' These are two election petitions directed against the fifth seat reserved for Christians. The legal and factual controversy as well as the parties are the same, therefore, the same were tried together and being decided by this single judgment.
2. The necessary relevant facts are that the petitioners in the two election petitions and 57 others contested for 5 Provincial Assembly seats reserved for Christians and according to the final result notified in the official Gazette dated 18-10-1993 the following 5 candidates, who had obtained highest number of votes, were declared elected: Sr. No, Names Votes obtained 1.Mr. Adil Sharif Gill 24,249 2.Mr. Johnson Michael 18,896 3.Mr. Peter Gill 13, 363 4.Begum Raj Hameed Gill 13,131 5.Dr. Sheela B. Charles 9,673
3. The election of Dr. Sheela B Charles-respondent was 'challenged through these election petitions, which were filed with the Election Commission of Pakistan as required under section 53 read with Rule 1 of the Procedure Rules. The same were processed and entrusted to this Tribunal, for trial vide notification dated 15-12-1993. Notices were issued to the respondents but only returned candidate and the other election petitioner have elected to enter appearance and contest the petitions.
4. Ch. Fateh Jang, petitioner in E.P.No, 85/93, pleaded that in fact he had secured more votes than the returned candidate-respondent No,3, therefore, he should have been declared elected for the fifth seat. It was alleged that the Returning Officer did not prepare Form XVI-B in accordance with the results prepared by the Assistant Returning Officers and forwarded to him in Form XVI-A. This was done to the disadvantage of the petitioner. He in this behalf referred to specific constituencies.
The other election petition on the similar allegations was filed by Qaiser Ifrahim Saroya, who claimed that in fact he had secured more votes than Dr. Sheela and Fateh Jang, therefore, he should have been declared elected candidate for the fifth seat. He, also referred to particular constituencies, where his votes were decreased while that of the returned candidate were increased. The two petitioners have in all complained of this figure work jugglary in 35 constituencies. On the other hand, respondent-returned candidate, did not file written statement.
However, it was contended on her behalf that Forms XVI-A were tampered with after the preparation of result in Form XVI-B by the Returning Officer, therefore, no authenticity could be attached to the same. This way the contest was between Fateh Jang-petitioner, respondent No,3- Dr. Sheela returned candidate and Qaiser Ifrahim-respondent No,47. The controversy was noted by this Tribunal in the order dated 8-9-1994 as under:-- ".It is clear from the election petitions that the contesting candidates have prayed that actually they secured more votes than, the returned candidate, therefore, the election of the returned candidate be declared void and instead each one of them may be declared as elected.................................................................... "
' The parties argued the legal and factual plans and. This Tribunal proceeded to order recounting of the votes in respect of 35 constituencies to ascertain whether the allegations in the election petitions were correct and to determine whether the result has been correctly tabulated by the Returning Officer in accordance with the Form XVI-A received from the Assistant Returning Officers.
The relevant portion of the order reads as under:- " .There are other ways but not safe and sure except the re-counting of the ballots in respect of thirty-five constituencies mentioned in para.14 above."
' The Provincial Election Commissioner was deputed to conduct the recounting. The order was compiled and according to his final report the position of the three contesting parties was as under-- '
Sr. No, Name Votes obtained
5. Qaiser Ifrahim Saroya 9,985
6. Ch. Fateh Jang 9,878
7. Dr. Sheela B. Charles 9,319 ' In this view of the matter, the Election Petition No,85/93 was partially accepted while E.P.No, 86/93 was allowed in toto. The result was that Qaiser Ifrahim was declared elected of the fifth seat vide order dated 16-2-1995, which was impugned through Civil Appeals Nos.60/95 and 216/95 filed by Ch. Fateh Jang and Dr. Sheela respectively. The same were partially accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by a single judgment dated 6-6-1995. The controversy between the parties was noted as under:-- "In the present case, the controversy is limited only to the recount and consolidation of result in Form XVI-B and, therefore, if the learned Tribunal was inclined to accept the report of the Commission with regard to recount of votes, the parties should have been allowed to cross- examine the persons who was author of the report or in the alternative the Tribunal should have called the original Forms XVI-A and XVI in order to satisfy itself that the recount was correctly carried by the Commission ' Thereafter, it was observed that it is open to the Tribunal either to examine the person, who prepared the report of the recount of votes under the direction of the Tribunal or to summon the original record of Forms XVI-A and XVI of the disputed constituencies in order to determine that recount has been correctly carried out by the Commission.
