Case Details

Citation(s)
2024 SLG 5712 2024 SLD 5712 2024 PLD 981
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 1046 of 2024, decided on 19th September, 2024. (Against the judgment dated 02.08.2024 of the Election Tribunal Balochistan, Quetta, passed in Election Petition No. 47 of 2024).
Present: Qazi Faez Isa, C.J., Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Shahid Bilal Hassan, JJ
Saeed Khurshid Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rafaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. M. Akram Shah, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 11. Nemo for other
Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th September, 2024.

GHULAM RASOOL---Appellant

VERSUS

ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Islamabad and others---Respondents

Law: Elections Act, 2017

Section: 95(5), 95(6), 90(10), 92

(a) Elections Act (XXXIII of 2017)-------Ss. 95(5) & 95(6)----Election for seat of Provincial Assembly---Recounting of votes by the Returning Officer---Allegation of illegal and corrupt practices---Not proved---Respondent No. 11/returned candidate received 21,103 votes which was the highest number, and the runner up was the appellant who received 19,093 votes---Returning Officer recounted the votes which resulted in the respondent No. 11's votes being reduced to 20,706 and the appellant's votes being reduced to 18,787; the difference of votes between them was 1,919 votes---Election Commission of Pakistan ('ECP') issued the requisite notification and declared respondent No. 11, who was recorded to have received the highest number of votes to have won the elections---Legality----Presiding Officers testified as court witnesses and the parties were given an opportunity to cross-examine them--Despite cross-examining them at length the alleged wrongdoing on their part could not be established nor could it be established that the copies of Form-45s produced by the appellant were copies of the actual Form-45s---Appellant's allegation that the respondent No. 11 had familial and other ties with the Presiding Officers was also not established---Appellant had questioned the declared results and had sought recounting which was allowed---Pursuant to the recounting the votes received by the winning candidate (respondent No. 11) were reduced and so too those received by the appellant, however, the respondent No. 11 still emerged as the victorious candidate having received 1,919 more votes than the appellant---Judge of the Tribunal independently examined the case from all angles and attended to the allegations levelled by the appellant and correctly concluded that his allegations were not established, and that the election results were fair---Appeal was dismissed. (b) Elections Act (XXXIII of 2017)-------Ss. 90(10) & 92---Election Rules, 2017, Rr. 81(1) & 84(1)---Form-45 prepared by the Presiding Officer of each polling station---Form-47 issued by the Returning Officer---Significance of both Forms---Ballot papers that are cast are the determinative…
🔒
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