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.Nos.NamesVotes obtained 1Mr. Adil Sharif Gill24,249 Mr. Johnson Michael18,896 3Mr. Peter Gill13,363 4Begum Raj Hameed Gill13,131 Dr. Sheela B. Charles9,673 3.The election of Dr. Sheela B. Charles-respondent was challenged through these election petitions, which were filed with the Election Commissionof 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 Election Petition 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 Forms 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 Ibrahim 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 fifteen (sic) 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 jugglery 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 Ibrahim-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 Forms 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 recounting 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 complied and according to his final report the position of the three contesting parties was as under: -- Sr.NoNameVotes obtained 5Qaiser Ibrahim Saroya9985 6Ch. Fateh Jang9878 7Dr. Sheela B. Charles9319.
"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 person 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 XIV of the disputed constituencies in order to determine that recount has been correctly carried out by the Commission.
5. The office 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 statements 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 Exhs. C.W2/2 to C.W2/36. 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 Officers 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 Exhs. C. W2/7, Exh. C. W2/15, C.
W2/20, C. W2/23, C. W2/26, C. W2/31, and C. W2/35 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 raised in the two election petitions was that whether the result as forwarded by the Assistant Returning Officers 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 Petition 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 tempered with. In order to resolve this controversy the recount was ordered. This way it was not a routine recount but purpose was to veriff: whether the Form 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 the Returning Officer.
8. In this background, whether Form 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 Form 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 Form XVI-A in respect of all the 35 disputed constituencies, which have been placed on record as Exhs. C. W2/2 to C. W2/36. 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. W6 was Assistant Returning Officer for P.p-75 and p.p-76 while C.W.28 acted as Assistant Returning Officer for P.P-184 and P.P-185. Besides this the parties notified that they do not dispute the authenticity of Form XVI-A Exh. C.W2/7 in respect of P.P-79 as is clear from the interim order dated 6-8-1995. The same statement was made in respect of Exhs. C.W.2/15 (P.P-113), C.W.2/20(P.P-136) and C.W.2/23 (P.P-158) on 7-8-1995 while statement to the same effect, was made by them in respect of Exhs. C.W.2/26 (P.P-181), C.W.2/31(P.P-126) and C.W.2/35 (P.P-237) 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 acccepted 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 Form XVI-A and proved the forms sent by them to the Returning Officer and produced by C.W.2 in respect of their respective constituencies: However, during the proceedings following discrepancies surfaced:-- (i)C.W.18, who acted as Assistant Returning Officer for P.P-144 Sheikhupura X.1, proved Form XVI-A prepared by him as Exh. C.W.2/36. 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 Form 7((V available on record as Exh. C.W.28/20. It became clear that in fact 36 votes secured by Haroon Fateh Jang were credited to Fateh Jang. The position with reference to Form XIV is as under:-- PollingHarron FatehFateh Jang StationJang Form XIVForm XIVRecounting 211 23.9 24.26 49 3611 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 P.P-230, proved Form XVI-A prepared by him as Exh. C.W.2/34. 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. C.W.2/34 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 P.P-146 Kasur-II, proved Form XVI-A as Edh. C.W.2/21. He has also produced office copy of the same as Exh. C.W.2/21-A, according to which, Qaiser (S.No.46) had secured 84 votes. The same were inadvertently shown in the count of Ghulam Shehbaz at Serial No-45. He admitted that the votes were the same. This position was confirmed in the recount, by statement of ~C.W.29 and Form XIV Exh. C. W.29/21.
11. This evidence coupled with statement of C.W.29 proved beyond any shadow of doubt that Form XVI-A as Exhs. CW.2/2 to C.W.2/36 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 Form XVI-A have been tempered 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 Form XVI-A.
