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. 185 OF 2015 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 12.03.2015 
passed by the Election Tribunal, Rawalpindi in Election 
Petition No. 284/2013) 
 
Ch. Hamid Hameed 
 
 
 
   
… Appellant 
VERSUS 
 
Barrister Abdullah Mumtaz Kahlon and others 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  …Respondents 
 
 
For the Appellant:  
Mr. Tariq Mehmood, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
 
Syed Najam-ul-Hassan Kazmi, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
 
For the Respondent (1): Dr. Babar Awan, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
 
 
 
 
Assisted by: 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Farooq Awan, ASC and 
Barrister Adil Kahloon  
 
 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing:  
10.05.2016 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
FAISAL ARAB, J.- In the General Elections that were held 
on 11.05.2013, the appellant was declared returned candidate from 
the National Assembly constituency NA-66-III City Sargodha. The 
respondent No. 1, who was runner up filed Election Petition before the 
Election Tribunal under Section 52 of the Representation of the People 
Act, 1976 alleging corrupt and illegal practices on the part of the 
appellant. It was also alleged that the appellant in his nomination form 
has concealed his ownership/interest in Koh-e-Noor Textile Cotton 
Mills situated in Pipplan, District Mianwali. The Tribunal after framing 
Civil Appeal No. 185/2015 
 
2 
2 
issues and recording evidence of the parties, accepted the Election 
Petition on the ground of concealment of asset. Appellant’s election 
was declared void and fresh election in the constituency was ordered. 
Being aggrieved by such decision the appellant filed the present 
appeal.  
 
2. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Tariq Mehmood 
submitted that appellant’s election was declared void on the ground 
that the appellant had concealed his ownership/interest in Koh-e-Noor 
Textile Cotton Mills though he was never an owner of the said mills. 
He submitted that the appellant is in the business of purchasing old 
machinery and equipment as well as the material of old buildings that 
are to be demolished. He further explained that apart from purchasing 
old machinery and equipment as well as the material of old buildings 
of the said mills, the appellant alongwith his other two partners 
entered into a contract with the owner of the said mills to launch a 
project on the land of the mills. The purpose of the project was to 
carve out plots and then sell them to the general public. He submitted, 
the appellant never become owner of the land of the mills, he only 
made investment.  
 
3. 
 
Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, Dr. Babar Awan 
in rebuttal argued that there was sufficient evidence on record to 
establish that the appellant became owner of Koh-e-Noor Textile 
Cotton Mill which fact he ought to have declared in his nomination 
form but he concealed the same. Learned counsel referred to various 
documents on record to demonstrate that the appellant became one of 
the owners of Koh-e-Noor Textile Cotton Mills. He drew our attention 
Civil Appeal No. 185/2015 
 
3 
3 
to a complaint lodged by the appellant with DPO Sargodha wherein he 
alleged fraud on the part of one Ghulam Abbas Khan, who while acting 
as attorney of the original owner of the mills, Khaqan Hassan Najeeb, 
sold plots and misappropriated the sale proceeds that fell to the share 
of the appellant. He then took us to the FIR that was lodged pursuant 
to such complaint at Police Station N Area, District Sargodha under 
Section 406 PPC on 5.2.2012. He also referred to partnership 
agreement executed on 19.7.2001 among the appellant having 37.5% 
share and two other persons namely Javed Iqbal having 25% share 
and Mian Munir Ahmed having 37.5% share.  
 
 
 
The partnership deed shows that three partners had 
agreed to make investment in the project mentioned above. The owner 
of the mills agreed to launch the project which was to be supervised by 
his nominee Ghulam Abbas Khan. He was made responsible to sell the 
plots and deposit the sale proceeds in bank which amount was then to 
be shared amongst all the stakeholders according to their respective 
shares. After sale of the plots, the appellant alleged misappropriation 
of his share on the part of Ghulam Abbas Khan, which led to filing of 
the complaint and FIR No. 54 at Police Station N Area, Sargodha 
under Section 406 PPC on 5.2.2012.  
 
4. 
 
It is an admitted position that title of Koh-e-Noor Textile 
Cotton Mills remained with Khaqan Hassan Najeeb till the finalization 
of the project. From the record of the criminal proceedings, it is 
evident that the appellant only alleged misappropriation of his share in 
the project that apparently remained unpaid. Thus the whole 
transaction with regard to the sale of the plots was nothing but an 
Civil Appeal No. 185/2015 
 
4 
4 
investment in a project, object of which was materialized when plots 
were carved out, sold and transferred to the purchasers through 
execution of sale deeds that were executed by Ghulam Abbas Khan on 
the strength of power of attorney executed in his favour by Khaqan 
Hassen Najeeb. Hence, from the above, it is apparent that neither on 
or before 30.06.2013 the appellant became owner of Koh-e-Noor 
Textile Cotton Mills. The appellant only made an investment along 
with his two other partners in a project which came to an end with the 
sale of the plots and only for the misappropriation of appellant’s share 
in the sale proceeds, criminal proceedings were initiated against 
Ghulam Abbas Khan. Had the project failed even then the appellant 
would not have become owner in the land in question as in such 
eventuality also he would have only claimed return of his investment 
plus damages and nothing more. So the question of concealment of 
ownership in Koh-e-Noor Textile Cotton Mills does not arise. The 
finding of the Election Tribunal in these circumstances is not 
sustainable in law. 
 
5. 
 
 The above are the detailed reasons of our short order of 
even date whereby we allowed this appeal and set aside the impugned 
judgment.    
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
JUDGE 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
10th of May, 2016 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram