IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
   
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE SH. AZMAT SAEED. 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN. 
MR. JUSTICE QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED. 
 
  
Civil Appeal No.188 of 2019 
Against judgment dated 15.01.2019 of the 
High Court of Sindh, Bench at Sukkur, passed 
in Election Petition No.S-01 of 2018. 
 
Nida Khuhro. 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellant(s) 
Versus 
Moazzam Ali Khan and others 
 
 
Respondent(s) 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
Sardar M. Latif Khan Khosa, Sr. ASC. 
 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR. 
 
For Respondent No.1:  
Mr. Salah-ud-Din Ahmed, ASC. 
 
Date of Hearing:  
 
01.08.2019.  
 
O R D E R   
 
 
 
IJAZ UL AHSAN, J-. The Appellant calls into 
question a judgment dated 15.01.2019 of an Election 
Tribunal of the High Court of Sindh, Bench at Sukkur. 
Through the impugned judgment, an Election Petition bearing 
No.S-01 of 2018 filed by the Appellant was dismissed.  
 
2. 
 
Briefly stated the facts necessary for disposal of 
the lis in hand are that the Appellant contested General 
Election, 2018 alongwith Respondent No.1 and others. 
Respondent No.1 was declared as the Returned Candidate. 
The Appellant sought a declaration from the Election Tribunal 
that the nomination papers of Respondent No.1 were invalid 
inter alia on the ground that he had filed a false declaration of 
assets. As such, it was prayed that the election of Respondent 
Civil Appeal No.188 of 2019 
. 
2 
No.1 was void and the Election Commission of Pakistan may 
be directed to hold fresh election in the constituency (PS-11, 
Larkana-II). Respondent No.1 contested the petition and filed 
a written statement denying all allegations levelled in the 
petition. The Election Tribunal framed as many as 7 issues 
and put the parties to trial. Such trial culminated in 
dismissal of the petition through the impugned judgment. 
Hence, this appeal.  
 
3. 
 
The learned counsel for the Appellant submits 
that concealment of assets by Respondent No.1 was sufficient 
to warrant his disqualification and annulling his election 
notification as a member of the Provincial Assembly in view of 
the law laid down by this Court in the case of Speaker, 
National Assembly of Pakistan v. Habib Akram (PLD 2018 SC 
678). He further maintains that besides nomination papers 
and false declaration, the sworn affidavit submitted by 
Respondent No.1 with his nomination papers provided 
additional grounds for his disqualification and also warranted 
contempt proceedings against him as per declaration of this 
Court in the aforenoted judgment. The learned ASC submits 
that Respondent No.1 is a seasoned politician and could not 
be granted the benefit of ignorance of the legal requirements 
of full and truthful disclosure of assets or bona fide mis-
statement of his assets. He maintains that Respondent No.1 
had not only mis-declared his own assets but also suppressed 
agricultural properties/assets of his dependent children 
(minor sons). He has emphasized the fact that the mala fide of 
Civil Appeal No.188 of 2019 
. 
3 
Respondent No.1 is conspicuous from a deliberate mis-
statement made by him in his nomination papers, declaration 
of assets and sworn affidavit clearly inferring that he was not 
an honest and sagacious person. The learned counsel further 
submits that on account of his acts and omissions, 
Respondent No.1 had rendered himself liable for the 
constitutional disqualification as envisaged in Article 62(1)(f) 
of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 
(‘the Constitution”) as well as provisions of the Election Act, 
2017 (“the Act”) including Section 156 thereof. He maintains 
that wilful concealment by Respondent No.1 having been 
proved without any lawful justification for the same, there 
was no burden cast upon the Appellant to establish mala 
fides in the matter. He points out that the precedent cases 
relied 
upon 
by 
the 
Election 
Tribunal 
were 
entirely 
distinguishable and the Tribunal fell in error in dismissing 
the election petition. He further maintains that the ratio of 
cases reported as Muhammad Jamil v. Munawar Khan (PLD 
2006 SC 24), Khaleefa Muhammad Munawar Butt v. Hafiz 
Muhammad Jamil Nasir (2008 SCMR 504), Muhammad 
Ahmad Chatta v. Iftikhar Ahmad Cheema (2016 SCMR 763), 
Muzafar Abbas v. Muhammad Ahmed Ludhianvi (PLD 2017 
Lahore 394) and Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi v. Muhammad 
Nawaz Sharif (PLD 2017 SC 692) being squarely applicable 
to the case of Respondent No.1 should clearly have resulted 
in his disqualification and ouster from the Provincial 
Assembly. He finally submits that the judgment of the 
Election Tribunal suffers from patent errors of law and runs 
Civil Appeal No.188 of 2019 
. 
4 
contrary to the settled law declared by this Court from time to 
time in its various pronouncements noted above. It was 
therefore unsustainable.   
 
4. 
 
