NASIR-UL-MULK, J.--The respondent was the returned candidate from NA 263 in the Elections held in 2008 by 'securing 52,818 votes against the respondent No, 1, the runner up of 34,985 votes, The respondent No, 1 tiled an Election Petition challenging the election of the appellant alleging rigging in 23 polling stations, The appellant tiled written statement, evidence was recorded and by the impugned judgment the Election Tribunal held that rigging had taken place in the polling stations and as a result declared respondent No, 1 as successful candidate, The appellant has 'questioned the judgment and order 01 the Election Tribunal.
2. The tenure of the Assembly to which the appellant was elected has expired and the National 'Assembly stands dissolved, therefore, neither the appellant nor the respondent No,
1. Can remain member of the Assembly. The grievance of the appellant appears to be the finding of the Election Tribunal on issues. Nos. 3 & 6, which are re-produced as under:-- "(3) Whether respondent No, 1 with connivance of polling staff committed illegal, corrupt and massive rigging in the process of election and procured result in his favour?
(6) Whether respondent No, 1 cast bogus votes with the connivance of polling staff and security personnel?"
' The Tribunal has held that the respondent No, 1 is also responsible for rigging and, therefore, had committed illegal and corrupt practices in the election: This finding would obviously bar the appellant from contesting the forthcoming election under Section 99(1A)(e) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent in all fairness states that the finding of the Tribunal is based on presumptions to the extent of finding against the appellant for committing corrupt practices. He also referred to the case of Ehsanullah Reki v. Lt. General (Retd.) Abdul Qadir Baloch and others (2010 SCM R 1271). In view of the provisions' of Section 68(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 there has to be a direct evidence against. The candidate's involvement' in the corrupt practices and we found no such evidence.
4. Since the learned counsel for the respondent concedes that the finding on issues Nos. 3 & 6 to the extent of appellant regarding illegality and corrupt practices cannot be upheld and we also finding ourselves in agreement with him, the appeal is partly allowed and the finding on issues Nos.
3 & 6 are set aside to the extent of holding the appellant guilty of commission of corrupt and illegal practices.