5. The officer put up the election petitions for re-hearing. It was decided to collect copies of the statement of count, technically known as Form XIV as well as Form XVI-A from the Returning Officer and to record the statement of Assistant Returning Officers of 35 constituencies in order to verify that the recount has been correctly carried out.
6. The copy of the Form XVI-B was produced by C.W.1. Thereafter, C.W.2 produced Form XVI-A in respect of 35 constituencies, which were available in the office of Returning Officer. The same were placed on record as Exh. CW2/2 to CW2/36. Then statements of 26 Assistant Returning Officers, who have prepared the Form XVI-A and forwarded the same to the Returning Officer, were recorded as C.W.3 to C.W.28. It is relevant to mention here that some of the Assistant Returning Officer supervised the election for more than one constituency while the contesting parties stated that they have no objection to the Form XVI-A placed on record as Exh.CW2/7, Exh.CW2/15, CW2/20, CW2/23, CW2/26, CW2/31 and CW2/35 as is clear from the interim orders dated 6-8-1995, 7-8-1995 and 8-8-1995.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, relevant provisions of law and evidence on record, It is clear from the pleadings that the basic controversy readied in the two election petitions was that whether the result as forwarded by.The Assistant Returning Officer in Form XVI-A was correctly posted by the Returning Officer in the Form XVI-B. While the returned candidate resisted the petitions and contended that the result was correctly prepared by the Returning Officer in Form xvi-B on the basis of the Form XVI-A forwarded to him by the Assistant Returning Officers but added that after the result was declared by Returning Officer, the election petitioners with the active collusion of Head Clerk of Election Commission had tampered with the Form XVI-A in the office of Returning Officer. It was alleged that the certified copies of these forged and fabricated Form XVI-A were placed on file of Election Petitioner of Fateh Jang. This gave rise to the other question as to whether the Form XVI-A in respect of 35 constituencies available with the Returning Officer were intact or tampered with. In order to resolve this controversy the recount was ordered. This way it was not a routine recount but purpose was to verify whether the Forms XVI-A as available with the Returning Officer were intact or the same have been tampered with and whether the result was correctly tabulated in Form XVI-B by the Returning Officer..
8. In this background, whether Forms XVI-A are authentic, genuine and correct becomes the basic question for determination, therefore, first of all we have to find out their authenticity and correctness before carrying out cross check of the result of recounting with reference to these forms. Accordingly, I deal with this question.
9. In order to determine the validity and correctness of the Forms XVI-A the same were sent for from Returning Officer, who forwarded the same through Mr. Abid Hussain, Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore, who appeared as C.W.2 and produced the Forms XVI-A in respect of all the 35 disputed constituencies, which have been placed on record as Exhs.CW2/2 to CW2/36. Thereafter the Assistant Returning Officers of all the 35 'disputed constituencies were summoned. The statements of 26 Assistant Returning Officers were recorded on 6th, 7th, 8th of August, 1995 and 17th of September., 1995, out of which C.W.6 was Assistant Returning Officer for PP-75 and PP-76 while C.W.28 acted as Assistant Returning Officer for PP-184 and PP-185. Besides this the parties notified that they do not dispute the authenticity of Forms XVI-A Exh.CW2/7 in respect of PP-79 as is clear from the interim order dated 6-8-1995. The same statement was made in respect of Exh.CW2/15(PP-113), CW2/20(PP-136) and CW2/23(PP-158) on 7-8-1995 while statement to the same effect was made by them in respect of Exh.CW2/26(PP-181), CW2/31(PP-216) and CW2/35(PP237) on 8-8-1995. It is relevant to mention here that the parties have not cross- examined C.W.3, C.W.6 to C.W.16, C.W.19 to C.W.21 and C.W.23 to C.W.24 at all. Therefore, their statements would be deemed to have been accepted as correct. This way all the Forms XVI-A were verified by their authors or accepted by the contesting parties as correct.
10. The 26 Assistant Returning Officers are all responsible officers,., who have appeared as C.W.3 to C.W.28 and deposed that the result was prepared by them correctly in Forms XVI-A and proved the forms sent by them to the Returning Officer and produced by C.W.2 in respect of their respective constituenices. However, during the proceedings following discrepancies surfaced:--
(i) C.W.18, who acted as Assistant Returning Officer for PP-114 Sheikhupura XI, proved Forms XVI-A prepared by him as Exh.CW2/36. According to this document Fateh Jang had obtained 37 votes but in the recounting there was only one vote to his credit, therefore, I have referred to Forms XIV available on record as Exh.CW28/20. It became clear that in fact 36 votes secured by Haroon Fateh Jang were credited to Fateh Jang. The position with the reference . To Form XVI is as under:-- {{TABLE}} Polling Station Haroon Fateh Jang Form XIV Fateh Jang Form XIV Recounting
21. 1 9 26 49.
36 1 1 {{TABLE}} ' It is, therefore, clear that it was a case of wrong posting may be on account of similarity of the names:
(ii) C.W.26, who acted as Assistant Returning Officer for PP-230, proved Form XVI-A prepared by him as Exh.CW2/34. He denied the suggestion that Qaiser had secured 12 votes from polling station No,78 of this constituency but the same were not entered. It is clear from Exh.CW2/34 that there is no mention of Polling Station No,78 while on physical verification of the votes and according to Form XIV Qaiser had secured 12 votes from this polling station. The same position was confirmed in the recounting, which was proved by C .W .29.
(iii) C.W.27, who had acted as Assistant Returning Officer for PP-146 Kasur-II, proved Form XVI-A, as Exh.CW2/21. He has also produced office copy of the same as Exh.CW2/21-A, according to which, Qaiser (S.No,46) had secured 84 votes. The same were inadvertently shown in the count of Ghulam Shehbaz Serial No,45. He admitted that the votes were the same. This position was confirmed in the recount, by Statement of CW 29 and Form XIV Exh.CW29/21
11. This evidence coupled with statement of C.W.29 proved beyond any shadow of doubt that Forms XVI-A Exh.CW2/2 to CW2/36 were genuine, intact, authentic and the same have not been tampered with by any one. This on the one hand clearly falsified the plea of the returned candidate that Forms XV.I-A have been tampered with in the office of Returning Officer and on the other hand it proved the allegations made by petitioners in the two election petitions that Returning Officer failed to prepare the final result in Form XVI-B in accordance with the result received by him from the Assistant Returning Officers in Forms XVI-A.
12. The position as to the discrepancies noted in respect of three PPs can be summed up as under:- - FORM XVI (A) {{TABLE}} SHOWN IN FORM XVI-A ACTUAL Dr. Sheela Fateh Jang Qaiser Dr. Sheela Fateh Jang Qaiser PP-144 PP-146 PP-230 - 9 37 4 54 9 1 4 84 66 9 41. 54 9 5 150 {{TABLE}} ' I have prepared a comparative statement of the votes of the three parties as shown in Forms XVI- B, XVI-A and Recount. The same is appended as Annexure 'A' with this judgment. It is clear from the above tabulation that 36 votes of Haroon Fateh Jang were wrongly credited in Form XVI-A pertaining to Constituency No,PP-144 to Fateh' Jang while. 96 votes were shown less in Forms XVI-A pertaining to Constituency Nos.PP-146 and 230 in the count of Qaiser, therefore, these additions and substruction have to be made from the total as appearing in Annexure ' A'. The same after corrections would read as under:-- Dr. SheelaFateh JangQaiser Ifrahiin (i)Total in Annexure .' A'112922922415 of the votes recorded in Form XVI-A. .(ii)Modifications of three(-)36(+)96 Constituencies.
(iii)Corrected total.112922562511 (The incorrect entries have been star-marked in Annexure A):
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while remanding the election petitions noted following objections of Dr. Sheela:--
(i) The statements of count shown in Form XVI-A were not in accordance with the actual result of counting from Form XIV. I have taken utmost care of this objection. The discrepancies which have been observed in Form XVI-A in respect of three constituencies, have been removed with reference to Form XIV;
(ii) While other objection was that Forms XVI-A were tampered with after declaration of the result by Returning Officer. The objection has already been dealt at length while objections as to the recounting shall be dealt at appropriate place.
14. Now taking up .recounting. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while remanding the matter observed that it was open for the Tribunal either to examine the persons, who prepared recount of the voters under the direction of the Tribunal or to sommon the original Forms XVI-A and XIV of the disputed constituencies in order to determine that recount has been correctly carried out by the Commission. It is relevant to mention here that 4 copies of Form XJV are prepared simultaneously by Presiding Officers, therefore, the Provincial Election Commissioner was directed to collect the copies from his own office as well as from the offices of the Returning Officer and Assistant Returning Officers. The order was complied with. One set of the forms has been placed on record and EXhs.CW29/1 to 29/35 Thereafter, the .statements of 26 Assistant Returning Officers were recorded as CW3 'to CW28 and lastly the statement of the Provincial - Election Commissioner. who had carried. out the recount, was recorded as C.W.29. The parties have cross-examined him at length.