On 
the 
other 
hand, 
learned 
counsel 
for 
Respondent No.1 has vigorously defended the impugned 
judgment. He submits that the original allegations of the 
Appellant were based upon misunderstanding of the property 
documents of Respondent No.1. He maintains that the only 
ground urged by the Appellant before the Election Tribunal 
was that Respondent No.1 just disclosed 61 acres of 
agricultural land in Deh Khedkar, District Larkana whereas 
he owns 140.24½ acres of land in the said Deh. In this 
regard, the learned counsel submits that Respondent No.1 in 
his nomination papers disclosed 61 acres of agricultural land 
in Deh Khedkar, District Larkana, 622 acres in Deh Raju 
Dero, District Khairpur and one Otaq/Bethak in Mohallah 
Waleed, Larkana. With great vehemence, the learned ASC 
submits that the explanation of Respondent No.1 for not 
mentioning the remaining portion out of 140.24½ acres of 
land admittedly recorded in his name in the relevant revenue 
records was that a part of the remaining land approximately 
16 acres had been acquired by the Government of Sindh 
whereas the rest was (although nominally in his name or in 
the name of his minor children) actually is in the beneficial 
ownership, control and possession of his father. The learned 
counsel contends that Respondent No.1 had correctly 
declared the full extent of all immovable properties that are 
Civil Appeal No.188 of 2019 
. 
5 
actually in his direct ownership, control and possession. He 
has not committed any illegality by not declaring the land 
that was only nominally in his name but was actually and 
beneficially owned, controlled and possessed by his father. 
The learned counsel has drawn our attention to the relevant 
land revenue bills and receipts showing that the same were 
being issued and paid in respect of land in his possession, 
ownership and control. The remaining land was being 
cultivated by his father who was receiving revenue bills and 
paying the same in relation thereto. He maintains that there 
is no dispute regarding authenticity of the said documents. 
The learned ASC further submits that the land in question 
disclosed by him was ancestral property that devolved on 
Respondent No.1 through a family settlement and any 
omission to declare the same in the nomination papers could 
not be fatal for his case. The learned counsel argues that 
there could not have been any ill intent or motive behind the 
omission of Respondent No.1 to mention the said land in the 
nomination form. He maintains that Respondent No.1 had 
declared 683 acres of agricultural land in his nomination 
form. He would gain no conceivable incremental advantage or 
benefit from hiding a few acres of land specially when the 
same was admittedly not even purchased by him but devolved 
on him and his children through a family settlement. He also 
maintains that Respondent No.1 was contesting election for 
the Provincial Assembly for the first time and was not fully 
aware of the requirement to be fulfilled in declaration of his 
assets. The learned ASC has emphasized that the Appellant 
Civil Appeal No.188 of 2019 
. 
6 
seeks not the rejection of a nomination paper but the voiding 
of an election. Under Section 156 of the Election Act, 2017 
(“the Act”), an election can only be declared void if the 
nomination of the Returned Candidate was invalid or 
procured or induced by any corrupt or illegal practice. He 
maintains that there is a higher test than that prescribed for 
rejection of a nomination paper and mere incorrectness in 
any of the particulars is not sufficient to void the election. The 
learned ASC maintains that in order to void an election it 
must be shown that mis-statement in the nomination form is 
of a kind to justify an inference of corrupt practice. It must be 
established that the candidate intentionally made a false 
statement/declaration or if a statement was made in the 
circumstances so as to rule out the likelihood of a bona fide 
error. He relies on Muhammad Hanif Abbasi v. Imran Khan 
Niazi (PLD 2018 SC 189), Shakeel Awan v. Rasheed Ahmed 
(PLD 2018 SC 643) and Muhammad Asif v. Muhammad 
Usman Dar (2018 SCMR 2128). He finally submits that the 
ratio of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for 
the Appellant in support of his contentions is not attracted to 
the facts and circumstances of the present case. 
 
5. 
 
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties 
and examined the available record with their assistance. At 
the very outset, we have noticed that Respondent No.1 did not 
disclose his entire landholding in Deh Khedkar, District 
Larkana which admittedly consists of 140.24½ acres. Out of 
the said holding he only declared 61 acres but did not 
Civil Appeal No.188 of 2019 
. 
7 
disclose the rest which according to him had been transferred 
in his name by way of a family settlement agreement executed 
in 2014. He also admits that the holdings of his minor sons 
were 
also 
not 
disclosed 
in 
the 
relevant 
documents. 
Respondent No.1 attempted to explain away his failure to 
disclose the said assets by stating that after the demise of his 
paternal grandmother, the land that stood in her name was 
distributed amongst her legal heirs i.e. Munawar Ali Abbasi 
and others. At that point in time, a family settlement with 
regard to the entire land was entered into. In consequence, 
Respondent No.1 and his minor sons received substantial 
land. This was duly transferred in their respective names. It 
was further submitted that only that part of the land was 
disclosed in the nomination papers and other related 
documents which had been transferred and was in the 
possession of Respondent No.1. The rest was not disclosed 
because it was under the control and supervision of his father 
who was allegedly the real beneficiary of the said land. He 
was supervising and overseeing its cultivation and also paying 
land revenue on the same. This situation had allegedly 
existed 
since 
the 
private 
partition 
dated 
17.10.2014. 
Admittedly, the family partition was duly implemented in all 
revenue records and the respective shares of all beneficiaries 
of the family partition were duly reflected in all requisite 
records as owners.  
 
6. 
 
On the basis of facts and circumstances narrated 
hereinabove and in view of the admission on the part of 
Civil Appeal No.188 of 2019 
. 
8 
Respondent No.1 that there was failure on his part to disclose 
certain assets, the only question requiring determination by 
us is whether such disclosure was required under the law. If 
so whether the explanation offered by Respondent No.1 is 
legally acceptable so as to provide a defence against the 
rigours of disqualification under the Election Act, 2017 and 
more importantly Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution.  
 
7. 
 
Perusal of the record indicates that the affidavit 
filed by Respondent No.1 alongwith his nomination papers 
admittedly does not disclose all assets owned by him. Form 
“A” is the nomination paper whereas form “B” is the 
statement of assets and liabilities, which are available on the 
record. We also notice that the nomination papers are 
accompanied by a declaration which is required to be sworn 
under oath and was indeed sworn as such by Respondent 
No.1, pursuant to a judgment of this Court in the case 
reported as Speaker, National Assembly of Pakistan v. Habib 
Akram (PLD 2018 SC 678). The candidates were required by 
this Court to submit affidavits disclosing all assets. In 
paragraph 8 of the said judgment it was clarified that failure 
to file such affidavit before the Returning Officer would render 
the nomination papers incomplete and liable to rejection. In 
addition, if the affidavit or any part thereof was found false 
then it shall have consequences as contemplated by the 
Constitution and the law. The judgment also provided that 
since the affidavit was required to be filed in pursuance of the 
orders of this Court, if any false statement was made therein, 
Civil Appeal No.188 of 2019 
. 
9 
it would also entail such penalty as is of filing a false affidavit 
before this Court. Admittedly, Respondent No.1 filed such 
affidavit which was not true and was patently deficient insofar 
as it failed to accurately disclose all assets of Respondent 
No.1.  
 
8. 
 
Section 137(4) of the Act provides that where a 
Member submits a statement of assets and liabilities which is 
found to be false in material particulars, he may, within 120 
days from the date of submission of the statement be 
proceeded against for committing the offence of corrupt 
practice. While it is correct that the Returning Officer has 
been given the power to allow correction of mistakes, errors 
and omissions in the nomination papers within a specified 
time but in the instant case no attempt was made to correct 
such omission at any stage.  
 
9. 
 
Section 156 of the Act provides the grounds for 
declaring election of a Returned Candidate as void. Grounds 
“a” and “c” stipulate that: 
“(a)  the nomination of the returned candidate was 
invalid or 
 
(c)  
the election of the returned candidate has 
been procured or induced by any corrupt or 
illegal practice”.  
 
10. 
 
 In terms of Section 137(4) of the Act reproduced 
above, submission of a statement of assets and liabilities, 
which is found to be false in material particulars constitutes 
corrupt practice. More importantly, the declarations given by 
Respondent No.1 under solemn affirmation as part of his 
Civil Appeal No.188 of 2019 
. 
10
nomination papers, and the affidavit submitted by him 
pursuant to the judgment of this Court in the case of 
Speaker, National Assembly ibid also exposes him to 
disqualification not only under the provisions of the Election 
Act but also under the provisions of Article 62(1)(f) of the 
Constitution. By reason of making a false statement under 
oath, Respondent No.1 ceases to be qualified to be elected or 
chosen as a Member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) because 
he cannot be termed as righteous and honest. The false 
statement having been made in the nomination papers, in the 
statement of assets and in the affidavit exposes Respondent 
No.1 to serious legal consequences under the law as well as 
the Constitution.  
 
11. 
 
The learned counsel for Respondent No.1 has 
taken great pains to argue that the explanation for non-
disclosure of some of his own assets and those of his minor 
children to the effect that the said land although in 
Respondent No.1’s name was actually under the control and 
possession of his father who was the real beneficiary and was 
also paying the land revenue as evidenced by receipts of land 
revenue paid to the concerned authorities by his father 
should be accepted by this Court. He stressed that the 
explanation is reasonable and plausible.  
 
12. 
 
We are unfortunately unable to agree with the 
contention of the learned counsel for Respondent No.1. It is 
clear and obvious that: 
 
Civil Appeal No.188 of 2019 
. 
11
(i)  
The land in question was transferred in 
favour of Respondent No.1 as far back as 
2014 by way of a written family settlement 
which was duly implemented in all revenue 
records;  
 
(ii) 
It is not the case of Respondent No.1 that he 
did not know about such transfer or that 
such transfer was undertaken without his 
knowledge or consent;  
 
(iii)  By reason of the family settlement and its 
implementation in the revenue records, the 
name of Respondent No.1 appeared and 
continues to appear in all records as the 
owner of the property; 
 
(iv) 
The proprietary rights, title and interest in 
such property clearly vest in him;  
 
(v)  
A part of such land was admittedly acquired 
by the Government of Sindh and there is no 
denial 
of 
the 
fact 
that 
compensation 
determined by the Land Acquisition Collector 
was received by Respondent No.1 as owner; 
and  
 
(vi)  The fact that the father of Respondent No.1 
may be administering his land as his agent 
or nominee and may also be receiving the 
benefits/income derived from the said land 
may reflect a mutual family arrangement. It 
does 
not 
detract 
from 
the 
fact 
that 
Respondent No.1 is the owner of the said 
land 
which 
constitutes 
his 
asset. 
All 
proprietary rights, title, ownership and 
interest in the said land vest in him. He has 
the power to sell, alienate and dispose of 
such 
properties 
without 
any 
legal 
or 
Civil Appeal No.188 of 2019 
. 
12
procedural restriction, hitch or hindrance in 
his way.  
 
13. 
 
The mere fact that land revenue may have been 
paid by the father of Respondent No.1 also does not improve 
his case. We have specifically asked the learned counsel for 
Respondent No.1 who would be liable to pay land revenue 
and other public dues against the said land in case there was 
default in payment of the same. He has hesitatingly admitted 
that the person liable to pay such defaulted amounts would 
be Respondent No.1. Even in terms of provisions of Section 74 
of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 the land 
revenue and all other Government dues payable against a 
particular piece/tract of land are recoverable from a person 
whose name appears as owner of such land in the revenue 
records. This is irrespective of who may be cultivating or 
allegedly receiving its benefits as an agent or nominee of the 
real owner. It is also significant to note that Respondent No.1 
neither produced his father as a witness before the Election 
Tribunal nor produced any other credible evidence to 
establish his half hearted plea of Benami ownership, other 
than revenue payment receipts which were found by us to be 
insufficient to establish his plea. 
 
