IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR, HCJ 
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL 
MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5-Q OF 2014 
(On 
appeal 
against 
the 
judgment 
dated 
18.03.2014 passed by the Election Tribunal-II, 
Quetta in Election Petition No. 261/2013) 
 
Mir Saleem Ahmed Khosa 
… Appellant 
VERSUS 
 
Zafarullah Khan Jamali and others 
 …Respondents 
 
 
For the Appellant:  
Mr. Kamran Murtaza, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For the Respondents: 
Mr. Ahmed Raza Qasuri, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR  
 
Date of Hearing:  
22.02.2017 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
 
FAISAL ARAB, J.-In the General Elections held on 
11.05.2013, the appellant and respondent No. 1 were one of the 
several contesting candidates from National Assembly seat NA-266, 
Nasirabad-cum-Jaffarabad. The appellant secured 35703 votes 
whereas the respondent No. 1 secured highest number of votes i.e. 
41706. Leading with a margin of 6003 votes, the respondent No. 1 
was declared returned candidate. The appellant was not satisfied 
with the result and filed Election Petition before the Election 
Tribunal-II, Quetta under Section 52 of the Representation of the 
People Act, 1976 alleging that respondent No.1 committed corrupt 
and illegal practices. The Election Tribunal dismissed the election 
petition after holding that the allegations made in the election 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5-Q OF 2014 
2
petition were of general nature not substantiated by evidence. 
Being unsatisfied with such decision, the appellant preferred this 
appeal. 
 
2.  
 
It was argued by learned counsel for the appellant that 
out of 380 polling stations that were setup in the constituency, 
rigging took place in 104 polling stations. He submitted that on 
most of these challenged polling stations, the appellant’s polling 
agents were not allowed to enter by respondent No. 1’s men; an 
atmosphere of fear was created and bogus votes were cast in 
favour of respondent No. 1. The learned counsel further submitted 
that during the pendency of the election petition, the appellant 
filed two applications before the Election Tribunal, one for 
verification of the counterfoils of 104 polling stations through 
biometric system of NADRA and the other for recounting of 24775 
rejected votes which on the face of it was an unusual number but 
both these applications were dismissed by the Tribunal vide 
separate orders dated 06.01.2014 and 11.03.2014. He contended 
that had such applications been allowed, the extent of rigging as 
stated in the election petition would have been ascertained. 
 
3. 
 
The main allegation of the appellant was that many of 
appellant’s polling agents were harassed, some of them were 
denied entry in their respective polling stations and then bogus 
voting took place. Out of 104 polling station where rigging was 
alleged the appellant examined polling agents of 26 polling 
stations. No evidence was led with regard to the corrupt practices 
allegedly committed at the remaining 78 polling stations. Those 
polling agents who were examined had admitted in their cross-
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5-Q OF 2014 
3
examination that they did not file any written complaint either with 
the police or the Election Commission with regard to their 
expulsion, harassment or casting of bogus votes. The polling 
agents who stated that they witnessed casting of bogus votes also  
admitted in their cross-examination that they did not challenge a 
single vote at the time of polling. One polling agent in his cross-
examination even acknowledged that during polling hours, the 
Returning Officer visited the polling station but he did not lodge 
written complaint with him about the alleged illegal practices that 
were being committed at the behest of respondent No. 1. Even after 
the polling was over, the appellant did not approach the Provincial 
Election Commission to report the alleged corrupt practices.  There 
were 6 to 7 polling agents of other contesting candidates who 
obtained substantial number of votes but none were cited as 
witness to the alleged corrupt practices. No attempt was made to 
even call anyone as court witness in order to establish that polling 
took place in absence of appellant’s polling agents or bogus votes 
were cast.  
 
4. 
 
