Case Details

Citation(s)
2014 SLG 1762 2014 SLD 1762 2014 CLC 1181
Election Tribunal, Sindh
Election Petition No.11 of 2013, decision dated: 21st April,2014.
DR. ZAFAR AHMED KHAN SHERWANI, ELECTION TRIBUNAL

Syed MASHOOQ MOHIUDDIN SHAHvsSyed FAZUL ALI SHAH and 37 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976)-------Ss. 55(3) & 63---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VI, R.15---Election petition---Maintainability---Verification of pleadings---Petitioner not mentioning/referring to the specific paragraphs in the petition at time of its verification---Effect---Petitioner had verified all the contents of the petition on oath believing the same to be true both to the best of his knowledge and his belief as required under the law, and if the paragraphs had not been separated the petitioner could not be unsuited under S.63 of the Representation of the People Act for such a technical shortcoming---Election petition was held to be maintainable accordingly. Molvi Abdul Qadir v. Molvi Abdul Wassay and others, 2010 SCMR 1877 rel. (b) Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976)--- ----Ss. 68 & 70---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.129(g)---Election petition---Corrupt or illegal practices---Rigging---Capturing of polling stations---Taking polling staff as hostage---Proof---Petitioner not producing his witnesses for cross-examination---Polling agents and Returning Officer not examined---Effect---Testimony of petitioner becoming hearsay evidence--- Incumbent upon the petitioner to prove the allegations as made in the election petition filed by him---To discharge his burden of proof petitioner had filed his affidavit-in-evidence and the affidavits of several witnesses but they were not produced for their cross-examination for the reason best known to him, therefore it could be presumed under Art.129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, Illustration (g) that had said witnesses been produced they would have been unfavorable to the petitioner---Testimony of petitioner found no corroboration through any direct evidence as none of his own or any other contesting candidates' polling agents were examined to depose in his support---Evidence of these polling agents could be the best possible direct testimony on the subject but the petitioner chose to withhold the same without giving any plausible reason---Petitioner had not deposed that he had himself remained present during the polling at the polling stations where illegal and…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492