Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Ss. 33, 52, 68 & 69 RPA, 1976. Statements of Polling Staff, particularly the Presiding Officer and others had fully established allegations levelled by the petitioner about rigging, as such, the petition was allowed----(a) Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976)-------Ss. 50, 52 & 63---Election petition-Non-filing of return of election expenses---Effect oncompetency of election petition---Counsel for returned candidate had urged that the electionpetition by the petitioner/unreturned candidate was incompetent for non filing of return ofelection expenses and that non-submission of return of election expenses within a stipulatedperiod would constitute a valid ground for the dismissal of petition---Validity---Provision ofsection 63 of Representation of the People Act, 1976, whereby election petition could bedismissed, had left no room for doubt that S.50 of the Act, could not be pressed into servicefor the dismissal of election petition---Said provision could only be resorted to by the ChiefElection Commissioner and not by Election Tribunal---Even if, a person was found to beguilty of an illegal practice for his failure to submit the election expenses, the order ofdisqualification could only be made by the Chief Election Commissioner and not by theElection Tribunal, as the power under S.50 of Representation of the People Act, 1976 wasnot exercisable by the Tribunal---Petitioner, in circumstances, had not lost his locus standi tofile election petition on account of violating provisions of S.50 of Representation of thePeople Act, 1976. 2008 SCMR 1 ref.Meraj Khalid v. Ashiq Ali Dial 1993 MLD 1911 rel.(b) Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976)-------Ss. 52, 54 & 55---Election petition---Objection on maintainability of petition---Issueinvolved. in the case was whether election petition was liable to be dismissed for noncompliance of provisions of Ss.54 & 55 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976---Returned candidate raised objection on maintainability of the petition for want ofcompliance of Ss.54 & 55 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976---Validity---Contention with regard to strict compliance of Ss.54 and 55(3) of the Representation of thePeople Act, 1976, were of no avail---Returned candidate filed application before ElectionTribunal seeking dismissal of petition on said ground---Tribunal while allowing saidapplication dismissed the petition---Order passed by Election Tribunal was set aside by theSupreme Court---No court, Tribunal or authority, could re-open a matter closed by the apexcourt---In view of the judgment of the apex court issue "whether the petition was liable to bedismissed for non-compliance of provisions of Ss.54 & 55 of the Representation of thePeople Act, 1976", was resolved in the negative and petition was found to be maintainable; incircumstances.Iqbal Zafar Jhagra v. Khalilur Rehman 2000 SCMR 250 and S.M. Ayub v. Yousaf Shah PLD1967 SC 486 rel.(c) Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976)-------Ss. 33, 52, 68 & 69---Election petition---Petitioner/unreturned candidate had levelledallegations of commission of illegal and corrupt practices and massive rigging in process ofelection in 23 Polling Stations---To prove said allegations, petitioner, besides himself hadproduced ten prosecution witnesses and court witness---Statements of said witnesses,particularly those witnesses who conducted the election and performed their duties as PollingStaff/Officials, had established the fact that illegal and corrupt practice was committed andmassive rigging was done in the Polling Stations---Statement of court witness had fullycorroborated the statements of prosecution witnesses which showed that massive rigging wascommitted and provisions of S.33 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 had beenviolated---Statements of Polling Staff, particularly the Presiding Officer and others had fullyestablished allegations levelled by the petitioner---Rigging had taken place under a plannedand managed programme for and the object was achieved through the process which was carried out by Booth Capturing---Allegations of illegal, corrupt and massive rigging inprocess of election levelled by the petitioner, in circumstances, had fully been proved---Proposition that the election petitions were treated to be quasi criminal proceedings, thebenefit of doubt had to be extended to the returned candidate, was not applicable in the caseas the returned candidate had not been able to create any doubt or dent in the case of thepetitioner justifying the dismissal of election petition on such ground---Election in 23 PollingStations was established to have been conducted in utter disregard of provisions of S.33 ofthe Representation of the People Act, 1976, which had badly affected the result---Suchviolation could not be lightly ignored---Votes of said Polling Stations were declared invalidand in the circumstances declaring the entire election void, would be unjustified---Valid votespolled in said 23 Polling Stations, even if counted in favour of returned candidate, he couldnot be declared to have been legally elected as returned candidate---Notification wherebyrespondent was declared as returned candidate, was set aside and the petitioner was declaredreturned candidate---Election Commission was directed to notify the petitioner as returnedcandidate from the constituency in question.2010 SCMR 1271; 2008 SCMR 1; 1986 CLC 1119; PLD 1966 E.C. 121 and 1998 CLC 2033ref.PLD 1996 Lah. 98; 1987 MLD 1372; 2003 YLR 3039; 1986 CLC 2499; 1989 MLD 4882 and1995 CLC 1426 distinguished.Ehsanullah Reki v. Lt. General (R) Abdul Qadir Baloch and others 2010 SCMR 1272; AbdulHafeez Khan v. Muhammad Tahir Khan Loni and 13 others 1999 SCMR 284 and MukhtarHussain Shah v. Wasim Sajjad PLD 1986 SC 178 rel.(d) Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976)-------S. 52---Election petition---Allegation was that ballot papers in two Polling Stations wereissued more than the total registered votes and cast---Burden to prove the allegation was onthe petitioner, who produced 10 witnesses besides recording his own statement and of courtwitness---No material was found in said statements to prove the fact that more ballot papersthan the actual registered votes were issued---Petitioner, in circumstances had failed to provethe allegation, which was resolved in the negative.(e) Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976)------S. 52---Election petition--Allegation was that fake votes were stuffed in a Polling Stationby putting forged thumb-impressions and fictitious number of Identity Cards---Petitioner hadlevelled the allegation of massive rigging and corrupt and illegal practice with regard to 23Polling Stations, but Polling Station in question did not find mention in the list of the 23Polling Stations---Returned candidate in the Polling Station in question had obtained 36votes, whereas the majority of votes were obtained by the petitioner---Number of rejectedvotes were more than the votes obtained by any of the candidates--Petitioner, incircumstances, had not been able to prove the allegation, which was decided against him.(f) Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976)-------S. 33---Voting procedure---Object behind provisions of S.33 of Representation of thePeople Act, 1976 was to ensure fair, free and transparency of election---Violation of saidprovision, would lead to contrary view; and departure therefrom would tantamount tomake the law ineffective; and would pave a way for bogus votes.Dr. Hamid Khan Achakzai v. Vehram Khan Achakzai 2000 MLD 1832 rel.

Summary: Summary pending