IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, HCJ 
MR. JUSTICE AMIR HANI MUSLIM 
MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 886 OF 2014 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 16.06.2014 
passed by Election Tribunal, Lahore in Election 
Petition No. 262/2013) 
 
Muhammad Yaqoob Nadeem Sethi 
… Appellant 
VERSUS 
Muhammad Ilyas Khan etc 
…Respondents 
 
 
For the Appellant:  
Mr. Muhammad Shahzad Shoukat, ASC 
 
 
 
 
For Respondent (1): 
Syed Hamid Ali Shah, ASC 
 
Date of Hearing:  
30.05.2016 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
FAISAL ARAB, J.- In the General Elections held on 
13.5.2013 on for Provincial Assembly constituency PP-175 Kasur-I, 
the appellant was declared returned candidate whereas the 
respondent No. 1 was runner-up. The appellant secured 33758 
votes whereas 29149 votes were bagged by respondent No. 1. The 
respondent No. 1, however filed election petition alleging that the 
appellant in connivance with the polling staff and the Returning 
Officer adopted illegal and corrupt practices and indulged in bogus 
voting. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their 
respective pleas. During the pendency of the election petition, the 
respondent No. 1 applied for inspection of the election record 
under Section 45 of Representation of the People Act, 1976, which 
was allowed and thereafter also moved an application under 
Civil Appeal No. 886/2014 
2 
Section 46 of the Act which was also allowed vide order dated 
17.4.2014. In pursuance of such order, the Election Tribunal 
appointed a retired District & Sessions Judge as Commission to 
inspect the election record and submit his report. The Commission 
duly submitted its report. Relying on the Commission’s report, the 
Election Tribunal allowed the election petition and declared the 
election as a whole void and ordered to hold bye-election in the 
constituency. Aggrieved by such decision, the appellant has filed 
the present appeal.   
 
2. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the 
inspection report submitted by the Commission shows that the 
appellant secured 32603 votes and respondent No. 1 bagged 28621 
votes, which result is more or less the same as was in the first 
count i.e. 33758 votes as against 29149 votes, yet, the Commission 
recommended re-election on the grounds, which could not have 
been made basis for invalidating the election result. He added that 
in his report, the Commission found that 25 counterfoils did not 
contain thumb impressions of the voters; 4 counterfoils did not 
contain CNIC numbers of the voters; 2947 counterfoils did not 
contain signatures of the Presiding Officer; 1127 counterfoils did 
not have the stamp of the Presiding Officers and 19771 
counterfoils did not contain the signatures and stamps of the 
Presiding Officers. He submitted that this was ascertained from the 
counterfoils of 92659 votes that were polled whereas no objection 
was raised with regard to any ballot paper that was declared valid. 
He further added that all valid votes duly contained signatures as 
well as stamps of the Presiding Officers. He submitted that when 
Civil Appeal No. 886/2014 
3 
no ballot paper that was counted by the Commission in favour of 
the appellant was challenged as bogus and all votes were duly 
accounted in favour of the candidates in whose favour they were 
polled then merely because 23,845 counterfoils of such votes did 
not contain the CNIC numbers and thumbs impression of the 
voters of the constituency could not be made basis to nullify the 
election result. He submitted that had the 23,845 counterfoils been 
sent to NADRA for verification of CNIC numbers and thumb 
impressions of the voters and the outcome of such verification 
would have shown that a significant number of these counterfoils 
did not contain thumb impression of the voters of the constituency 
then it would have been a different case but in the present case no 
such verification was sought by respondent No. 1 nor any 
substantial change in the ratio between the result of two vote 
count was noticeable. He maintained that in the circumstances 
there was substantive compliance of all the requirement under 
Representation of the People Act, 1976 and the result of the 
election ought not to have been nullified. In support of his 
arguments, he relied upon the cases of Bhai Khan Vs. Shakeel 
(2009 SCMR 594), Muhammad Khan Vs. Nazir Ahmed (2003 
SCMR 1911), Muhammad Asghar Vs. Shah Muhammad Awan 
(PLD 1986 SC 542), Abdus Sattar Rana Vs. S.M. Zaidi (PLD 1968 
SC 331), Abdul Hafeez Khan Vs. Muhammad Tahir Khan Loni 
(1999 SCMR 284 at 295) and Jamshaid Ahmed Khan Vs. 
S.D.M/Assistant Commissioner (PLD 1987 SC 213).  
 
3. 
 
Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, on the other 
hand, argued that election result was nullified by applying the 
Civil Appeal No. 886/2014 
4 
provisions of Section 70 of Representation of the People Act, 1976. 
He submitted that the Commission’s report shows that elections in 
the Constituency were not held in fair and transparent manner 
and its proof lies in the analysis of the counterfoils of the ballot 
papers made by the Commission in his report. He submitted that 
the Election Tribunal rightly held that election was rigged.  
 
 
4. 
 
Except for the Commission’s report, the learned 
counsel for respondent No. 1 did not draw our attention to any 
other piece of evidence from which it could be gathered that the 
appellant or his agent or any polling staff indulged in bogus voting 
on the polling day. With regard to Commission’s report, we have 
noticed that the respondent No. 1 did not even seek verification of 
any set of ballot papers from NADRA. Each and every ballot paper 
that was declared valid by the Commission contained the 
signatures and stamps of the Presiding Officers. The tally of 
counterfoils of the votes cast in the constituency stood at 92837 
and corresponding to this figure, the number of votes polled were 
92659. There was difference of merely 178 votes and that too the 
votes count was less then the counterfoils. So the question of 
stuffing of the ballot boxes with bogus votes also does not arise. As 
the appellant’s winning margin was 3982 votes, the difference of 
178 missing votes would have made no impact on the final result. 
Hence nothing substantial came on record of the Election Tribunal 
which would have justified nullifying the election result. The 
impugned judgment was, therefore, liable to be set aside.  
 
Civil Appeal No. 886/2014 
5 
5. 
 
Vide short order dated 30.05.2016 we had allowed this 
appeal and these are the reasons of the same.  
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
JUDGE 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
30th of May, 2016 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram 