Apart from the failure to bring substantiated evidence 
of rigging on record, the appellant did not even place before the 
Election Tribunal a comparative table of 104 disputed polling 
stations and the remaining 276 undisputed polling stations in 
order to point out any phenomenal difference between the two sets 
of polling stations with regard to the voting pattern or voter 
turnout, which might have prevailed with the Tribunal to order 
either recount of votes or seek verification of counterfoils from 
NADRA. Merely on unsubstantiated allegations of rigging, the 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5-Q OF 2014 
4
Court cannot reach the conclusion that respondent No. 1 indulged 
in illegal and corrupt practices.  
 
5. 
 
We on our part examined the election data of NA-266 
available on website of Election Commission. It had 409664 
registered voters out of which 161,162 votes were polled. Thus the 
turnout was only 39.34%. The respondent procured 41706 votes, 
which comes to 25.88% of the total votes polled. From these 
figures, what generally comes out is that neither unusual turnout 
of voters is reflected nor excessive polling in favour of the 
respondent No. 1 is apparent as was noticed by this Court in the 
case of Khalid Hussain Magsi Vs. Mir Abdul Rahim Rind (2016 
SCMR 900), which led this Court to nullify the entire election 
result. No doubt the number of rejected votes in the present case 
were unusually high i.e. 24775. However, it has been pointed out 
by respondent No. 1’s counsel that one Mr. Fateh Ali Khan Umrani 
was a contesting candidate from the same constituency and his 
name was already printed on the ballot papers but due to a 
decision of the Balochistan High Court he stood disqualified from 
contesting election and, therefore, votes cast in his favour had to 
be added to the list of rejected votes. This fact of belated 
disqualification of Mr. Umrani is acknowledged by the appellant 
himself in his cross examination. Hence the votes that were cast in 
favour of Mr. Umrani must have been added to the tally of rejected 
votes and thus the number of rejected votes swelled to 24775 
votes.  
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5-Q OF 2014 
5
6. 
 
Learned counsel also referred to a document to 
demonstrate that seals of several bags containing election material 
were found to be broken in order to support his plea of rigging. In 
our view, any careless or deliberate act on the part of any 
functionary of the Election Commission whereby the election 
record could not be adequately preserved and seals were broken 
would not result in nullifying the election result. There has to be 
some reliable material on record to reach the conclusion that the 
winning candidate indulged in illegal and corrupt practices 
otherwise every losing candidate after managing to get the seals of 
the bags containing election material broken would seek re-polling 
or re-election. 
 
7. 
 
It was also argued by learned counsel for the appellant 
that the respondent was a defaulter of a bank, which fact was 
concealed by him in his nomination form, therefore, he stood 
disqualified from contesting the elections on this score alone. 
Suffice it to state that no doubt this plea was raised in the election 
petition but after the issue was decided by the Election Tribunal 
against him, no ground to challenge  such finding was taken in the 
present appeal. Same is the position with regard to the other plea 
that appellant was an accused in the criminal case which fact was 
not disclosed by respondent No.1 in the nomination form. No 
ground on this issue either was taken in the memo of appeal. Mere 
reproduction of the issues framed by the Election Tribunal in the 
memo of appeal was not sufficient. As the findings given by the 
Election Tribunal on both these issues were not specifically made 
grounds of attack in the memo of appeal and only raised at the 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5-Q OF 2014 
6
argument stage before us, the same cannot be considered by this 
Court.  
 
8. 
 
In order to prove a plea of rigging there has to be 
material on record to establish corrupt practices committed on 
behalf of the returned candidate. Section 55 of the Representation 
of the People Act, 1976, therefore, requires that precise statement 
of facts should be stated in the election petition with all material 
particulars with regard to the corrupt and illegal practices. In the 
present case however, only general allegations as to rigging were 
made. The evidence that was led was so deficient that it was not 
enough to establish prevalence of corrupt or illegal practices. We, 
therefore, do not find any legal error in the impugned judgment, 
which could warrant interference by this Court. This appeal is, 
therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.  
 
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
JUDGE 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
22ndof February, 2017 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram