IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, HCJ 
MR. JUSTICE KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN 
MR. JUSTICE SH. AZMAT SAEED 
 
CIVIL PETITION NOs. 25-Q & 399 OF 2014 
(On appeal from the order dated 20.1.2014 passed by the High 
Court of Balochistan, Quetta in Constitutional Petition No. 
949/2013 a/w C.P. No. 36/2014) 
 
Muhammad Akram Baloch 
 
 
(In CPs 25-Q/2014) 
Akbar Askani 
 
 
 
 
(In CP 399/2014) 
… Petitioners 
VERSUS 
Election Tribunal Balochistan, Quetta etc (In both cases) 
… Respondents 
 
For the Petitioners: 
Mr. Muhammad Aslam Chishti, Sr. ASC 
 
Mr. S.A.M. Quadri, AOR 
 
(For the petitioners in CP 25-Q/2014 & for the 
respondents in CP 399/2014) 
 
 
Kh. Haris Ahmed, Sr. ASC 
 
Mr. Aman Ullah Kanrani, ASC 
 
(For the petitioners in CP 399/2014 and for the 
respondents in CP 25-Q/2014)  
 
For the Respondent (3): Raja Abdur Rehman, ASC 
 
 
(In CP 25-Q/2014) 
 
 
Date of Hearing:  
03.04.2014 
 
ORDER 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 25-Q/2014 
 
 
TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, CJ.- Petitioner and 5 
others contested the General Elections held on 11.5.2013 from 
constituency No. PB-50 Kech-III, Balochistan and respondent No. 2 
was declared the returned candidate. Petitioner filed an Election 
Petition under Section 52 of the Representation of the People Act, 
1976 and during the pendency of the said petition, he filed an 
application praying that the record of Polling Stations No. 29 & 31 
namely Jatjoo and Tulamb may be got verified through scanning 
by NADRA with a view to determine whether the thumb marks 
CIVIL PETITION NOs. 25-Q & 399 OF 2014 
2
appended to counterfoils of votes casted at the afore-referred 
polling stations were genuine or not. The learned Tribunal vide the 
order dated 23.12.2013 allowed the application but while doing so 
came to the conclusion that even the other candidates had leveled 
allegations of similar nature qua the other polling stations and, 
therefore, in the interest of justice the counterfoils along with 
photo voters’ lists and statement of counts be sent to NADRA 
authorities for examination through the process of biometric 
examination / scanning of thumb marks appended to counterfoils 
of ballot papers with respect to all the polling stations, which 
according to learned counsel for the petitioner are 10 in number. 
Because although the total polling stations are 69 but the polling 
took place at 10 polling stations. This order was affirmed by a 
learned Division Bench of the Balochistan High Court vide the 
impugned order as the Court was of the view as follows:- 
‘We are not in agreement with the contention of the learned 
counsel for the petitioner for the reason that under Article 
164 of the Qanoon-e-Shahat Order, 1984, if a Court 
considers appropriate, it may allow production of any 
evidence that may have become available through modern 
devices or techniques, therefore, the Tribunal, having power 
of a Civil Court, has rightly directed so, to reach a jut and 
correct conclusion. The NADRA was since associated with 
the election process i.e. the preparation of electoral list and 
provided 
magnetic 
ink 
for 
the 
affixation 
of 
thumb 
impressions, therefore, it was the proper authority to conduct 
scanning of the thumb impressions through a mechanical 
process. For this reason, the Tribunal was satisfied and 
deemed it necessary to direct investigation through NADRA 
for scanning of the counterfoils and thumb impressions 
thereupon. The order impugned passed by the Tribunal is 
absolutely within the parameter of the provision of the Act, 
as such, it is within its jurisdiction.”  
 
2. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the 
learned Tribunal has not given any ground tenable in law to go 
beyond the relief which was sought by the petitioner; that the suo 
CIVIL PETITION NOs. 25-Q & 399 OF 2014 
3
moto exercise of jurisdiction for such an exercise was not 
warranted and that the concurrent orders merit interference.  
3. 
 
Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Khawaja 
Haris Ahmed has defended the judgment by submitting that both 
the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 had leveled allegations of similar nature 
qua other polling stations and it was in fitness of things if the 
comparison in question was carried out in respect of all the polling 
stations where the polling took place. Learned counsel relied on 
Muhammad Naeem Kasi vs. Abdul Latif (2005 SCMR 1699), Mian 
Ejaz Shafi Vs. Ali Ashraf Shah (PLD 1994 SC 867), Muhammad 
Azam Farooqi Vs. Muhammad Shafi Okarvi (1974 SCMR 471), 
Bhagwadas Vs. Returning Officer 1228 (1990 SCMR 1228), Shella 
B. Charles Vs. Election Tribunal (1997 SMR 941), Muhammad 
Asim Kurd Vs. Lashkri Khan Raisani (1999 SCMR 689), 
Muhammad Iftikhar Mohmand Vs. Javed Muhammad (1998 SCMR 
328) & Abdul Ghani Vs. Election Tribunal, Balochistan (1999 
SCMR 1) to contend that this petition even otherwise is not 
maintainable as the order passed by the Election Tribunal which 
stands affirmed by the High Court of Balochistan was a concurrent 
order which would ultimately merge in the final order and 
petitioner would have a right to challenge it in appropriate 
proceedings.  
4. 
 
Having considered the submissions made by learned 
counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the learned Election 
Tribunal seized of the Election Petition having appraised the 
evidence has passed a reasoned order which is neither against the 
record nor the law declared. Even otherwise, being an interlocutory 
order, the Court ordinarily is reluctant to interfere unless the said 
CIVIL PETITION NOs. 25-Q & 399 OF 2014 
4
order is against the record or the mandate of law. More-so, when 
the said order has been concurred by a Division Bench of the High 
Court.  
5. 
 
For what has been discussed above, the concurrent 
orders are unexceptionable, warranting no interference. The 
petition lacking in merit is accordingly dismissed and leave 
refused.  
CIVIL PETITION NO. 399/2014 
6. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not want to 
press this petition, which is disposed of accordingly.  
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
3rd of April, 2014 
Not Approved For Reporting  
Khurram