on 39 disputed polling stations. The Election Tribunal after 
recording evidence and hearing both the parties, allowed the 
election petition and ordered fresh election in the constituency. 
Civil Appeal No. 1219/2014 
3
Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant has filed the present 
appeal.  
 
3. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellant raised preliminary 
objection to the maintainability of respondent No.1’s election 
petition before the Election Tribunal on the ground that the same 
was not verified on oath before the oath commissioner as required 
under Section 63 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1976. 
He relied upon judgments rendered in the cases of S.M.Ayub Vs. 
Yusuf Shah (PLD 1967 Supreme Court 486), Iqbal Zafar Jhagra Vs. 
Khalilur Rehman (2000 SCMR 250) and Ghazanfar Abbas Shah 
Vs. Mehr Khalid Mehmood Sargana (2015 SCMR 1585). Learned 
counsel for the appellant elaborated his argument on the 
preliminary objection by stating that election petition was signed 
on 2.7.2013 whereas the verification stamp of the oath 
commissioner is dated 3.7.2013, which clearly shows that the oath 
was not administered to the respondent before the oath 
commissioner. On merits, learned counsel for the appellant argued 
that the allegation against the appellant was that his two brothers 
detained the polling agents of the respondent No. 1 from going to 
their respective polling stations, which was practically not possible 
as two persons cannot prevent 40 polling agents from going to 
their respective polling stations of the constituency which was 
spread over about 200 kilometres. He also argued that the doubt 
cast by the NADRA on the validity of about 7555 votes does not 
mean that these votes were cast in favour of the appellant or that it 
was the appellant who indulged in any kind of rigging.  
Civil Appeal No. 1219/2014 
4
4. 
 
In response to the maintainability of election petition,  
the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 argued that many a 
times date is printed on the petition but the same is presented for 
verification on oath on any subsequent date, therefore, the 
difference of one day between the printed date and the date on 
which the petition was actually verified on oath does not mean that 
no oath was administered to the respondent by the oath 
commissioner. He contended that the words ‘sworn before me’ 
superimposed on the last page of the memo of election petition 
sufficiently demonstrate that the petition was duly verified. He 
further contended that not only this but a separate affidavit of 
service was also sworn by the respondent on oath, which was 
appended to the election petition and this also clearly establishes 
that all the requirements of law with regard to the verification of 
election petition were fulfilled.  
 
5. 
 
With regard to the preliminary objection, all that we 
have to see is whether the memo of petition do reflect that the 
same was verified on oath and this is duly confirmed from the 
endorsement of the oath commissioner. The memo of petition 
clearly reflects the date of verification in the handwriting of the 
oath commissioner and also contains his stamp ‘sworn before me’. 
Hence, the election petition is to be taken as duly verified on oath.   
 
6. 
 
As to the merits of the allegation, no doubt that 
nothing has come on record to establish that respondent No. 1’s 
polling agents were physically prevented from going to the polling 
Civil Appeal No. 1219/2014 
5
stations. However, 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.  It would 
be of considerable advantage to reproduce the data of the above 
referred 54 polling stations with the percentiles of votes that were 
cast in favour of each of the two main contesting candidates and 
then analyze the same.  
Result of 21 out of above referred 54 polling stations where 
appellant obtained zero votes: 
 
S. No. 
Polling station 
Appellant’s  
Votes 
Respt No1 
Votes  
Total 
of 
valid 
votes cast  
Percentage of 
rspdt No. 1’s  
Votes 
1 
Dispensary Rind Ali Balina (Female) (P) 
 
0 
242 
277 
87.3% 
2 
Girls M/s Challgari (Female) (P) 
0 
415 
443 
93.7% 
3 
Haft Wali Balina (Combined) (P) 
 
0 
319 
321 
99% 
4 
P/S Kot Misri (Combined) (P) 
 
0 
1034 
1034 
100% 
5 
P/s Siah Pad (Combined) (P) 
0 
1056 
1057 
99.9% 
6 
P/S Sarkandhar (Combined) (P) 
 
0 
2399 
2400 
99.9% 
7 
Dispensary Shoran  (Male) (P) 
0 
799 
799 
100% 
8 
Girls P/S Shoran (Female) (P) 
 
0 
469 
469 
100% 
9 
P/S Chalwani (Combined) (P) 
 
0 
623 
623 
100% 
10 
Boys H/S Shoran (High Section (Combined) (P) 
 
0 
1497 
1497 
100% 
11 
Boys H/S Shoran (High Section (Combined) (P) 
 
0 
1140 
1140 
100% 
12 
M/S Muan Shoran (Combined) (P) 
 
0 
1290 
1292 
99.9% 
13 
Boys P/S Azadi (Combined) (P) 
 
0 
1000 
1000 
100% 
14 
P/S Esbani (Female) (P) 
 
0 
567 
650 
87.2% 
15 
Improvised Eisbani (Male) (T) 
 
0 
900 
900 
100% 
16 
P/S Eri Tunia (Combined) (P) 
 
0 
2143 
2145 
99.9% 
17 
P/S Tendo Gulab (Combined) (P) 
 
0 
1237 
1240 
99.8% 
18 
P/S Godri (Combined) (P) 
 
0 
1033 
1037 
99.6% 
19 
P/S Arzi (Combined) (P) 
 
0 
2540 
2540 
100% 
20 
P/S Jhok Shahbaz (Combined) (P) 
 
0 
1505 
1505 
100% 
21 
P/S Siyanch (Combined) (P) 
 
0 
749 
749 
100% 
 
Total votes 
23118 
 
 
 
  
Civil Appeal No. 1219/2014 
6
Result of 33 out of above referred 54 polling stations where 
respondent No.1 obtained zero votes: 
 
S. No. 
Polling station 
Appellant’s 
Votes  
Respondt 
No.1’s  
Votes  
Total 
valid  
votes cast 
Percentage 
of 
votes 
secured by 
rspdt No. 1 
1 
P/S Mehr Ghar (Combined) 
 
225 
0 
228 
98.7% 
2 
Girls H/S Mithri (Female) (P) 
 
898 
0 
899 
99.89% 
3 
Boys H/S Jhall Magsi (Male) (P) 
 
1340 
0 
1340 
100% 
4 
Girls H/S Jhall Magsi (Female) (P) 
 
1261 
0 
1261 
100% 
5 
Boys M/S Jhall Magsi (Combined) (P) 
 
1483 
0 
1498 
99% 
6 
Boys H/S Sarghani (Male) (P) 
 
702 
0 
702 
100% 
7 
Basic Health Unit Sargani (Female) (P) 
 
698 
0 
698 
100% 
8 
Boys M/S Kabbar (Combined) (P) 
 
747 
0 
756 
98.8% 
9 
Govt 
P/S 
Kochho 
(Ghulam 
Rasool 
Burghrani) (Combined) (P) 
 
494 
0 
496 
99.9% 
10 
P/S Khas Kheli (Combined) (P) 
 
960 
0 
960 
100% 
11 
Boys M/S Khichi Jadeed (Combined) (P) 
 
740 
0 
740 
100% 
12 
Boys P/S Amir Abad (Combined) (P) 
 
724 
0 
724 
100% 
13 
Boys M/S Band Mehmood (Combined) (P) 
 
427 
0 
427 
100% 
14 
Boys M/S Shahmir Khan (Combined) (P) 
 
733 
0 
735 
99.7% 
15 
Boys H/S Sakhani (Combined) (P) 
 
1177 
0 
1177 
100% 
16 
Boys H/S Kot Magi (Combined) (P) 
 
1104 
0 
1104 
100% 
17 
Boys H/S Chokhi (Combined) (P) 
837 
0 
837 
100% 
18 
Boys M/S Panjuk (Combined) (P) 
 
1007 
0 
1008 
99.9% 
19 
Boys M/S Khan Pur (Combined) (P) 
 
315 
0 
315 
100% 
20 
Boys P/S Bet Siddique (Combined) (T) 
 
625 
0 
625 
100% 
21 
Boys M/S Safrani (Combined) (P) 
 
878 
0 
883 
99.4% 
22 
Boys 
P/S 
Mat 
Kaloo 
Goth 
Shafi 
Mohammad (Combined) (T) 
 
559 
0 
559 
100% 
23 
Boys M/S Hathyari (Combined) (P) 
 
1428 
0 
1430 
99.9% 
24 
Boys M/S Matt Sindhurr (Combined) (P) 
 
1038 
0 
1044 
99.4% 
25 
Boys H/S Barjia (Combined) (P) 
 
1161 
0 
1163 
99.8% 
26 
Girls P/S Barjia (Combined) (P) 
 
800 
0 
801 
99.9% 
27 
Boys H/S Shambani (Combined) (P) 
 
933 
0 
933 
100% 
28 
Boys P/S Kohna Shadiharr (Combined) (P) 
 
592 
0 
597 
99.1% 
29 
Boys P/S Korjia (Combined) (T) 
 
781 
0 
781 
100% 
30 
Boys P/S Saif Abad (Male) (P) 
 
1156 
0 
1156 
100% 
31 
Civil Dispensary Saif Abad (Female) (P) 
 
500 
0 
500 
100% 
32 
Boys M/S Dhorri (Combined) (P) 
 
840 
0 
840 
100% 
33 
Boys M/S Mitho (Combined) (P) 
 
589 
0 
589 
100% 
 
Total votes 27806 
 
 
 
 
Civil Appeal No. 1219/2014 
7
7. 
 
From the above two 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 
Civil Appeal No. 1219/2014 
8
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.  
 
8. 
 
The analysis of above referred data, gathered from 
Form XVI, overshadows the submissions of the counsel of both the 
parties which they had advanced in favour of their respective 
clients as the polling data speaks louder than the words. This 
analysis of Form XVI coupled with the findings of NADRA in its 
report, where 7555 votes have been made doubtful as against 
returned candidate’s winning margin of only 3325 votes, confirms 
the prevalence of illegal practice at the election. We are, therefore, 
satisfied that the election to the National Assembly seat NA-267 
Kachi-cum-Jhal Magsi was not conducted in fair manner and is 
liable to be declared as a whole void in terms of Section 70(b) of the 
Representation of the Peoples Act, 1976. This appeal fails and is 
hereby dismissed.   
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
Announced on ______________ 
 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram 
