Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Appeal No. 131‑K of 1985, decided on 28th August,1986.
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 23‑9‑1985 of the Election Tribunal in Election Petition No. 3 of 1985).
‑‑‑S. 67(3)‑‑Election appeal ‑Appellant's election petition, challenging election of respondent as returned candidate on ground of rigging, dismissed by Election Tribunal‑‑Appellant unable to show any defect in reasoning and finding of Election Tribunal and except for making some observations of general nature he had nothing of substance to urge‑‑No ground for interference existing‑‑Appeal dismissed.
Appellant in person.
Raja Haq Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court with Nizam Ahmad Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.4.
Respondents 1 to 3 and 5 Ex parte.
Date of hearing: 28th August, 1986.
The appellant was a contesting candidate for elections to the National Assembly from N.A. 186 held on 25‑2‑1985. He obtained 559 votes as against the successful candidate (respondent No.4 herein) who polled 20,647 votes. He, nevertheless, challenged the election of the returned candidate by filing an election petition contending that the election was vitiated due to widespread rigging and because it was not held fairly and properly. In support of this allegation the only concrete piece of evidence he could produce was that one ballot‑paper was found by him after a few days of the elections from a dried riverine and this fact rendered the election of respondent No.4 as void.
Three issues were framed by the Election Tribunal, of which the first is of relevance and it reads as follows:‑
(1) What is the effect of one ballot‑paper which was found by the petitioner after the declaration of result of election of National Assembly Constituency No. NA 186, Karachi, from a dried riverine, on the election of respondent No. 4 and on the election as whole
In his discussion with regard to this issue the learned Election Tribunal observed:‑
"The petitioner has produced the ballot‑paper as Exh. 5/2 which according to him was found in a dried riverine after few days of the declaration of the result of the election. A perusal of this exhibit will show that it was a ballot paper which was issued to some voter as it bears the seal of Election Commission and also some initials. It is, however, not alleged anywhere by the petitioner as to who was responsible for taking out this ballot paper outside the polling station. The petitioner contends that discovery of this single ballot‑paper outside the polling station establishes that there was whole‑sale rigging in the election which has rendered the election of respondent No.4 as void. However, no such allegation has been made by him in his election petition. It is an admitted position that respondent No.4 who has been declared elected by the Election Commission in the above constituency secured as many as 20,647 votes as against 559 votes polled by the petitioner. There is no comparison between the number of votes polled by the petitioner and respondent No.4 and there is nothing on the record to show as a result of taking out of the single ballot‑paper produced by the petitioner the result of the election could be affected materially in any manner. There is no allegation in the petition that respondent No.4 was responsible for taking out this vote outside the polling station nor it is alleged that any other person acting on behalf of respondent No.4 was responsible for the same."
Accordingly, the Election Tribunal held "that the discovery of one ballot‑paper by the petitioner after the declaration of the result from a dried riverine had no effect at all either on the election of respondent No. 4 or on the election as a whole".
In the result, the Election Petition was dismissed.
This is an appeal under section 67(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976.
We have heard the appellant Syed Intizar Hussain Zaidi, in person. He has not been able to show any defect in the reasoning and finding of the learned Election Tribunal and except for making some observations of a general nature and nothing of substance to urge.
No ground for interference exists. This appeal is dismissed but with no order as to costs.
M. Y. H. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer