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.651 OF 2014 
(Against the judgment dated 19.3.2014 
of the Election Tribunal, Sukkur, passed 
in E.P.No.271/2013) 
 
Raja Ghous Bux Bijarani 
 
…Appellant(s) 
VERSUS 
Sardar Ghulam Abid Khan etc. 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the appellant(s): 
Qazi Muhammad Anwar, Sr. ASC 
 
 
For respondent No.1: 
Mr. Farooq H. Naek, Sr. ASC 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
07.01.2016 
… 
ORDER 
 
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.- The appellant contested the elections for 
PS-17 Kashmore-I, District Kahsmore. The respondent is the returned 
candidate who secured 20,530 votes while the appellant is the runner up 
who obtained 18,850 votes, thus the differential between the two is 1,680 
votes. Aggrieved of the above result, the appellant filed an election 
petition and according to his case as finally propounded (confined by the 
appellant) it was that in ten polling stations, details whereof are given in 
paragraph 9 of the election petition, bogus votes were cast and, therefore, 
examination/verification of the counterfoils by NADRA was sought by 
him. The learned Tribunal acceded to the appellant’s request and NADRA 
was required to examine the counterfoils, the report of which is as 
follows:- 
S.NO 
Description 
Count of Votes 
1 
Voters polled in polling stations whose election 
material was received by NADRA 
8,099 
2 
Counterfoils did not qualify for fingerprint matching 
2,415 
3 
Fingerprints successfully authenticated on used 
counterfoils and ER 
3,176 
4 
Fingerprints on used counterfoils and ER falling 
authentication 
0 
5 
Fingerprints of bad quality affixed on used counterfoils 
2,508 
 
After considering the report the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion 
C.A.651 of 2014 
-: 2 :- 
that on account of non-verification of 2,415 and 2,508 votes it cannot be 
held that these votes were bogus. Learned counsel for the appellant 
states that at least the votes, which have not been verified on account 
that the “Counterfoils did not qualify for fingerprint matching”, should be 
excluded from the total count, and since such unverified votes (2415 in 
number) are greater than the differential of 1,680 votes, therefore, the 
election result has been materially affected in terms of Section 70(a) of 
the Representation of People Act, 1976 (the Act), suffice it to say that the 
reasons provided by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment are apt and 
are hereby upheld. It may be pertinent to mention here that it was never 
the case of the appellant that the thumb impressions on the votes (2415 
and 2508) do not match the NIC numbers of the voters or that more than 
one person has affixed their thumb impressions on the counterfoils to 
hold that the ballot papers were not validly issued to the voter rather his 
case is restricted to the fact that as the verification could not be 
conducted by NADRA therefore the necessary conclusion be drawn that 
these votes are bogus. We are not persuaded to agree with the appellant 
because this is not the position in the present matter. If the report 
however was unequivocal and positive to the effect that there is no 
mention of the NIC on the counterfoil; or that the thumb impression of 
the voters are not affixed thereto; or the NIC mentioned on the 
counterfoil is bogus meaning thereby that such card has not been issued 
by NADRA; or that the NIC numbers do not tally with the thumb 
impressions; or the thumb impressions do not correspond with the NIC 
numbers; or that the counterfoils bear the thumb impression of one 
person; or more than one person has affixed his thumb impression on a 
number 
of 
counterfoils, 
the 
learned 
counsel 
could 
possibly  
have some room to argue that in the above scenario such votes  
as per the quantum of these kind of counterfoils could be  
excluded from the count (note:- we are however leaving this aspect of the case open to be 
considered in some other appropriate matter). However as this is not the  
position 
in 
the 
instant 
case, 
thus 
such 
votes 
(i.e. 
non-verified)  
 
C.A.651 of 2014 
-: 3 :- 
cannot be declared to be bogus and excluded from the count altogether, 
so as to hold that the election result was procured by the respondent 
through illegal and corrupt practices or that there has been non-
compliance of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder, 
thereby bringing the case within the purview of Section 70(a) or even (b) 
of the Act. No case for interference has been made out. Dismissed 
accordingly. 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
7th January, 2016 
Not Approved For Reporting 
Waqas Naseer/*