IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE TARIQ PERVEZ 
 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.448 OF 2014 
(Against the judgment dated 5.3.2014 of 
the Election Tribunal, Sukkur passed in 
E.P.No.342/2013) 
 
 
Muhammad Ibrahim Jatoi 
 
…Appellant(s) 
VERSUS 
Aftab Shaban Mirani etc. 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the appellant(s): 
Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Sr. ASC 
 
 
For respondent No.1: 
Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa, Sr. ASC 
Mr. M. S. Khattak, AOR 
 
 
For other respondents: 
Ex-parte 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
04.01.2016 
… 
ORDER 
 
 
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.- This appeal under Section 67(3) of 
the Representation of People Act, 1976 (Act) assails the judgment dated 
5.3.2014 passed by the learned Election Tribunal, Sukkur, whereby the 
Tribunal had accepted the election petition of the respondent. 
2. 
 
The brief facts of the case are:- the appellant and 
respondent No.1 (respondent) contested for the National Assembly seat 
NA-202 Shikarpur-I in the general elections conducted on 11.5.2013. 
The appellant, who was declared a returned candidate by the Election 
Commission of Pakistan (ECP) vide notification dated 25.5.2013, 
obtained 54,633 votes whereas the respondent (runner up) secured 53,381 
votes, with the differential between the two being 1,252 votes. The 
respondent challenged the election of the appellant primarily on the 
Civil Appeal No.448 of 2014 
-: 2 :- 
grounds that the appellant secured his election by resorting to corrupt 
and illegal practices, and that a large number of bogus votes were got 
cast by him. In view of the divergent pleadings of the parties the 
following issues were framed:- 
“1. 
Whether the petition is not maintainable in terms of 
S. 54 and 55 of Representation of People Act, 1976? 
2. 
Whether Respondent No.1 Returned Candidate 
committed illegal and corrupt practices in the 
election process by way of coercive methods, 
manipulating bogus votes, stuffing the ballot boxes 
with bogus ballot papers? 
3. 
Whether the Returning Officer and other election 
staff had acted in violation of provisions of the 
Representation of Peoples Act, 1976? 
4. 
Whether the Respondent No.1 stuff the bogus votes 
using all foul means and the ballot papers bears 
bogus thumb impressions on counter-foils and such 
report is called from NADRA authorities by 
referring thumb impressions on the counter-foils, 
Pictorial Electoral List? 
5. 
Whether free, fair and transparent election is not 
held in the constituency NA-202 Shikarpur-I? 
6. 
What should the order be?” 
 
The parties led their evidence and after conclusion of the trial the 
learned Tribunal declared the result of 21 polling stations (it is not 
necessary to give the number of each polling station) declaring the appellant as the 
returned candidate as void and ordered re-polling of the said 21 polling 
stations. It may be pertinent to mention here that during the course of 
proceedings, the respondent moved an application seeking verification 
of the counterfoils of the said 21 polling stations and the learned 
Civil Appeal No.448 of 2014 
-: 3 :- 
Tribunal through order dated 20.8.2013 allowed such material to be 
examined by NADRA. The NADRA team upon examination submitted a 
report to the learned Tribunal (which shall be analyzed later), however it is on 
the basis of such report that the election was directed to be re-
conducted in the said 21 polling stations. In this regard it may be 
mentioned that as the appellant in his appeal against the impugned 
judgment could not get the interim relief and the election to the 21 
polling stations were held in the meantime per the learned Tribunal’s 
judgment and now on account of the result emerging due to re-election 
in these polling stations the respondent has been declared to be the 
returned candidate by a margin of 233 votes. It may also be stated here 
that the order dated 20.8.2013 through which the verification of the 
counterfoils by NADRA was directed, was assailed by the appellant 
through a constitution petition before the learned High Court of Sindh 
which has been dismissed vide judgment dated 25.3.2015 and no 
further challenge was made thereto, thus the order has attained 
finality. 
3. 
 
As has been stated earlier the learned Tribunal founded its 
entire decision on the report of NADRA and thus the true attack made 
by the learned counsel for the appellant qua the said report is not only 
about its merits but also vis-à-vis the jurisdiction of NADRA to carry out 
such verification process under the Act and the National Database and 
Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 (NADRA Ordinance). The learned 
counsel further submitted that the learned Tribunal also had no 
jurisdiction under the law to seek verification of the material of the 21 
polling stations.  
4. 
 
Be that as it may, as mentioned above this appeal came up 
for hearing earlier and the appellant had asked for interim relief in the 
Civil Appeal No.448 of 2014 
-: 4 :- 
form of suspension of the impugned judgment because thereunder the 
re-election to 21 polling stations was directed to be held but this 
temporary injunction was refused to the appellant vide order dated 
8.4.2014 passed by this Court (we shall analyze the order and the effect thereof in 
the course of this decision). Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that 
the election petition filed by the respondent was not verified in 
accordance with law and it was not supported by a full affidavit as is 
mandated by the Sindh Chief Court Rules and therefore, such petition 
was liable to be dismissed summarily as per Section 55 of the Act. It is 
also submitted that the learned Tribunal has not taken into 
consideration the oral evidence led by the respondent (election petitioner), 
thus there was no positive evidence for the purposes of declaring the 
election as null and void, rather the learned Tribunal has simply relied 
upon the report of NADRA which according to the learned counsel for 
the appellant is an invalid report for the following reasons:- 
a) 
The absence of the authority of NADRA to either get 
involved in the process of verification or to provide any 
expert opinion under the Act; 
b) 
There is no mandate under the NADRA Ordinance enabling 
NADRA to carry out such kind of a function of verification 
or opining about the validity or otherwise of the counterfoils 
or to resolve election disputes; 
c) 
That NADRA did not have the capacity to render a reliable 
piece of admissible evidence which is above suspicion and 
beyond reproach on account of which it can be held that 
such is an expert evidence so as to be made the basis for 
annulling the election or resolving a dispute therein;  
Civil Appeal No.448 of 2014 
-: 5 :- 
d) 
That the obtaining of ridges and fingerprints on a piece of 
paper is totally different from the global model of obtaining 
fingerprints through a modern device such as live scan 
fingerprinting. 
Learned counsel also referred to the parliamentary proceedings and 
submitted that the mere fact of non-verification of 60-65% of votes 
would not result in the automatic conclusion that the said percentage of 
votes is bogus. 
5. 
 
While dealing with the fundamental rights of citizens under 
Article 17 which includes the right to seek election to Parliament and 
Provincial Assembly, every effort has to be made to safeguard and 
guarantee such rights and suspicious material should not be allowed to 
be made the basis for disenfranchising an elected representative of the 
people except on very strong and positive evidence. In this respect 
learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the material on the 
record in the shape of the NADRA report is not a replacement or 
substitute for the positive evidence needed in this regard. 
6. 
 
It has also been submitted that according to the result 
which has emerged after the by-elections, the position of the 21 polling 
stations remained the same, in that, the appellant had obtained almost 
the same number of votes which he acquired in the general elections, 
whereas the respondent has an improved position but only for the 
reason that 8000 votes, earlier cast in favour of a candidate of a 
different party who did not contest the by-elections, came to his kitty. 
On various propositions learned counsel for the appellant had relied 
upon the judgments reported as Lala Shakeel-ur-Rehman Vs. Dr. 
Muhammad Ashraf Chohan (2009 CLC 1302); Abdul Rahim Khoso 
Civil Appeal No.448 of 2014 
-: 6 :- 
Vs. Mir Hazar Khan Bijrani (2004 CLC 77); Engineer Jameel Ahmad 
Malik Vs. Ghulam Sarwar Khan and 6 others (2004 CLC 914); 
Engineer Jameel Ahmad Malik Vs. Shaukat Aziz and 6 others (2007 
CLC 1192); Bashir Ahmad Vs. Abdul Wahid (PLD 1995 Lah 98); 
Muhammad Anwar and others Vs. Mst. Ilyas Begum and others 
(PLD 2013 SC 255); In the matter of: Human Rights Cases Nos.4668 
of 2006, 1111 of 2007 and 15283-G of 2010 (PLD 2010 SC 759); 
Suo Motu Case No.13 of 2009 (PLD 2011 SC 619); A. C. Jose Vs. 
Sivan Pillai and others (AIR 1984 SC 921); Tanvir Ashraf Vs. Ch. 
Riasat Ali and 5 others (2004 YLR 659); Mian Ejaz Shafi Vs. Syed 
Ali Ashraf Shah and 11 others (PLD 1995 SC 43); Ali Hasan @ 
Jamshaid Vs. The State (2012 SCMR 242); Muhammad Ayub Vs. 
Iftikhar Ahmad Qureshi, Returning Officer, for Senate Elections 
2006 FATA and 9 others (2007 CLC 1673); M. Budda Prasad Vs. 
Simhadri Satyanarayana Rao and others (1994 SCMR 446); Hari 
Ram Vs. Hira Singh and others (AIR 1984 SC 396); Chaitanya 
Kumar Adatiya Vs. Smt. Sushila Dixit and others (AIR 1975 SC 
1718); Ram Sewak Yadav Vs. Hussain Kamil Kidwai and others (AIR 
1964 SC 1249); Dr. Akhtar Hussain Khan and others Vs. Federation 
of Pakistan and others (2012 SCMR 455); The Federation of 
Pakistan 
through 
the 
Secretary, 
Establishment 
Division, 
Government of Pakistan Rawalpindi Vs. Saeed Ahmad Khan and 
others, and The Secretary, Department of Education, Government 
of Punjab Vs. M. R. Toosy, Ex-Principal, Government College, 
Sargodha and others (PLD 1974 SC 151); Hukmat Khan Vs. Sardar 
Asghar Ali and another (PLD 1958 (W.P.) Lah 962); Asif Nawaz 
Fatiana Vs. Walayat Shah and others (2007 CLC 610); Sardar Abdul 
Hafeez Khan Vs. Sardar Muhammad Tahir Khan Loni (1999 SCMR 
Civil Appeal No.448 of 2014 
-: 7 :- 
284); Ch. Muhammad Abdullah Vs. Ch. Abdul Wakil and others (PLD 
1986 SC 487); Samant N. Balakrishna, etc. Vs. George Fernandez 
and others etc. (AIR 1969 SC 1201); Maulvi Abdul Ghani and 
another Vs. Election Tribunal, Balochistan and others (1999 SCMR 
1); Mian Shah Jehan Vs. Abdus Subhan Khan and others (1988 CLC 
750); Capt. Syed Muhammad Ali Vs. Salim Zia (1999 CLC 1026); 
Capt. Syed Muhammad Ali Vs. The Returning Officer, P.S. 89, 
District Courts, Karachi and 11 others (1999 CLC 2039); Col. 
(Retd.) Syed Mukhtar Hussain Shah Vs. Wasim Sajjad and 30 others 
(PLD 1986 SC 178); Khan Muhammad Yusuf Khan Khattak Vs. S. M. 
Ayub and 2 others (PLD 1973 SC 160); Syed Saeed Hassan Vs. Pyar 
Ali and 7 others (PLD 1976 SC 6); Muhammad Saeed and 4 others 
Vs. (1) Election Petitions Tribunal, West Pakistan, (2) Mehr 
Muhammad Arif Khan, (3) Ghulam Haider and (4) West Pakistan 
Government and others (PLD 1957 SC (Pak.) 91); Syed Abdul Latif 
Shah Vs. Ali Muhammad Khan and others (2004 MLD 36); Peter 
John Sahotra Vs. Returning Officer and others (1995 CLC 394); 
Abdul Raja Razzak Vs. Abdul Hakeem Baloch and 27 others (2014 
CLC 574); Bahader Khan Vs. The State and another (2012 PCrLJ 
24). 
7. 
 
On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent has 
made reference to an order passed by this Court on 8.4.2014 and has 
argued that all the points which have been raised by the appellant’s 
learned counsel have already been attended to and answered against 
him in the said order. It is also argued that the appellant had himself 
applied for the verification of votes at 16 polling stations by stating in 
clear and unequivocal terms that verification from NADRA should be 
obtained which is very reliable and this was consented to very candidly 
Civil Appeal No.448 of 2014 
-: 8 :- 
by the respondent, however subsequently the appellant backed out and 
retreated from this offer, therefore it does not lie with the appellant to 
raise any objection to the competence and authority of NADRA for 
verification of the election material. It is also submitted that earlier the 
interim order through which the verification by NADRA was directed 
was challenged by the appellant though a constitution petition before 
the learned High Court which was decided against him and this order 
had not been challenged further resultantly the appellant is now 
precluded from challenging that said order by saying that it is against 
the authority of NADRA (note:- it has been submitted that after the elections at 21 
polling stations, the appellant only assailed before the Election Tribunal (perhaps) some 
illegalities qua 7 polling stations which were found to be very minor but no further challenge 
was put forth as the appellant did not file any election petition to challenge the outcome of the 
election after re-polling at these 21 polling stations).  
8. 
 
Heard. As far as the verification of the petition is concerned, 
suffice it to say that from the written statement filed by the appellant, 
there is no serious objection about the verification of the election 
petition, rather the objection raised was about the annexures to the 
petition and this also is not one of the grounds set out by the appellant 
in the present memo of appeal. As regards the argument now raised 
that the election petition is not supported by a full affidavit as per the 
requirement of the provisions of the Sindh Chief Court Rules, suffice it 
to say that when one looks at Section 55 of the Act, the only 
requirement of law is regarding verification as per the provisions of 
Order VI Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and not vis-
à-vis any affidavit required to be given in support of the election 
petition. Therefore, the argument about a full length affidavit has no 
substance. As far as the verification of the election petition otherwise is 
Civil Appeal No.448 of 2014 
-: 9 :- 
concerned, we have examined the document and find that a short 
affidavit to that effect in support thereof has been given which duly 
fulfills the requirements of Order VI Rule 15, CPC as has been held in 
the judgments reported as Sardarzada Zafar Abbas and others Vs. 
Syed Hassan, Murtaza and others (PLD 2005 SC 600) and Lt. Col. 
(R) Ghazanfar Abbas Shah Vs. Mehr Khalid Mehmood Sargana etc. 
(2015 SCMR 1585). As regards the other plea that there is no positive 
evidence led by the respondent to prove corrupt and illegal practices or 
other illegalities in the conduct of the election and whatever evidence 
was led by the respondent was not believed by the learned Tribunal, 
suffice it to say that regardless of the evidence led by the respondent, 
the Tribunal for appropriate reasons had sought verification of the 
election material from NADRA and this order when challenged by the 
appellant in a constitution petition has been upheld by the learned 
Sindh High Court and no further challenge was made before this Court. 
Therefore for all intents and purposes the order has attained finality 
and it cannot be called into question in an indirect manner as has been 
now done by the learned counsel. Besides, it may be pointed out that 
the appellant himself through an application dated 24.8.2013 had 
sought the verification of the election material for 16 polling stations 
(maybe for polling stations other than the said 21) and categorically stated that 
“verification of thumb impressions and CNIC Nos. from NADRA, would bring the 
credibility the result of election”. Obviously in the above situation the 
appellant is estopped by his own conduct from saying now that the 
election material could not be referred to NADRA for examination and 
verification.  
9. 
 
As far as the plea that NADRA does not have the requisite 
mandate under the provisions of the Act or the rules framed 
Civil Appeal No.448 of 2014 
-: 10 :- 
thereunder, suffice it to say that this in no way takes away the 
jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal where the laws of the CPC and 
evidence are duly applicable to seek the assistance and expert opinion 
from any organization (see Section 64 of the Act). It is an exercise of 
appropriate authority by the learned Tribunal that verification was 
sought for. As regards the argument that there is no mandate with 
NADRA allowing for such verification, it may be mentioned that NADRA 
is meant for the purpose of registration of citizens of the country and 
maintaining a database for multiple uses in efficiently and effectively 
running the affairs of the State and the general public in order to 
achieve the goals of good governance, public service and minimizing 
scope for corruption and inefficiency (as per the preamble to the NADRA 
Ordinance). Furthermore, Section 7(1)(i) of the NADRA Ordinance allows 
for NADRA to provide the requisite access into the National Data 
Warehouse (i.e. the central data warehouse based on the data and information from the 
Citizens Database) to all Government, semi-Government and private 
institutions in such manner and for such fee as may be prescribed by 
regulations. The above section can be read with Section 5(4)(h) which 
allows NADRA to charge a prescribed fee for its services or for provision 
of any information or report to any Governmental, private entity etc. 
from its databases, and such services/information to our mind can 
always be received and resorted to by the Courts and the Tribunals of 
law and the skill and expertise of NADRA can be taken as an expert 
opinion in terms of Article 59 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. 
Therefore, being the only body vested with the authority by statute to 
issue NICs, the numbers of which are used as the primary method for 
identification of voters for the purposes of issuance of ballot papers and 
to cast their vote at an election, obviously where a question of any 
Civil Appeal No.448 of 2014 
-: 11 :- 
voter’s identity is involved the process of verification and authentication 
should be carried out by NADRA. The process adopted by NADRA (which 
is enunciated by the NADRA report not only in this case, but by similar NADRA reports in 
numerous cases before this Court) is as follows:- the election material (including the 
statements of count, used counterfoils and photo electoral rolls) is received from the 
Election Tribunal which is subsequently scanned and loaded onto a 
database to preserve such material in electronic form. Such scanning 
operation is performed using auto-feed high speed scanners at an image 
quality of 400 dpi. Then the digitization operation takes place whereby 
the NIC numbers and fingerprints are electronically extracted from the 
scanned images. Before moving on to the actual verification of thumb 
impression process, NADRA first sifts the used counterfoils as follows:- 
(i) invalid CNIC on counterfoils, meaning thereby that such used 
counterfoils had NIC numbers which were never issued by NADRA, and 
also includes those counterfoils which contained no NIC number 
whatsoever; (ii) ‘out of constituency’ votes (but only if NADRA has the 
constituency mapping of the seat in question with their respective voter entries); (iii) 
duplicate voters on counterfoils, i.e. one CNIC appeared on more than 
one used counterfoil; and (iv) used counterfoils without fingerprints. 
After excluding the aforementioned categories of counterfoils, the 
remaining counterfoils’ fingerprints are run through the authentication 
process which is done by an Automated Fingerprint Identification 
System (AFIS), whereby fingerprints on used counterfoils are matched 
against the NADRA database of fingerprints. This process entails three 
results:- (i) fingerprints successfully authenticated, i.e. the fingerprint 
affixed on a used counterfoil (which contains a valid NIC) matches the 
fingerprint of the registered voter/citizen held with NADRA in its citizen 
database; and (ii) fingerprints failing authentication, i.e. the fingerprint 
Civil Appeal No.448 of 2014 
-: 12 :- 
affixed on the used counterfoil (which contains a valid NIC) did not match the 
fingerprint of the registered voter/citizen held with NADRA in its citizen 
database; (iii) cases where there are some residue used counterfoils, i.e. 
where the fingerprints on used counterfoils (which contains a valid NIC) were 
of poor quality (for e.g. the ink was smudged, etc.) and thus could not be 
processed through the AFIS. 
10. 
 