14. 
 
The learned counsel for Respondent No.1 has also 
emphasized the fact that a bonafide error or mistake of fact or 
law may be condoned and save a person from being hit by the 
rigours of Election Laws as well as the Constitution. In this 
regard, he has referred to Muhammad Asif v. Muhammad 
Civil Appeal No.188 of 2019 
. 
13
Usman Dar (2018 SCMR 2128) and Shakeel Awan v. Rashid 
Ahmed (PLD 2018 SC 643).  
 
15. 
 
As far as the case of Khawaja Muhammad Asif 
(supra) is concerned, in paragraph 9 of the said judgment it 
was held as follows: 
“9. 
 While considering a case of dishonesty in judicial 
proceedings what should not be lost sight of is that on 
account of inadvertence or honest omission on the part of a 
contesting candidate a legitimately acquired asset is not 
declared. This may happen as an honest person may 
perceive something to be right about which he may be wrong 
and such perception cannot necessarily render him dishonest 
though the omission would invariably result in rejection of 
his nomination paper had such a fact is pointed out to the 
Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny of nomination papers 
or in proceedings available under the election laws. There 
are many conceivable instances where an omission to 
declare an asset on the face of it cannot be regarded as 
dishonest concealment. For example, where an inherited 
property is not declared on account of mistake of fact or an 
asset acquired from a legitimate source of income is not listed 
in the nomination paper. Suchlike omissions at best could be 
categorized as bad judgment or negligence but certainly not 
dishonesty. As mentioned earlier even the proviso to section 
14(3)(d) of RoPA envisaged that rejection of a nomination 
paper on account of failure to meet the requirements of 
section 12 of RoPA would not prevent a candidate of contest 
election on the basis of another validly filed nomination 
paper. Hence mere omission to list an asset cannot be 
labeled as dishonesty unless some wrongdoing is associated 
with its acquisition or retention which is duly established in 
judicial proceedings. In our view attributing dishonesty to 
every omission to disclose an asset and disqualify a member 
for life could never have been the intention of the parliament 
while incorporating Article 62(1)(f) in the Constitution. All 
non-disclosures of assets cannot be looked at with the same 
eye. In our view no set formula can be fixed with regard to 
every omission to list an asset in the nomination paper and 
make a declaration of dishonesty and impose the penalty of 
lifetime disqualification. In a judgment from the foreign 
jurisdiction in the case of Aguilar v. Office of Ombudsman 
decided on 26.02.2014 by the Supreme Court of Philippines 
(G.R. 197307) it was held that dishonesty is not simply bad 
judgment or negligence but is a question of intention. There 
has to exist an element of bad intention with regard to an 
undeclared asset before it is described as dishonest. Unless 
dishonesty is established in appropriate judicial proceedings, 
Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution cannot be invoked to 
disqualify an elected member for life.”   
 
16. 
 
It is clear from perusal of the afore-noted 
paragraph that no set formula can be fixed with regard to any 
omission to list an asset in the nomination papers and make 
Civil Appeal No.188 of 2019 
. 
14
a declaration of dishonesty and impose the penalty of lifetime 
disqualification. It has been held that unless dishonesty is 
established in appropriate judicial proceedings, Article 62(1)(f) 
of the Constitution cannot be invoked to disqualify an elected 
member for life. In the same vein, in the case of Malik Shakeel 
Awan (ibid), while summing up the law on this aspect of the 
matter, Sh. Azmat Saeed, J (in his majority opinion) held as 
follows: 
“3. 
Even otherwise, the present lis pertains to the validity 
of a judgment of the Election Tribunal challenged through the 
instant appeal under Section 67(3) of the Representation of 
the People Act, 1976 (RoPA) while through the question 
raised a very wide net has been cast encompassing also the 
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 184(3) of the 
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 as well 
as the impact of various provisions relating to qualifications 
and disqualifications of Members of the Parliament and the 
Provincial Assemblies. Several of the questions raised 
obviously do not arise at the lis at hand, while the other have 
been answered definitively by this Court in its various 
judgments.  
 
4. 
In our legal system, law evolves brick by brick and 
from judgment to judgment. If the judgments pertaining to 
electoral disputes rendered by this Court are carefully read, 
objectively understood and the ratio thereof correctly 
identified, it would be clear and obvious that principles of 
law, in this behalf, appear to have been settled and 
consistently applied to the facts of each individual case. The 
difference in outcome, if any, is the result of difference in the 
facts of each case. Such principles of law do not require any 
further clarification on hypothetical considerations. The 
confusion, if any, is not in the judgments.  
 
5. 
This Court, for that matter any court, seized of a lis is 
required to decide the same rather than to embark upon an 
academic exercise. We cannot shy away from adjudicating 
upon the lis that comes before the Court without attempting 
to ascertain and identify the principles of law as developed 
through the interpretative process of the previous judgments 
of this Court and apply the same to the facts of the case.”  
 
17. 
 
Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding and 
reaffirming that this Court is indeed also a “Court of Law” 
which can issue a “declaration” within the purview of Article 
62(1)(f) of the Constitution. Any other interpretation would be 
absurd and illogical. It would amount to holding that this 
Civil Appeal No.188 of 2019 
. 
15
Court despite being the highest Court of the land is not a 
“Court of Law” within the meaning of Article 62(1)(f) of the 
Constitution. Surely the legislature when framing the 
Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010 could not 
have intended to introduce such a blatant and glaring 
absurdity in as important a document as the Constitution of 
the country. 
  
18. 
 
It was further held in the said case as follows: 
“13. 
Where 
a 
misstatement 
or 
an 
inaccuracy 
or 
concealment is established, the candidate/member would 
always have the opportunity to offer an explanation. Such 
explanation may or may not be found acceptable. Such is the 
ratio of the judgment of this Court rendered in the case 
reported as Sheikh Muhammad Akram v. Abdul Ghafoor and 
19 others  (2016 SCMR 733). In the said case, an Election 
Petition filed before the Election Tribunal. In the proceedings, 
it stood established that a criminal case registered against 
the candidate was not mentioned in his nomination papers 
as required. Such candidate offered an explanation which 
was accepted by this Court by way of the aforesaid 
judgment which is incidentally authorized by my learned 
brother Qazi Faez Isa, J., and I too was a Member of the said 
Bench. The said view i.e. in case of concealment, 
discrepancy and misstatement in the nomination papers an 
explanation thereof may be given by the candidate/member, 
which may or may not be accepted by the court. And only, if 
such explanation is found tenable no penal consequences 
would follow. The question of “strict liability” does not arise 
with regard to misstatements in the nomination papers. Such 
view was also followed in the judgments of this Court 
reported as Muhammad Siddique Baloch v. Jehangir Khan 
Tareen and others (PLD 2016 SC 97) and Muhammad Hanif 
Abbasi. v. Imran Khan Niazi and others  (PLD 2018 SC 189). 
No departure has been made by this Court in the cases 
reported as Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi  v. Mian Muhammad 
Nawaz Sharif, Prime Minister of Pakistan/Member National 
Assembly, Prime Minister’s House, Islamabad and 9 others  
(PLD 2017 SC 265 and PLD 2017 SC 692). In the aforesaid 
case, the concealment of assets in the nomination papers 
filed by the Respondent in the said proceedings was 
established through an admission. At no point of time any 
explanation was offered, in this behalf. Therefore, the 
question of accepting or rejecting such explanation did not 
arise. Even in the Review Petition, no explanation was 
offered. However, an oblique reference in hypothetical term 
was only made. This aspect of the matter was dealt with 
and adjudicated upon by this court in the judgment passed 
on such review reported as Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif 
and others v. Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi and others  (PLD 
2018 SC 1). Reference, in this behalf, may be made to para 
11 of the said judgment. The relevant portion thereof is 
reproduced hereunder: 
 
Civil Appeal No.188 of 2019 
. 
16
11. 
The argument that the omission to disclose 
assets 
could 
possibly 
be 
unintentional 
in 
the 
circumstances of the case would have been tenable 
had the petitioner been a novice or a new entrant in 
business and politics. But where he has been neck 
deep in business and politics ever since early 80’s it is 
unbelievable that he did not understand the simple 
principle 
of 
accounting 
that 
his 
accrued 
and 
accumulated salary of six and a half years was his 
asset and liability of the company he was an 
employee of. Even otherwise, this argument cannot be 
given much weight when it has not been pleaded by 
the petitioner that the omission to mention the asset 
was accidental, inadvertent or unintentional. ….”      
 
19. 
 
It may also be noted that in the case of Malik 
Shakeel Awan (ibid), the entire holding of the Respondent in 
the said case had been disclosed in the form of revenue 
records and other related documents and this Court came to 
the conclusion that a simple mathematical exercise revealed 
that as per the details provided by the Respondent in his 
nomination papers at page 79 he owned 1081 kanals and 17 
marlas of land and in the grand total it had been incorrectly 
mentioned as 983 kanals 17 marlas. This error appeared to 
have crept into the printed nomination papers. The 
miscalculation between the area of agricultural land owned by 
the Respondent scribed in the printed form and as mentioned 
item wise in the details of the nomination papers was self 
evident. Further, the Respondent in the said case perhaps 
declared a little more land than as alleged by the Appellant 
thus he could hardly be accused of concealing any asset 
especially so as a portion of the land appeared to be 
undivided share in various Khasra numbers. It was in the 
peculiar circumstances of the said case that the explanation 
offered by the Respondent was found to be reasonable and 
logical. Consequently, the conclusion drawn by the Election 
Civil Appeal No.188 of 2019 
. 
17
Tribunal in that case that there was no concealment of 
agricultural land in the nomination papers filed by the 
Respondent was found to be based upon a correct and 
judicious appreciation of the evidence available on the record 
and in accordance with law as laid down by this Court.  
 
20. 
 