15. The objections to the recount were: firstly, the petitioner Fateh Jang contended that there was discrepancy in the total of 205 constituencies, which were not disputed and the figures recorded in Form XVI-B was admitted as correct, therefore, were to serve as basis. CW29 frankly concede that the votes of Fateh Jang as mentioned in Form XVI-B Exh.CW1/1 were incorrectly recorded in respect of 5 constituencies. His "explanation was that it happened due to the fact that the figures were not legible. He placed on record two statements showing the position as understood by him as well as the correct position as Exh.CW29/41. The perusal of the Form XVI-B shows that miscalculation was not intentional but .on account of the figures being not legible. The petitioner, Fateh Jang pointed out 3 constituencies namely:- Final Report of C.W. 29 {{TABLE}} Counted by C.W. 29 Actual PP-71 0 3 PP-74 15 19 PP-196 17 77 ' Where his votes were shown less than appearing in the Form XVI-B while the other petitioner pointed out two other constituencies namely:-- Counted by C.W.29 Actual PP-67 8 0 PP-178 195 185 {{TABLE}} ' where more votes were credited to the petitioner, Fateh Jang than actually recorded in Form XVI- B. The interesting feature is that the learned counsel for Fateh Jang maintained that the figures should be corrected only in respect of first 3 constituencies pointed out by him while the other 2 should not be touched.
16. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No,47 frankly conceded that the figures should be corrected as per Exh.CW29/41 in respect of all the 5 constituencies. The petitioner cannot have two standards, therefore, the figures are corrected in all the 5 constituencies as per Exh.CW29/41. The Provincial Election Commissioner has placed on record complete statement of the votes obtained by 3 parties from 205 undisputed constituencies. The same has been appended as Annexure 'B' with this judgment. The total in the statement is after making the correction.
17. The next objection on behalf of Fateh Jang to recounting was that 59 invalid votes from 35 polling stations were counted in favour of Qaiser and 17 in favour of Dr. Sheela, therefore, the same should be excluded from their grand totals.
18. On the other hand, Mr. .Bilal Hassan Minto, Advocate argued that Fateh Jang, in all has raised objections to 20 votes in favour of his client on account of invalidity. It was added that the story of 59 votes has been introduced only to tilt the balance in his favour. It is added that the objection to 13 votes out of 20 is to the effect that the ballot did not bear either the signatures of the Presiding Officer or his stamp. It was argued that a ballot remains valid even if either the stamp or signatures of the .Presiding Officer are missing from it. The learned counsel in this behalf has referred to Ch: Muhammad Abdullah v. Ch. Abdul Wakil and others (PLD 1986 SC 487). It was added that since the objection was neither raised at the time of counting by the Presiding Officer nor in the Election Petition, therefore, the same could not be raised during the recounting. The learned counsel in this behalf has referred to Harcliand Ravi v. Manga Ram and others (1986 CLC 985). The arguments were concluded with the submission that the validity of the votes was maintained by the Provincial Election Commissioner during the recounting as is clear from his reports as well as statement as C.W.29.
19. The perusal of the record shows that the objection is misconceived for the reason that the Provincial Election Commissioner has categorically and repeatedly stated that he did not disturb the validity of votes as. Determined by the Presiding Officer. This is not all. When we refer to the votes in favour of Qaiser Ifrahim Saroya as shown in Form XVI-A and compare the same with the result of recounting then the objection is proved without merit. The position is as under:-- {{TABLE}} Sr. No, PP Votes in Form XVI-A Votes in recount 45 1 1 75 99 99 79 Nil Nil 107 Nil Nil 119 42 42 136 49 49 156 172 184'
164 42 26 177 620 624 181 370 369 185 79 .79 191 11 11 {{TABLE}} Sr. No, PP Votes in Form XVI-A Votes in recount
13. 197 55 53
14. 222 28 29
15. 223 141 155
16. 237 56 56 {{TABLE}} ' It is clear from the above data that so far Constituencies Nos.45, 75, 79, 119, 136, 185, 191 and 237 are concerned votes in .Form XVI-A and recount are exactly the same, therefore, the question of counting invalid vote does not arise while the Constituencies Nos.181 and 197 the votes to the credit of Qaiser are less than the votes shown in Forms XVI-A which cuts at the root of this objection. He got more votes in recounting only in Constituencies Nos.156, 164, 177, 222 and 223. In PP-222 Fateh Jang was shown having polled four votes in Form XVI-A but in recount there were three votes to his credit. On the other hand, there were 28 votes shown against the name of Qaiser in Form XVIA but in recount he got 29. This fully explains the addition of one vote. It' is clear from this constituency alone that the Provincial Election Commissioner has not disturbed the validity of the votes as determined by the Presiding Officer because Fateh Jang has raised objections of invalidity to five votes of Qaiser but the increase was only of one vote. Similarly, it has been alleged that invalid votes were counted in favour of Qaiser in P.Ps. Nos:79 and 107 whereas according to the record his score was nil both in Form XVI-A and recount. These facts are more than sufficient to prove that the validity of votes was not disturbed in recounting.