12. The position as to the discrepancies noted in respect of three P.Ps. Can be summed up as under:-- Form XVI(A)
SHOWN IN FORM XVI-AACTUAL Dr. Sheela Fateh JangQaiser IDr. Sheela Fateh JangQaiser 371 99 84 4544 66 941.5495 150 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.P.P-144 to Fateh Jang while 96 votes Hire shown less in From XVI-A pertaining to constituency No.P.Ps-146 and 230 iii the count of Qaiser, therefore, these additions and substructions have to be made from the total as appearing in Annexure 'A'. The same after corrections would read as under:-- Dr. SheelaFateh JangQaiser Ibrahim
(i) Total in112922922415 Annexure. ' A' of the votes recorded in Form XIV-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 XIV-A in respect of three constituencies, have been removed with reference to Form XIV;
(ii) While other objection was that Form 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 votes under the direction of the Tribunal or to summon the original Forms XVI-A and XIV of the disputed constituencies in order to determine that recount has been correctly carried out by the Commissioner. It is relevant to mention here that 4 copies of Form XIV 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 onrecord as Exhs. C.W.29/1 to 29/35. Thereafter, the statements of 26 Assistant Returning Officers were recorded as C. W.3 to C. W.28 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. C. W.29 frankly conceded that the votes of Fateh Jang as mentioned in Form XVI-B Exh. C.W.1/1 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. C.W.29/41. 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.
Counted by C. W.29Actual P. P-71 .03V -- r .
P. P-741519 P.P-1961777 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.29Actual P. P-678= r .
P.P-178195 185 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. C.W.29/41 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. C.W.29/41. 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 Lang 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 as 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 Harchand R.I 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 report as well as statement as C.W.29.
19. The perusal of the record shown 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 Ibrahim 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: -- Sr.Nos.PPVotes in Form XVI-A Votes in recount 451 2.759999 3.79NilNil 4.107NilNil 51194242 61364949 156172184 81644226 9177620624 10181370369 Sr.Nos.PPVotes in Form XVI-AVotes in recount 11.1857979 12.1911111 13.1975553 14.2222829 15.223141155 162375656 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 Form 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 P.P-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 XVI-A 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 envelops 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 (sic) 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 R.I (supra). It is relevant to mention here that Fateh Jang earlier to remand moved Civil Miscellaneous No.3 of 1995 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 Civil Miscellaneous No. 16 of 1995 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:-- Dr. SheelaQaiserFateh Jang (a)Double031 Stamp (b)With counter-040 foils (c)No stamp069 of P.O.300 (d)No signat-- ure of P.O.00 (e)No stamp and060 signature of P.O.
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 the 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. Moreso 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. C.W.29/36 to C.W.29/39. 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 no 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. BilaI 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 (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 paper which bear-- (iii)no prescribed mark to indicate the contesting candidate for whom theelector 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 Civil Miscellaneous No.2 of 1996 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 am informed that Civil Miscellaneous 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 Civil Miscellaneous, 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 it 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 g judgments of this Court reported as Abdullah and mother 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 was 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 Form 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 Form 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 rigging 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. Nos.Name Votes 5.Qaiser9985 6.Fateh Jang 9927 7,Dr. Sheela ' 9318
30. The Form 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 C reference to Form 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:-- Dr. SheelaFateh JangQaiser
(i) Total votes on the basis of81957663 Form XVI-B in respect of 205 constituencies not disputed.
(ii) Votes on the basis of Form XVI-A in res--11292256 pect of 35 constituencies as per para. 12 page 13 of this judgment.
Total932499199959
31. I would be failing in my duty if the assistance rendered by M/s. Nafeer A. Malik and Bilal Hassan Minto, Advocate 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 Election Petition No.85 of 1993 is accepted partially while Election Petition No.86 of 1993 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 Ibrahim Saroya is declared as elected in her place having secured highest for fifth seat.
Annexure-"B"
STATEMENT SHOWING VOTERS AS IN FORM XVI-B OF THE SEATS RESERVED FOR NON-MUSLIMS (CHRISTIANS) IN THE PROVINCIAL ASSEMBLY PUNJAB IN RESPECT OF 205 PUNJAB PROVINCIAL ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCIES (NOT DISPUTED).
