IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)  
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE EJAZ AFZAL KHAN 
MR. JUSTICE MAQBOOL BAQAR 
MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB  
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1628 OF 2017 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 13.04.2017 
passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Election 
Appeal no. 16/2016) 
 
Zulfiqar Ali Ranjha and Mirza Habibullah 
… Appellants 
VERSUS 
Zia Ullah Ranjha and others  
… Respondents 
 
For the Appellants: 
Mr. Hamid Khan, Sr. ASC 
 
 
For the Respondents: 
Mr. Muhammad Munir Paracha, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Dil Muhammad Khan Alizai, ASC 
 
Date of Hearing:  
08.03.2018 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
 
FAISAL ARAB, J.- Under the local government laws, 
election to the seats of chairman and vice chairman of a Union 
Council is contested in pairs. Four sets of candidates contested for 
the seats of chairman and vice chairman of Union Council No. 23, 
Minawal Ranjha, District Mandi Bahauddin, Punjab for which 
polling was held on 19.11.2015. The appellants ranked first by 
securing 2545 votes whereas respondent Nos. 1 & 2 stood runner-
ups, bagging 2523 votes. Leading with a thin margin of 22 votes, the 
appellants were declared returned candidates. The respondent Nos. 
1 & 2 disputed the vote-count of Polling Station No.200 and sought 
recount where a total of 1178 votes had been cast. Out of 1178 
votes 1131 were declared valid of which the appellants bagged 712 
votes, respondent Nos. 1 & 2 bagged 286 votes, respondent Nos. 3 & 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1628 OF 2017 
2
4 bagged 130 votes and respondent Nos. 5 & 6 bagged 3 votes. 47 
votes were rejected. The Returning Officer allowed the application of 
respondent Nos. 1 & 2 for recount of votes polled in polling station 
No.200. In the process of recounting, 17 votes from the count of the 
appellants and 4 votes from the count of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 
were excluded whereas 8 votes were added to the count of 
respondent Nos. 3 & 4. After such minor adjustments the tally of 
valid votes in the second count came down to 1118 votes from 1131 
votes and rejected votes increased to 60 votes from 47 votes. 
However these minor adjustments are not in issue in the present 
proceedings. The issue solely relates to 207 ballot papers that were 
excluded from the tally of 1118 valid votes on account of absence of 
signatures of the presiding officer.  Of these 207 ballot papers 131 
were polled in favour of the appellants, 53 in favour of respondent 
Nos. 1 & 2 and 23 in favour of respondent Nos. 3 & 4.  
 
2. 
 
As in the initial counting of votes, the appellants were 
declared successful with a thin margin of 22 votes, upon exclusion 
of 207 ballot papers in the recount, the final tally of the entire 
constituency tilted in favour of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 which 
reflected that they bagged 2447 votes as against 2391 votes bagged 
by the appellants. Hence, the result was reversed in favour of 
respondent Nos. 1 & 2 which the Election Commission notified on 
21.12.2015. The appellants being aggrieved with the reversal of the 
result 
filed 
Election 
Petition 
before 
the 
Election 
Tribunal, 
Gujranwala, however, the same was dismissed on 03.10.2016 on 
the basis of sub-rule 4 (c) (i) of Rule 35 of the Punjab Local 
Governments (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2013 which provides 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1628 OF 2017 
3
that in case the official mark and the signature of the presiding 
officer is missing on the back of the ballot papers, the same are to 
be excluded from the vote-count. Unsatisfied with the result of the 
Election Tribunal, the appellants filed Election Appeal in the Lahore 
High Court. The High Court came to the conclusion that Rule 35 (4) 
(c) (i) specifically provides that where ballot papers do not bear the 
official mark and the signature of the presiding officer, the same are 
to be excluded from the vote count. Thus, the order of the Tribunal 
was maintained. Aggrieved by such decision of the High Court, 
present appeal with leave of this Court has been filed.  
 
3. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellants argued that 
exclusion of 207 ballot papers from the tally of valid votes on 
account of absence of the signatures of the presiding officer was not 
justified when the ballot papers were duly stamped with the official 
mark and thus substantial compliance of the Rule 35 (4) (c) (i) of 
Punjab Local Governments (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2013 was 
made. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the 
dicta laid down in the case of Muhammad Abdullah Vs. Abdul Wakil 
(PLD 1986 SC 487). 
 
4. 
 
Learned counsel for the respondents in rebuttal argued 
that Rule 35 (4) (c) (i) of Punjab Local Governments (Conduct of 
Elections) Rules, 2013 envisages existence of both the requirements 
i.e. official mark as well as the signature of the Presiding Officer 
which are mandatory and omission in the fulfilment of any of the 
two requirements would result in exclusion of ballot papers from the 
vote-count. With regard to the judgment cited by the counsel for the 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1628 OF 2017 
4
appellants, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 
contended that the said judgment was rendered by this Court on 
the basis of the legal position obtaining under the then election laws 
which envisaged that such ballot papers are to excluded from the 
vote-count that do not contain official mark or the signature of the 
presiding officer whereas under Rule 35 (4) (c) (i) of Punjab Local 
Governments (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2013 every ballot paper 
has to contain an official mark as well as the signature of the 
presiding officer in order to be counted and for this reason the word 
‘and’ has been used in sub-rule 4 (c) (i) between the two 
requirements and not ‘or’ as was the law when Muhammad 
Abdullah’s case supra was decided, therefore, it is distinguishable 
on that score. He maintained that the word ‘and’ as provided under 
the law applicable to the case in hand, may not be read as ‘or’. In 
support of this contention learned counsel placed reliance on a 
judgment of this Court rendered in the cases of Shah Muhammad 
Vs. Election Tribunal, Urban Local Council, Chishtian (PLD 1985 
SC 287) and Zahid Iqbal Vs. Muhammad Adnan (2016 SCMR 430). 
To further strengthen his submission, learned counsel also placed 
reliance on the handbook issued by Election Commission of 
Pakistan to all Presiding and Assistant Presiding Officers deputed to 
conduct 2015 Local Government elections in Punjab. One of the 
directions contained in the handbook with graphic display provided 
that where a ballot paper does not bear the stamp of the official 
code mark and the signature of the Assistant Presiding Officer, the 
same is to be excluded from the vote-count.   
 
5. 
 
The question which needs to be examined in this case is 
whether the omission on the part of Presiding Officer to sign ballot 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1628 OF 2017 
5
papers would outright warrant their exclusion from the vote-count 
under sub-rule 4 (c) (i) of Rule 35 of Punjab Local Governments 
(Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2013. For the sake of convenience 
sub-rule 4 (c) (i) of Rule 35 is reproduced below:- 
 
(4) 
Subject to the directions of the Election Commission, the 
Presiding Officer shall:  
 
(a) 
………………………………………………………………  
 
(b) 
………………………………………………………………  
 
(c) 
count the votes cast in favour of each contesting 
candidate excluding from the count the ballot 
papers, which bear:  
 
(i) 
no official mark and signature of the 
presiding officer; 
 
 
6. 
 
Sub-rule 4 of Rule 35 facilitates in ascertaining whether 
the tally of final vote-count reconciles with the tally of legitimately 
issued ballot papers to the voters of a polling station at the time of 
polling. In case fake ballot-papers smuggled from outside are 
secretively stuffed in the ballot boxes, this would become apparent 
when the final vote-count exceeds the count of legitimately issued 
ballot papers. In such eventuality the official marks as well as the 
signatures of the presiding officer on the back of each ballot paper 
would facilitate in sorting out fake ballot papers from the genuine 
ones which could then be excluded from the vote-court. This 
appears to be the intent behind framing of sub-rule 4 of Rule 35. 
From the election data of the present case it is evident that a total of 
1178 ballot papers were issued to the voters of which 1131 were 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1628 OF 2017 
6
declared valid and 47 were rejected in the first count. When 
recounting was ordered it was conducted in two stages. In the first 
stage the tally of valid votes in the disputed polling station was 
reduced from 1131 to 1118 as 13 valid votes were rejected raising 
the tally of rejected votes from 47 to 60. This was the first stage of 
recounting of disputed votes which is not in dispute in these 
proceedings. Dispute arose when in the second stage of recounting 
207 ballot papers from the tally of valid votes were excluded from 
the vote-count on account of absence of signatures of the Assistant 
Presiding Officer who conducted the elections at Polling Station 
No.200. After such exclusion, the final tally of valid votes came 
further down to 911 votes from 1118 votes. It may be mentioned 
here that the polling agents of the contesting candidates also keep 
an account of the ballot-papers issued to the voters by the presiding 
or assistant presiding officers. It has never been the case of 
respondent Nos. 1 & 2 that the final tally of ballot papers on the 
first or second count exceeded the number of ballot-papers 
legitimately issued at the disputed polling station during the polling 
process nor is their case that before commencing the count, the 
ballot boxes were removed from the sight of the their polling agents 
in order to give rise to the suspicion that the genuine ballot-papers 
may have been replaced with fake ones. In these circumstances the 
overall tally of ballot papers (inclusive of valid, rejected and excluded 
votes) issued at the time of polling at Polling Station No. 200 was 
1178 and at both the stages of counting was also the same i.e. 1178 
votes, totally ruling out bogus voting from the equation. The 
mischief which sub-rule 4 of Rule 35 intends to suppress is to 
prevent stuffing of ballot boxes with bogus votes which is not the 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1628 OF 2017 
7
case in the present proceedings. This could be more conveniently 
comprehended from the following table:- 
 
 
Voting result of Polling Station No. 200 
 
Position 
after 
first 
vote count 
Adjustments 
made in the 
second 
vote 
count 
which 
was 
not  
disputed 
 
Tally of votes  
after 
undisputed 
adjustments 
in 
second 
count  
Deduction 
of 
207 
valid 
votes 
having 
no 
signature 
of 
Presiding 
Officer  
Finally 
tally 
of 
votes after 
recount 
Appellants 
712 
-17 
695 
-131 
564 
Resp Nos. 1 & 2 
286 
-4 
282 
-53 
229 
Resp Nos. 3 & 4 
130 
+8 
138 
-23 
115 
Resp Nos. 5 & 6 
3 
- 
3 
 
3 
Total valid votes 
1131 
 
1118 
 
911 
Rejected votes 
47 
13 
60 
207 
267 
Total votes polled 
1178 
 
1178 
 
1178 
 
 
7. 
 