As opposed to the above, in the instant case, there 
was neither any accidental error nor omission in the 
nomination papers of Respondent No.1 in the present case. 
There was no error of calculation either. Further, the 
declarations repeatedly given were given under solemn 
affirmation which has its own sanctity and solemnity. The 
consequence of filing a false affidavit with the nomination 
papers have clearly and unambiguously been spelt out in the 
judgment of this Court in the case of Speaker, National 
Assembly of Pakistan (ibid). Further, the explanation offered 
by Respondent No.1 neither appeals to reason nor logic 
especially so where the Respondent being the scion of a well 
off, educated political family and having free access to legal 
advice (if he so desired) could have sought clarification of any 
ambiguity that may possibly have existed in his mind, 
although in our opinion there was no ambiguity either in the 
law or in the specific facts and circumstances of this case. In 
addition, the fact that Respondent No.1 was aware of the 
extent of his ownership and the benefits of the same. He 
actually received compensation in Millions of Rupees for a 
portion of his holding acquired by the Sindh Government 
which shows that Respondent No.1 was fully aware of his 
Civil Appeal No.188 of 2019 
. 
18
rights, title and interest in the property and enjoyed full 
freedom to exercise proprietary rights thereon without any let 
or hindrance.  
 
21. 
 
In the afore-noted context, reference may usefully 
be made to Hassan Nawaz v. Muhammad Ayub (PLD 2017 
SC 70), where it was held as follows: 
“7. 
An honest and truthful declaration of assets and 
liabilities by a returned candidate in his nomination papers 
furnishes a benchmark for reviewing his integrity and probity 
in the discharge of his duties and functions as an elected 
legislator. His statement of assets and liabilities along with 
other financial disclosures contemplated by Section 12(2) of 
the ROPA provide the Election Commission of Pakistan and 
the general public with a picture of both his wealth and 
income. Such disclosures are crucial for demonstrating the 
legitimacy 
and bona fides of the accrual and 
the 
accumulation of economic resources by such a candidate. In 
other words, the said disclosures show the returns received 
from his economic- activities and can indicate if these 
activities may be tainted with illegality, corruption or misuse 
of office and authority. This important aspect of the financial 
disclosures by a contesting candidate has been noticed by 
this Court in Muhammad Yousaf Kaselia v. Peer Ghulam 
(PLD 2016 SC 689). 
 
8. 
We, therefore, observe that any plausible explanation 
that exonerates, inter alia, mis-declaration of assets 
and liabilities by a contesting candidate should be 
confined to unintended and minor errors that do not 
confer any tangible benefit or advantage upon an 
elected or contesting candidate. This view finds 
support from the statutory aim and purpose of 
requiring all contesting candidates to file their 
statements and declarations as envisaged in Section 
12(2) of the ROPA. Clearly there is a public interest 
object behind the statutory prescription for obtaining 
the said statements and declaration. It is to ensure 
integrity and probity of contesting candidates and 
therefore all legislators.  
 
The above purpose and object comes across clearly in 
Muhammad Yousaf Kaselia v. Peer Ghulam (PLD 2016 
SC 689): 
 
“…………………………………………………………… 
…………………………………………………………….. non-
disclosure of any liability is to be met with penal 
action in the same manner as non-disclosure of any 
asset. It is for that reason that in a number of recent 
judgments, 
this 
Court 
has 
treated 
inaccurate 
disclosure of proprietary and financial resources to be 
fatal to the election of a returned candidate. In 
Muhammad 
Ahmad 
Chatta. 
v. 
Iftikhar 
Ahmad 
Cheema (2016 SCMR 763), the failure by a returned 
candidate to disclose a presumed inactive bank 
account and in Shamuna Badshah Qaisarani v. 
Civil Appeal No.188 of 2019 
. 
19
Muhammad Dawood (2016  SCMR 1420) the omission 
by a lady returned candidate to disclose her 
agricultural land claimed to be transferred to her 
brothers without evidence of the mutation were held to 
annul their elections.”  
 
22. 
 
Likewise in the case of Sher Baz Khan Gaadhi v. 
Muhammad Ramzan (2018 SCMR 1952), it was held by this 
Court as follows: 
“Constitution of Pakistan- 
 
---Art. 63(1)(c)---Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 
1976), S. 12(2)(a)---Candidate contesting General Elections—
Nomination 
papers, 
rejection 
of—Dual 
citizenship—
Submitting false affidavit with respect to dual citizenship—
Record indicated that the respondent-candidate submitted 
his nomination papers on 10.6.2018 and filed the relevant 
affidavit in such regard on 11.6.2018. Two days later, he 
renounced his foreign citizenship on 13.6.2018. On the day 
the respondent filed his nominated papers he had not 
renounced his foreign citizenship and was a foreign citizen. 
Even, if it was assumed that the application of renunciation 
of foreign citizenship had been filed earlier, no disclosure of 
the same had been made by the respondent in the relevant 
column of the affidavit. Respondent had filed a false affidavit 
and made a false declaration on oath, therefore, he was 
disqualified from contesting elections. Appeal was allowed 
accordingly. 
 
Constitution of Pakistan- 
Art. 62(1)(f)—Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 
1976). S. 12(2)(a)---Candidate contesting General Elections — 
Nomination papers, rejection of — Failure to disclose 
expenses incurred on foreign travel — Affidavit that had to 
be submitted along with nomination papers required a 
candidate to disclose his foreign travels during the last three 
years and the costs incurred thereon. Respondent-candidate 
crossed out the column on the affidavit requiring details of 
such travels and their costs. Report submitted before court 
by the relevant Authority showed that the respondent had a 
rich 
travelling 
history 
during 
the 
last 
three 
years. 
Respondent did not deny his travel history but tried to argue 
that at the relevant time he was a foreign national and thus 
not required to disclose his travel history. Such argument 
could not be accepted by the court. Respondent deliberately 
concealed his travel history in the relevant affidavit at the 
time of filing his nomination papers. Respondent concealed 
material facts under oath which he was required to disclose 
in his nomination papers/affidavit, therefore, he was 
disqualified from contesting elections. Appeal was allowed 
accordingly.” 
 
23. 
 
In the case of Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. Imran 
Ahmed Khan Niazi (PLD 2018 SC 1), while dealing with the 
similar proposition this Court held as follows: 
“9. 
The argument that even if it is assumed that 
unwithdrawn salary constitutes an asset, omission to 
Civil Appeal No.188 of 2019 
. 
20
disclose it involving a violation of sections 12 and 13 of the 
Representation of Peoples Act calls for the rejection of 
nomination papers or at its worst, removal of the petitioner 
from the public office and not his disqualification in terms of 
section 99(1)(f) of the ROPA and Article 62(1)(f) of the 
Constitution 
is 
devoid 
of 
force 
when 
the 
petitioner 
deliberately 
concealed 
his 
assets 
and 
wilfully 
and 
dishonestly made a false declaration on solemn affirmation 
in his nomination papers. It is not something to be looked at 
with a casual eye and outlook. It is not only a legal duty but 
a qualifying test for the candidates who in the later days 
preside over the destiny of the people. This duty has to be 
performed without a taint of misrepresentation. This test has 
to be qualified without resorting to unfair means. Any 
concession at this stage or any leniency to the candidates or 
the person elected would be a prelude to a catastrophe in 
politics, which has already had enough of it. Since it is 
already touching the extreme, extreme measures have to be 
taken. The culture of passing the candidates by granting 
grace marks has not delivered the goods. It has rather 
corrupted the people and corrupted the system. This aspect 
of the case has been beautifully highlighted in the case of 
Rai Hassan Nawaz v. Haji Muhammad Ayub and others 
(PLD 2017 SC 170) by holding as under: 
 
7. An honest and truthful declaration of assets and 
liabilities by a returned candidate in his nomination 
papers furnishes a benchmark for reviewing his 
integrity and probity in the discharge of his duties and 
functions as an elected legislator. His statement of 
assets and liabilities along with other financial 
disclosures contemplated by section 12(2) of the ROPA 
provide the Election Commission of Pakistan and the 
general public with a picture of both his wealth and 
income. Such disclosures are crucial for demonstrating 
the legitimacy and bona fides of the accrual and the 
accumulation of economic resources by such a 
candidate. In other words, they said disclosures show 
the returns received from his economic activities and 
can indicate if these activities may be tainted with 
illegality, corruption or misuse of office and authority. 
This important aspect of the financial disclosures by a 
contesting candidate has been noticed by this Court in 
Muhammad Yousaf Kaselia v. Peer Ghulam (PLD 2016 
SC 689).” 
 
24. 
 
In the case of Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi v. 
Muhammad Nawaz Sharif (PLD 2017 SC 692), this Court 
held as follows: 
“2. 
It is hereby declared that having failed to disclose his 
un-withdrawn receivables constituting assets from Capital 
FZE Jebel Ali, UAE in his nomination papers filed for the 
General Elections held in 2013 in terms of section 12(2)(f) of 
the Representation of the People Act, 1976 (ROPA), and 
having 
furnished 
a 
false 
declaration 
under 
solemn 
affirmation respondent No 1 Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif 
is not honest in terms of section 99(f) of ROPA and Article 
62(1)(f) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan, 1973 and therefore he is disqualified to be a 
Member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament).” 
 
Civil Appeal No.188 of 2019 
. 
21
25. 
 
In the case of Muhammad Ahmad Chatta v. 
Iftikhar Ahmad Cheema (2016 SCMR 763), the question of 
mens rea or absence thereof was examined by this Court and 
it was authoritatively held as follows: 
“a) Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976. 
 
---- Ss. 12(2)(f) & 76A---Nomination papers, rejection of---Non-
disclosure of Bank account and properties belonging to 
spouse---When the case record established that returned 
candidate neither submitted statement regarding assets of 
his spouse nor disclosed one of his Bank accounts at the 
time of filing nomination papers, the Election Tribunal should 
not have dismissed the election petition on the grounds that 
mens rea was not proved and that Government exchequer 
had not suffered any loss on account of such non-disclosure. 
Supreme Court declared election of returned candidate as 
void.” 
 
26. 
 
The cases decided by this Court which had 
somewhat similar facts obligate a person to truthfully and 
faithfully disclose all his moveable and immovable assets and 
those owned by his spouse(s) and dependent(s). In this 
regard, reference may be made to Shamuna Badshah 
Qaisarani v. Muhammad Dawood (2016 SCMR 1420), 
wherein it was held as follows: 
“In the bye-election that was held for the Punjab Assembly 
constituency PP-240 D.G. Khan-I, the appellant was declared 
returned candidate. Her election was challenged by losing 
candidate i.e. respondent No. 1 through an election petition filed in 
the Election Tribunal, Bahawalpur and D.G. Khan Divisions under 
section 52 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976. Corrupt 
and illegal practices were alleged. During pendency of the election 
petition, the respondent No. 1 moved an application under section 
76A of the Representation of the People Act, 1976. This provision of 
law entrusts the Election Tribunal with additional power to declare 
an election of the returned candidate void if any material from any 
source or information is laid before it that the returned candidate 
had inter alia submitted a false or incorrect statement of assets 
and liabilities of his own or his spouse or his dependents. Before 
the Tribunal though the allegations of corrupt practices could not be 
established however while hearing the application filed under 
Section 76A of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 it 
transpired that the respondent No.1 in her nomination form failed 
to disclose properties such as (i) land measuring 448 kanals 4 
marlas situated in Mouza Bairoot Mandhawani, Tribal District 
Khazi Khan (owned by husband of the appellant) and (ii) land 
measuring 263 kanals 14 marlas situated in Mora Bait Wasava 
Khan Wala Tehsil and District Layyah and (iii) land measuring 13 
kanals 16 marlas situated in Bait Wasava Kalroo Tehsil and 
District Layyah, and (iv) land measuring 77 acres situated in 
Mouza Khanwala, Wasavawala, Layyah (owned by the appellant) 
were not disclosed in the nomination papers. Consequently, the 
election of the appellant was declared void and fresh elections 
Civil Appeal No.188 of 2019 
. 
22
were ordered to be held in the constituency. Against such decision, 
the present appeal has been filed. 
 
4. 
The fact that certain properties were not disclosed in 
the nomination papers was not denied. The only defence that 
was taken was that as these properties have already been 
transferred in the names of appellant's brothers, therefore, 
the same were not disclosed in nomination form. It is an 
admitted position that only in an affidavit it has been 
disclosed that the properties have been transferred to her 
brothers. At the time of filing of the nomination papers these 
properties were admittedly in the name of the appellant and 
her spouse in the revenue record. With regard to the legal 
objection that section 76A of Representation of the People 
Act, 1976 is contrary to the provisions of Article 225 of the 
Constitution, the same is misconceived. Article 225 of the 
Constitution clearly provides that no election to a House or 
Provincial Assembly shall be called in question except by an 
election petition presented to such tribunal and in such 
manner as may be determined by Act of Parliament. The 
Representation of the People Act, 1976 is an Act of the 
Parliament, which has provided the manner in which election 
is to be challenged before the Election Tribunal. The scope of 
challenge, which covers the acts of corrupt and illegal 
practices committed by or on behalf of the returned 
candidates in the conduct of the elections, is mentioned in 
Section 68 of Representation of the People Act, 1976 whereas 
Section 76A grants suo motu powers to the Election Tribunal 
to declare election of a returned candidate void on certain 
grounds which include non-disclosure or incorrect disclosure 
of assets of the candidate or his spouse or his dependents. 
Under section 76A such disclosure can come from any source 
before the Election Tribunal, which in the present case came 
from respondent No. 1. The procedure adopted by the 
respondent No.1 and entertained by the Election Tribunal in 
an election petition being very much within the confines of 
Article 225 of the Constitution, it cannot be said to be 
unconstitutional Article 225 clearly provides that the forum to 
challenge the election to a House or Provincial Assembly is 
the Election Tribunal and the manner in which such 
challenge is to be made is to be determined by the 
Parliament and for the purposes of' the present proceedings, 
the manner is provided in section 76A of the Representation 
of the People Act, 1976.”   
 
27. 
 
In the case of Khaleefa Muhammad Munawar Butt 
v. Hafiz Muhammad Jamil Nasir (2008 SCMR 504), this 
Court refused to interfere in a case where the learned High 
Court had disqualified a candidate for failure to declare the 
amount received by him as part payment of the sale 
consideration of his property in pursuance of an agreement 
holding that till such time that the sale had been completed 
he continued to own the property and was under a legal 
obligation to disclose the same as a part of his assets. 
Civil Appeal No.188 of 2019 
. 
23
28. 
 
On the basis of material available on record, we 
are satisfied that : 
(i) 
Respondent No.1 concealed his own assets as 
well as those of his dependent minor children in 
his nomination papers; 
 
(ii) 
He filed a false affidavit, which in itself entails 
serious legal consequences. A detailed inquiry or 
investigation is not required in the matter in 
view 
of 
admission 
of 
non 
disclosure 
by 
Respondent No.1. It is trite that admitted facts 
need not be proved;  
 
(iii) 
We are also satisfied that there was no bona fide 
mistake, mathematical error or clerical mistake 
in preparing and filing the nomination papers 
and the affidavit filed in compliance of the order 
of this Court in Speaker, National Assembly of 
Pakistan’s case ibid; and 
 
(iv) 
The 
explanation 
offered 
for 
the 
admitted 
concealment/misdeclaration neither appeals to 
reason nor logic. We have unfortunately been 
unable to persuade ourselves to accept it.   
 
28. 
 
After considering the arguments advanced by 
learned counsel for the parties, having carefully examined the 
record and the case law cited at the bar, we find that the 
judgment of the Election Tribunal dated 15.01.2019 is 
unsustainable and runs contrary to the ratio decidendi of the 
law enunciated by this Court in the judgments cited above. 
Therefore, for reasons recorded above, this Appeal is allowed 
and the impugned judgment dated 15.01.2019 passed by the 
Election Tribunal of the High Court of Sindh, Bench at 
Sukkur is set aside. In consequence, the Election Petition bearing 
No.S-01 of 2018 filed by the Appellant is accepted. It is declared 
that nomination of Respondent No.1 (Moazzam Ali Khan) was 
invalid. As a result, his declaration as a Member of the Provincial 
Assembly of Sindh issued vide notification dated 07.08.2018 
is annulled. He shall immediately cease to be a member of  
Civil Appeal No.188 of 2019 
. 
24
the Provincial Assembly. The Election Commission of 
Pakistan is directed to hold fresh elections in the 
constituency (PS-11 Larkana-II) in accordance with law. 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
Announced in open Court at  
Islamabad on ___________ 
 
 
JUDGE