ST.Number and name ofVotes secured byRemarks No.Constituency Dr. SheelaCh. FatehQaiser B. Charles.Jang.Ifraheem Saroya.
123456 I.PP-1Rawalpindi-I21775 2.PP-2Rawalpindi-II1 3.PP-3Rawalpindi-III414 4.PP-4Rawalpindi-TV42 5.PP-5Rawalpindi-V515 6.PP-6Rawalpindi-VI 7.PP-7Rawalpindi-VII 8.PP-8Rawalpindi-VIII1 9.PP19_Rawalpindi-IX 10.PP-10Rawalpindi-X 11.PP-11Rawalpindi-XI 12.PP-12Attock-I2 3 .PP-13Attock-I i 4.PP-14Attock-III 15.PP-15 -Attock-IV 16.PP-16Chakwal-I129 17.PP-17Chakwal-I1 18.PP-18Chakwal-III10 ST.Number and name ofVotes secured byRemarks No.Constituency Dr. SheelaCh. FatehQaiser B. Charles.Jang.Ifraheem Saroya.
123456 19.PP-19Chakwal-IV 20.PP-20Jhelum-I43 21.PP-21Jhelum-II 22.PP-22Jhelum-III1 23.PP-23Sargodha-I 24.PP-24Sargodha-I1 25.PP-25Sargodha-III998265 26.PP-26Sargodha-IV1138102 27.PP-27Sargodha-V11734 28.PP-28Sargodha-VI31534 29.PP-29Sargodha-VII23 30.PP-30Sargodha-VIII65 31.PP-31Sargodha-IX111 32.PP-32Sargodha-X 33.PP-33Khushab-I465 34.PP-34Khushab-II215054 35.PP-35Khushab-III138 36.PP-36Mianwali-I12 37.PP-37Mianwali-II6511 38.PP-38Mianwali-III1913 39.PP-39Mianwali-IV546 40.PP-40Bhakkar-I SI.Number and name ofVotes secured byRemarks No.Constituency Dr. SheelaCh. FatehQaiser B. Charles.Jang.Ifraheem Saroya.
123456 41.PP-41Bhakkar-II35 42.PP-42Bhakkar-III29 43.PP-43Faisalabad-I616 44.PP-44Faisalabad-II313 45.PP-45Faisalabad-IV409 46.PP-46Faisalabad-V014 47.PP-48Faisalabad-VI1919 48.PP-49Faisalabad-VII15240 49.PP-50Faisalabad-VIII467170 50.PP-51Faisalabad-IX18823 51.PP-52Faisalabad-X435 52-.PP-53Faisalabad-XI2271 53.PP-54Faisalabad-XII71315 54.PP-55Faisalabad-XIII231 55.PP-56Faisalabad-XIV12 56.PP-57Faisalabad-XV3 57PP-58Faisalabad-XVI214 58.PP-59Faisalabad-XVII53 59.PP-61Jhang-I 60.PP-62Jhang-II3I11 61PP-63Jhang-III 62.PP-64Jhang-IV SI.Number and name ofVotes secured byRemarks No.Constituency Dr. SheelaCh. FatehQaiser B. Charles.Jang.Ifraheem Saroya.
123456 63PP-65Jhang-V27 64.PP-66Jhang-VI 65.PP-67Jhang-VII 66.PP-68lhang-VIII 67.PP-69Jhang-IX 68.PP-71T.T. Singh-I32 69.PP-72T.T. Singh-II14 70.PP-73T.T. Singh-III6238 71.PP-74T.T. Singh-IV11974 72.PP-77Gujranwala-I3251 73.PP-78Gujranwala-II2452 74.PP-80Hafizabad-II166 (Old Gujranwala-IV).
75.PP-82Hafizabad-III (Old Gujranwal-V).
76.PP-82Gujranwala-VI65761 77.PP-84Gujranwala-VIII713172 78.PP-85Gujranwala-IX734 79.PP-86Gujranwala-X668I 80.PP-87Gujranwala-XI9071 81.PP-88Gujranwala-XII834123 82.PP-89Gujranwala-XIII11416 83.PP-90Gujranwala-XIV4375 St.Number and name ofVotes secured byRemarks No.Constituency Dr. SheelaCh. FatehQaiser B. Charles.Jang.Ifraheem Saroya.
1234 56 84.PP-92Gujrat-II 85.PP-93Gujrat-III1 86.PP-94Gujrat-IV15 87.PP-96Gujrat-VI118_1 88.PP-97Gujrat-VII26 89.PP-99Mandi Bahauddin-III (Old Gujrat-IX).
90.PP-100Mandi Bahauddin-III1 (Old Gujrat-X).
91.PP-101Mandi Bahauddin-IV_ (Old Gujrat-XI).
92.PP-102Sialkot-I64 93PP-103Sialkot-II5019 94.PP-104Sialkot-III5_ 95PP-106Sialkot-V130101 96.PP-109Silakot-VIII4991 97.PP-110Sialkot-cum-Narowal-I5452 98.PP-111Sialkot-cum-Narowal-II98131 99.PP-112Narowal-I981316
(Old) Silakot-XI).
100.PP-114Narowal-III17 (Old Sialkot-XIII)
101.PP-115Narowal-IV420 (Old Sialkot-XIV)
102.PP-117Lahore-II3071 CLC SI.Number and name ofVotes secured byRemarks No.Constituency Dr. SheelaCh. FatehQaiser B. Charles.Jang.Ifraheem Saroya.
123456 103.PP-118Lahore-III31 104.PP-121Lahore-VI310 105.PP-122Lahore-VII111 106.PP-123Lahore-VIII4618 107.PP-124Lahore-IX13 108.PP-125Lahore-X31 109.PP-127Lahore-XII2118 110.PP-128Lahore-XIII41452 111.PP-129Lahore-XIV112 112.PP-130Lahore-XV4290 113.PP-131Lahore-XVI3319472 114.PP-132Lahore-XVII6741 115.PP-133Lahore-XVIII15856 116.PP-134Sheikhupura-I115135209 117.PP-135Sheikhupura-II6426168 118.PP-137Sheikhupura-IV943919 119.PP-138Sheikhupura-V218966 120.PP-139Sheikhupura-VI548520 121.PP-140Sheikhupura-VII911010 122.PP-141Sheikhupura-VIII23126118 123.PP-142Shekhupura-IX14515 124.PP-143Sheikhupura-X267 SI.Number and name ofVotes secured byRemarks No.Constituency Dr. SheelaCh. FatehQaiser B. Charles.Jang.Ifraheem Saroya.
123456 125.PP-145Kasur-I133 126.PP-147Kasur-III512128 127.PP-148Kasur-IV171165 128.PP-149Kasur-V146634 129.PP-150Kasur-VI5485 130.PP-151Kasur-VII36149 131.PP-152Kasur-VIII5 132.PP-153Okara-I15161339 133.PP-154Okara-II1440299 134.PP-155Okara-III70-24 135.PP-157Okara-V639 136.PP-159Okara-VII24 137.PP-160Multan-I195241 138.PP-161Multan-II6 139.PP-162Multan-III5811 140.PP-163Multan-IV63103 141.PP-165Multan-VI124143 142.PP-166Multan-VII2 143.PP-167Multan-VIII13356 144.PP-168Multan-IX 145.PP-169Multan-X 146.PP-170Lodhran-cum-Multan3 (Old Multan-XI).
SI.Number and name ofVotes secured byRemarks No.Constituency Dr. SheelaCh. FatehQaiser B. Charles.Jang.Ifraheem .
Saroya.
123456 147.PP-171Lodhran-I21 (Old Multan-XII).
148.PP-172Lodhran-II68144 (Old Multan-VIII)
149.PP-173Lodhran-III15 (Old Multan-XIV)
150.PP-174Khanewal-I 151.PP-175Khanewal-II71 152.PP-176Khanewal-III818 153.PP-178Khanewal-V18581 154.PP-179Khanewal-VI581793843 155.PP-180Khanewal-VII194152 156.PP-182Sahiwal-1114784 157.PP-183Sahiwal-III19520272 158.PP-186Sahiwal-VI12130210 159.PP-187Sahiwal-cum-Pakpattan1018 160.PP-188Sahiwal-VII10769 161.PP-189Sahiwal-VIII37 162.PP-190Pakpattan-XI42, 163.PP-192Vehari-I 164.PP-193Vehari-II48 165.PP-194Vehari-III241 SI.Number and name ofVotes secured byRemarks No.Constituency Dr. SheelaCh. FatehQaiser B. Charles.Jang.Ifraheem Saroya.
123456 166.PP-195Vehari-IV56119 167.PP-196Vehari-V77 168.PP-198.Vehari-VII109345 169.PP-199D.G. Khan-I 170.PP-200D.G. Khan-II 171.PP-201D.G. Khan-III 172.PP-202D.G. Khan-IV 173.PP-203D.G. Khan-V 174.PP-204Rajanpur-I 175.PP-205Rajanpur-II 176.PP-206Rajanpur-III 177.PP-207Muzaffargarh-I 178.PP-208Muzaffargarh-II ' '9.PP-209Muzaffargarh-III 180.PP-210Muzaffargarh-IV 181.PP-211Muzaffargarh-V6158 182.PP-212Muzaffargarh-VI 183.PP-213Muzaffargarh-VII717 184.PP-214Muzaffargarh-VIII133197 185.PP-215Layyah-I2572 186.PP-217Layyah-III4027113 S1.Number and name ofVotes secured byRemarks No.Constituency Dr. SheelaCh. FatehQaiser B. Charles.Jang.Ifraheem Saroya.
123456 187.PP-218Bahawalpur-I 188.PP-219Bahawalpur-11 189.PP-220Bahawalpur-III 190.PP-221Bahawalpur-IV8775 191.PP-224Bahawalpur-VII49 192.PP-225Bahawalnagar-I 193.PP-226Bahawalngar-II19 194.PP-227Bahawalnagar-III 195.PP-228Bahawalnagar-IV4855 196.PP-229Bahawalnagar-V8322 197.PP-231Bahawalnagar-VII21 198.PP-232R.Y. Khan-I 199.PP-233R.Y. Khan-II 200.PP-234R.Y. Khan-III2 201.PP-235R.Y. Khan-IV37 202.PP-236R.Y. Khan-V 203.PP-238R.Y. Khan-VII8 204.PP-239R.Y. Khan-VIII43156 205.PI'-240R.Y. Khan-IX5 Total:819576637448 Description ofVotes in favour of details of Constituencies Dr. SheelaCh. FatehQaiser B.Charles. JangIfrahim Saroya.
124 (1)Totalvotes according967394549083 to Form-XVI(B)in respect of240 constituencies(as shownin earlier final report accordingto Gaz.Notification of ElectionCommission of Pakistan).
(2)Totalvotes of 240931998789985 constituencies,as shownin final report (after recounting).
(3)Total votesin respect819576637448 of205 constituencies (notdisputed.) on the basisof Form-XVI (B).
(4)Total votesin respect147817791635 of35 constituencies (disputed)accordin& to Form-XVI (B).
(5)Total votesin respect112322642537 of35 conat:tuencies (disputed) on the basis of recounting.
(6) Corrected total votes.
(i) As at (c) above.819576637448
(ii) As at (e) above.112322642537 Total931899279985