20. Now coming to the legal aspect of the objection. Mr. Bilal Hassan Minto, Advocate, has pointed out that as to the 13 votes, out of 20 objections available with the reports of recounting, the objections were as to either stamp of Presiding Officer on the ballot was not fixed or signatures were missing. In this behalf, he has rightly relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ch. Muhammad Abdullah (supra). In this way at the most there were only 7 invalid votes.
21. The plea otherwise is not tenable because invalid votes in accordance with the instructions were to be put in separate envelopes by Presiding Officers. It seems that during the recounting process the parties noted some discrepancies in some ballots. Since the margin was too close between them, therefore, they were trying to capitalise technical objections. The admitted position is that none of the contesting candidates has raised any objection to the validity of the votes as determined by the Presiding Officer. So much so no ground has been urged in the election petitions, therefore, the same cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time now as ruled in the case of Harchand Rai (supra). It is .Relevant to mention here that Fateh Jang earlier to remand moved C.M. No,3795 to urge the ground of invalidity of the ballots but the same was dismissed vide order dated 16-2-1995. He again after remand moved C.M. No,16/95 to the same effect, which was dismissed vide order dated 2-5-1996. Above all C.W.29 on the question of invalidity was to be confronted with the statement of count in respect of 35 polling stations where he allegedly counted the invalid votes. This was not done. Even the particular ballot papers were not got separated from lot for future reference. The objections as to the validity raised by three parties can be summed up as under:-- {{TABLE}} Dr. Sheela Qaiser Fateh Jang
(a) Double stamp 0 3 1
(b) With counterfoils. 0 4 0
(c) No stamp of P.O. 0 6 9
(d) No signature of P.O. 3 1 0
(e) No stamp and signature of P.O. 6 0 {{TABLE}} ' It is relevant to mention here that Dr. Sheela has also made objections in respect of some votes without specifying the exact number and as to whose favour thej same were cast. The objections are too general. This fact alone is sufficient to discard the same.
22. All these facts lead to the irresistible conclusion that the Election Commission did . Not disturb validity of the votes as determined by the Presiding Officer in the recount. In the absence of written objections it is not possible to accept the plea that the petitioner objected to 59 votes. Mores() when C.W.29 on Oath, categorically stated that whatever objections were made by the parties were appended by him with the reports of recount Exhs. CW29/36 to CW29/39. It is interesting to note in this behalf that all the three .Parties have raised similar objections to the votes counted in favour of the others. This goes a long way to show that the statement of the Provincial Election Commissioner that he did not disturb the, validity of the vote as determined by the Presiding Officer is correct. It was clearly not only one way affair.
23. The two votes were found without marking stamp. Mr. Bilal Hassan Minto, Advocate argued that those remained ballots because a ballot becomes vote after the marking stamp is put on the same by the voter to indicate his intention. The learned counsel in this behalf referred to section 38(c).
24. Now coming to the objection that a ballot without marking stamp is not invalid. It is difficult to agree with the learned counsel view of clause B (c) (iii) of subsection (4) of section 38 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred as Act of 1976). The same reads as under: - "38. Proceedings at the close of poll.-- (1)
(4) ...................................
(a)
(b).
(c) count, in such manner as may be prescribed, the votes cast in favour of each contesting candidate excluding from the count the ballot-papers which bear--
(iii) no prescribed mark to indicate the contesting candidate for whom the elector has voted;"
Therefore, C.W.29 rightly excluded the same. The same could not be counted in favour of any of the contesting candidates.
25. It is worthwhile to refer at this stage to C.M. No,2/96 moved today by Dr. Sheela under section 151, C.P.C. For adequate opportunity to address arguments on merits. The application has been repeated in connected election petition, also. The election petitions were fixed for 8-5-1996 and it was made clear to the parties that in case the Transfer Application is dismissed by the Hon'ble Chief Election Commissioner then they should conclude their arguments on 8-5-1996. Yesterday the learned counsel on behalf of election petitioners made some submissions while the counsel, who was present on behalf of counsel for Dr. Sheela, neither advanced any argument nor made any request for opportunity to address arguments. The petitions were accordingly adjourned for judgment for today and at about 10.00 a.m. I was informed that C.Ms. Have been made in both the petitions for opportunity to argue on merits. But again junior counsel was present with the request for adjournment while the learned counsel himself did not appear at all.
26. The learned counsel for the election petitioners have opposed the request and argued that the applications were mala fide and the only purpose is not to let Election Petitions decided. It was added that if the learned counsel for the applicant genuinely wanted to argue then this application should have been made on 7-5-1996 and he should have appeared on 8-5-1996 or at least today and argued the matters. It is added that the applicant has been participating in the proceedings as to her convenience. The arguments are summed up with the submission that since after dismissal of her review application by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 10-3-1996 her learned counsel only appeared on 2-5-1996 to argue C.Ms., ,which have already been dismissed long back and showed inability to argue on merits. It was, therefore, prayed that the petition is mala fide and the objection is to keep the seat in the Assembly which she is not entitled to at all.
27. I have given my anxious consideration. The applicant has been afforded' more than fair opportunity to address arguments but she failed to avail the same. No party is entitled to address arguments at its own convenience as it would amount to controlling of proceedings. I am fortified in my view by the judgments of this Court reported. As Abdullah and another v. Mian Tafazzul Hussain and another (PLD 1961 Baghdad-ul-Jadid 58) and Ghulam Rasool v. Ch. Din Muhammad (PLD 1967 Lahore 665). The applicant wag fully aware of the time at the disposal of this Tribunal to decide these election petitions as per direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this view of the matter, these applications are dismissed.
28. Now once again returning to the main election petition. The result of marathon proceedings is that: ' firstly, that Forms XVI-A Exh. CW2/2 to CW2/36 were not tampered with by anyone as alleged by Dr. Sheela and the same were intact and authentic; ' secondly, that the Returning Officer failed to tabulate the result in Form XVI-B as per Forms XVI-A received by him from the Assistant Returning Officers; ' thirdly, that recounting was done by C.W.29 honestly, diligently and correctly. There Was nothing wrong with the same except incorrect figures noted by him in respect of 5 constituencies. Neither he has any motive nor he blamed of the same; and ' fourthly, that the result was high jacked in the office of the Returning Officer and it was not a case of wrigging the election.
29. The election petition can be conveniently decided either on the basis of recounting or on the basis of Form XVI-A. The final result of 3 contesting parties in accordance with recounting would be as under as is clear from Annexure 'C' with this judgment:- S. No, Name Votes
5. Qaiser 9985
6. Fateh Jang 9927 7 Dr. Sheela 9318
30. The Forms XVI-A in respect of disputed 35 constituencies have been proved by responsible Judicial Officers and most of them were not cross- examined at all by the parties. The minor discrepancies have been removed with ' reference to Forms XIV and recounting, therefore, the same would furnish sound and sure footing to decide the election petitions. The position of the 3 parties would be as under:--{{TABLE}} Dr. Sheela Fateh Jang Qaiser
(i) Total votes on the basis of Form XVI-B in respect of 205 constituencies not disputed. Votes on the basis of 8195 1129 7663 2256 . 7448 2511 Form XVI-A in respect of 35 constituencies as per para. 12 page 13 of this judgment.
Total 9324 9919 9959 {{TABLE}}
31. I would be failing in my duty if the assistance rendered by M/s. Nafeer A. Malik and Bilal Hassan Minto, Advocates is not acknowledged. It is also recorded that Mr. Tariq Latif, Provincial Election Commissioner not only did recounting fairly and impartially but also rendered valuable assistance in tabulating the result.
32. The upshot of the above discussion is that E.P. No,85/93 is accepted partially while E.P. No,86/93 is allowed in toto with costs. The result is that the election of Dr. Sheela B. Charles, returned candidate is declared void and instead Qaiser Ifrahim Saroya is declared as elected in her place having secured highest for fifth seat.