From the above data, it can be seen that in all 1178 
ballot papers were issued at the disputed polling station to the 
voters at the time of polling and the tally of vote-count in the two 
stages of recounting also remained the same i.e. 1178 votes (911 
valid and 267 rejected/excluded). This establishes that the disputed 
207 ballot papers were not smuggled from outside and polled but 
were part of 1178 ballot papers that were issued to the genuine 
voters who came to cast their votes at Polling Station No.200 but 
were excluded in the second count only for the reason that these 
ballot-papers did not bear the signature of the Presiding Officer, 
which is one of the two requirements of sub-rule 4 of Rule 35. In 
our opinion a ballot paper warrants out-right exclusion from the 
count if the signature as well as the official mark, both, are missing. 
In case only one of the two requirements exists and yet the final 
tally of votes cast at a polling station exceeds the number of ballot 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1628 OF 2017 
8
papers issued to the voters then too such ballot-papers should be 
excluded from the vote-count as excess of votes upon their count 
establishes that bogus voting has taken place. None of these two 
situations, as illustrated above, exists in the present case. Why then 
these 207 voters, who legitimately exercised their right of vote, stand 
disenfranchised merely because the presiding officer committed 
mistake of not signing on them. In Muhammad Abdullah’s case 
supra referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants, reliance 
was placed on an earlier judgment of this Court in the case of Jamal 
Shah v. The Member Election Commission (PLD 1966 SC 1) which is 
a unanimous decision of five member bench. In this case late A. R. 
Cornelius, C.J. had observed thus “Moreover, the Member’s 
argument is not without weight, viz that an error in this respect is 
totally outside the obligation of the elector, and the law could not 
intend that he should be penalized for it. It is the duty of the Presiding 
Officer, under section 32, before he hands a ballot-paper over to the 
voter, to apply the official mark to it, and at the same time, to place 
his initials on it. There is ground, therefore, for thinking that the 
existence of the official mark is by itself sufficient to show that the 
paper passed through this process at the hands of the Presiding 
Officer, and it was mere act of inadvertence on his part that he failed 
to initial it at the same time. These considerations are relevant for the 
decision of the question of construction, viz whether the conjunction 
‘or’ as used in the expression ‘no official mark or initials’ appearing in 
section 36 (1) (b) (i) enjoining exclusion of the vote by the Presiding 
Officer and section 38 (2) (a) enjoining rejection by the Returning 
Officer was not to be understood in a conjunctive, rather than in a 
disjunctive sense.”  
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1628 OF 2017 
9
 
8. 
 
When only 1178 ballot papers were issued to the voters 
at the time of polling at the disputed polling station and the final 
count of all the votes in the second round was also 1178 votes (911 
valid and 267 rejected/excluded) and the disputed 207 ballot papers 
are inclusive of these 1178 ballot papers then on what material it 
could be said that the election in the disputed Polling Station was so 
badly conducted that the sanctity of vote was violated. Election laws 
are meant to prevent illegal and corrupt practices in an election 
process. Any omission on the part of the election officials in the 
enforcement of a rule which has nothing to do with the contesting 
candidate or the voters and such omission does not lead to form an 
opinion that bogus voting may have taken place then one cannot 
assume that object of sub-rule 4 of Rule 35 would be defeated if 207 
validly cast votes are treated as valid and counted. On the contrary 
the said object would stand fully achieved, notwithstanding the 
omission of one of the two requirements of sub-rule 4 of Rule 35. 
When one of the two requirements have been fulfilled establishing 
that the disputed 207 ballot papers were issued to genuine voters of 
the constituency then there appears to be no reason to exclude 
them from the vote-count merely because one of the two 
requirements of sub-rule 4 of Rule 35 was not fulfilled by seeking 
strict compliance of both the requirements simultaneously. The 
object of sub rule 4 of Rule 35 of Punjab Local Governments 
(Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2013 is to exclude bogus and not 
genuine vote from the vote count. In the light of specific facts and 
figures of this case discussed above, exclusion of 207 votes would 
amount to excluding genuinely cast 207 votes from the count, which 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1628 OF 2017 
10
in the circumstances of the case would amount to disenfranchising 
207 genuine voters. A five member bench of this Court in the case of 
Jamal Shah supra has held that omission on the part of the 
presiding officer to sign ballot papers is totally outside the obligation 
of the voters and for that they cannot be penalized by excluding 
their votes which were nevertheless duly stamped with the official 
mark. This dictum of Jamal Shah’s case was not touched upon by 
three member bench of this Court in the case of Shah Muhammad 
supra though it was cited.  
 
9. 
 
In view of the above discussion, we allow this appeal on 
the basis of dictum laid down in Shah Jamal’s case and declare that 
207 disputed ballot papers are to be treated as valid and shall be 
taken into vote-count.    
 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
Islamabad, the 
Announced on 04.05.2018 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Faisal Arab 
 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram