IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, HCJ 
MR. JUSTICE SH. AZMAT SAEED 
MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 321-L OF 2014 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 30.9.2014 
passed by the Election Tribunal, Multan in Election 
Petition No. 179/2013 ECP, 13/2013 ETM) 
 
Ch. Muhammad Yousaf Kaselia 
 
 
 
   
… Appellant 
VERSUS 
 
Peer Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din Chishti, etc 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  …Respondents 
 
 
For the Appellant:  
Mr. Muhammad Shahzad Shaukat, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Barrister Jehanzeb Raheem, ASC 
 
 
 
 
For the Respondent (1): Syed Najmul Hassan Kazmi, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr. M.S. Khattak, AOR. 
 
For Respondents (2-4): Ex-parte 
 
Date of Hearing:  
16.05.2016 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
FAISAL ARAB, J. - In the General Elections that were 
held on 11.5.2013, the appellant and the respondent No. 1 were the 
main 
contesting 
candidates 
from 
the 
Provincial 
Assembly 
constituency No. PP-232 Vehari-I. The appellant secured 50350 votes 
and was declared returned candidate, whereas the respondent No. 1 
was runner-up who secured 43751 votes. The respondent No. 1 filed 
Election Petition before the Election Tribunal, Multan under Section 
52 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 alleging corrupt and 
illegal practices on the part of the appellant. It was alleged that the 
Civil Appeal No. 321-L- of 2014 
2 
appellant won the elections by influencing the election staff. 
Additionally, it was also alleged that in his nomination form, the 
appellant submitted false statements of election campaign expenses 
as well as of his assets and liabilities. The Election Tribunal vide 
impugned judgment accepted the election petition after holding that 
the appellant had filed false statements of election campaign 
expenses and did not disclose certain liabilities. The election of the 
appellant was declared void and fresh election in the constituency 
was ordered. Aggrieved by such decision the present appeal has been 
filed.   
 
2. 
 
In his nomination form, the appellant disclosed that he 
owns a business, which is being run in the name of ‘Younas Brothers 
Cotton Ginning and Oil Factory’ and showed his investment therein 
to the   extent of 6.3 million rupees. In the nomination form under 
the item where liabilities of bank loans were to be stated, no 
disclosure was made. It was only in the evidence it surfaced that the 
appellant had mortgaged his property to obtain loan for the running 
of his business. An officer of the bank from which loan was obtained 
appeared as the appellant’s witness. He stated that upto 30.6.2013 
financial facility to the tune of 70 million rupees was availed from the 
bank by Younas Brothers Cotton Ginning and Oil Factory. From this, 
it is clearly evident that a financial liability of 70 million rupees was 
incurred and secured by creating mortgage on immovable property 
owned by the appellant. Admittedly, the appellant was one of the 
signatories to the mortgage deed but he failed to disclose this liability 
incurred upon himself in his nomination form. 
 
Civil Appeal No. 321-L- of 2014 
3 
3. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the loan 
that was obtained from the bank for the joint family business had not 
become due for payment on 30.06.2012, therefore, the provisions of 
Section 12 (f) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, which 
require a candidate to file statement of his assets and liabilities and 
those of his spouse and dependents are to be read with the 
provisions of Section 12(c) of the said Act which requires submission 
of a declaration that no loan for an amount of two million rupees or 
more, obtained from any bank, financial institution, cooperative 
society or corporate body in his own name or in the name of his 
spouse or any of his dependents, or any business concern mainly 
owned by him or the aforesaid, remains unpaid for more than one 
year from the due date, or that he has got such loan written off. He 
submitted that in the present case, firstly, the loan of 70 million was 
not even due on the requisite date and secondly the appellant holds 
only 1/8th share in the said business so it was not mainly owned by 
the appellant, therefore penal consequence for such non-disclosure 
ought not to have followed. 
 
4. 
 
As to the non-disclosure of election campaign expenses, 
learned counsel explained that certain expenses of election meetings 
are borne by friends and the people of the area who invite the 
candidate and it is not within the domain of the candidate to account 
for it. He submitted that the Election Tribunal non-seated the 
appellant after finding an expenditure of only Rs.50,000/- in excess 
of the permissible limited prescribed under the election laws which 
being a very harsh decision is liable to be set-aside on that score.  
 
Civil Appeal No. 321-L- of 2014 
4 
5. 
 
It is of utmost importance that a contesting candidate 
must disclose the assets that he owns and the liabilities that he owes 
in his nomination form. The disclosure of liabilities is more important 
that disclosure of assets. It is important for the reason that while 
holding public office, in case the liability incurred prior to the election 
is liquidated, he could be called upon to explain the source from 
which the liability was liquidated; that is, whether the same was 
liquidated from his personal sources of income or that he had 
misused the authority of the public office in any manner that 
contributed to the liquidation of the liability. Therefore, non-
disclosure of any liability is to be met with penal action in the same 
manner as non-disclosure of any asset. We are not impressed by the 
argument of the appellant’s counsel that provisions of sub-section (f) 
of Section 12 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 are to be 
read with sub-section (c) of section 12 of the said Act. Sub-section (c) 
of Section 12 speaks about disclosures, either of any write off or of 
default that remains unpaid for more than a year, of any financial 
obligation towards a bank, financial institution, co-operative society 
or corporate body whereas sub-section (f) speaks about disclosure of 
assets and liabilities. A financial liability cannot be equated with 
default committed with regard to any financial obligation. A financial 
liability is incurred the moment an obligation is created to discharge 
the same, which by efflux of time either has already become due or is 
to fall due sometime in future. Therefore, irrespective of any default 
relating to a financial obligation, liability gets created the moment a 
person takes upon himself the obligation to settle the same in future. 
In the present case, a financial obligation of 70 million rupees 
towards a bank did exist at the time of filing of the nomination form 
Civil Appeal No. 321-L- of 2014 
5 
which ought to have been disclosed by the appellant irrespective of 
the fact that the same had not become due but he failed to do so, 
thereby incurring the penal consequences of non-disclosure.      
 
6. 
 
As to the excessive election campaign expenses, the same 
being only to the extent of Rs.30,500/- over and above the 
permissible limit, which being not a significant amount, the same 
ought not to have been made basis for declaring appellant’s election 
as void.   
 
7. 
 
We are, therefore, of the view that the Election Tribunal 
rightly non-seated the appellant on account of his failure to disclose 
in the nomination form his financial obligation of 70 million rupees 
which he secured by executing a mortgage deed.  
 
8. 
 
This appeal was dismissed vide short order dated 
16.05.2016 and these are the reasons for the same.  
 
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
JUDGE 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
16th of May, 2016 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram 
 
 
 
Civil Appeal No. 321-L- of 2014 
6 
 
 
Reproduction 
12. Nomination for election.— (2) Every nomination shall be made by a 
separate nomination paper in the prescribed form which shall be signed 
both by the proposer and the seconder and shall, on solemn affirmation 
made and signed by the candidate, accompany— 
 
(a) 
a declaration that he has consented to the nomination and 
that he fulfils the qualifications specified in Article 62 and is 
not subject to any of the disqualifications specified in Article 
63 or any other law for the time being in force for being elected 
as a member; 
 
(b) 
Omitted 
 
(c) 
a declaration that no loan for an amount of two million rupees 
or more, obtained from any bank, financial institution, 
cooperative society or corporate body in his own name or in 
the name of his spouse or any of his dependents, or any 
business concern mainly owned by him or the aforesaid, 
stands unpaid for more than one year from the due date, or 
has got such loan written off; 
 
(d) 
a declaration that he, his spouse or any of his dependents or a 
business concern mainly owned by him or the aforesaid, is not 
in default in payment of government dues or utility charges, 
including telephone, electricity, gas and water charges of an 
amount in excess of ten thousand rupees, for over six months, 
at the time of filing of nomination papers; 
 
(e) 
a 
statement 
specifying 
his 
educational 
qualifications, 
occupation, National Identity Card number and National Tax 
Number, if any, alongwith attested copies thereof; and 
 
(f) 
a statement of his assets and liabilities and those of his 
spouse and dependents on the prescribed form as on the 
preceding thirtieth day of June; 
 
 
48. Definitions.—For the purpose of this Act, “election expenses” 
means any expenditure incurred before, during and after an election 
or payment made, whether by way of gift, loan, advance, deposit or 
otherwise, for the arrangement, conduct or benefit of, or in 
connection with or incidental to the election of a candidate, including 
the expenditure on account of issuing circulars or publications, but 
does not include the deposit made under section 13. 
 
49. Restriction on election expenses.—(1) No person other than 
the candidate shall incur any election expenses of such candidate: 
 
Provided that where any person incurs any election expenses on 
behalf of such candidate, whether for stationery, postage, telegrams, 
advertisement, transport or for any other item whatsoever, such 
expenses shall be deemed to be the election expenses incurred by the 
candidate himself. 
Civil Appeal No. 321-L- of 2014 
7 
 
(2) The election expenses of a contesting candidate shall not exceed, 
in the case of an election to a seat in the National Assembly, one 
million and five hundred thousand rupees and, in the case of an 
election to a seat in a Provincial Assembly, one million rupees. 
 