Besides from the statement of CW-1, a representative of 
NADRA, it is very much clear that NADRA has the requisite expertise in 
this behalf. Moreover, NADRA has prepared Standard Operating 
Procedures (SOPs) to which reference has been made in paragraph 6 of 
the report upon which the process identified in the report was observed. 
Obviously befalling such procedure the verification has been made and 
from the cross-examination of CW-1 conducted by the appellant we are 
of the considered view that a dent has hardly been made either qua the 
authority, expertise, skill or even the verification on merits of the report 
submitted by NADRA. It may also be added here that according to the 
NADRA report, the following illegalities have been found in the votes:- 
 
S. 
NO 
Description 
Count of 
Votes 
1 
Votes polled in polling stations whose 
election material was received by 
NADRA 
16,469 
2 
Invalid NIC number mentioned on used 
counterfoils, this also includes such 
counterfoils that do not have CNIC 
mentioned over it. 
2,283 
3 
Duplicate voters on used counterfoils 
1,098 
4 
Used counterfoils without fingerprints 
35 
5 
Fingerprints successfully authenticated 
on used counterfoils and ER 
2,320 
6 
Fingerprints on used counterfoils and 
ER failing authentication 
1,133 
7 
Fingerprints of bad quality affixed on 
used counterfoils 
9,600 
Civil Appeal No.448 of 2014 
-: 13 :- 
From the above, it is sure that excluding 4,549 votes (combined count of votes 
at serial numbers 2, 3, 4, and 6) which is greater in number than the difference 
between the total number of votes obtained by the appellant and the 
respondent, i.e. 1,252 votes, would render the election result as being 
materially affected, and this is the reason which prevailed with the 
learned Tribunal for holding of fresh elections at 21 polling stations. We 
are not impressed with the argument of the learned counsel for the 
appellant that NADRA does not have any expertise in the matter or does 
not have the capacity or the mandate or the Election Tribunal had no 
authority to refer the election material to NADRA for the purposes of the 
dispute.  
11. 
 
In view of the foregoing, we find that the learned Tribunal 
was justified and correct in declaring the result of 21 polling stations 
declaring the appellant as a returned candidate as void and ordering for 
re-election in the said 21 polling stations. 
12. 
 
The above are the detailed reasons for the short order of 
even date whereby the appellant’s civil appeal was dismissed, which 
reads as:- 
“For the reasons to be recorded later, this appeal has no 
merit and is hereby dismissed.” 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
4th January, 2016 
Approved For Reporting 
Waqas Naseer/* 
