' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---This petition is directed againstjudgment, dated 17-12-2002 of the Lahore High Court whereby Constitutional petition filed by the petitioners against the judgment of the Election Tribunal declaring respondents as returned candidates for the office of the Nazim and Naib Nazim has been dismissed.
2. The petitioners and the respondents contested elections for the office of Nazim and Naib Nazim.
In the initial counting of the ballot papers by the Presiding Officer the respondents were found to have secured more votes. Before the consolidation of the result by the Returning Officer an application was made on behalf of the petitioner for re-counting of 'ballot papers of Polling Booth No, 127 whereas the respondents made application for re-counting of ballot papers of Polling Booth No,122. The Presiding Officer re-counted the votes and found that 52 ballot papers bore double stamp which had earlier been counted as valid ballot papers polled in favour of the respondents.
Thereafter excluding those 52 ballot papers from the count of the respondents, the petitioners were declared as returned candidates.
3. The election petition filed by the respondents was, however, accepted through judgment, dated 26-9-2002 after holding that the double stamps found on the said 52 ballot papers were put before they were sealed but after initial counting by the Presiding Officer as such they were valid votes of the respondents. After re-counting of the votes of the other polling booth, according to the learned counsel, it was found that some of them did not bear the prescribed stamp but were counted in favour of the respondents which were 11 in number.
4. The Constitutional petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed through judgment, dated 17-12-2002 by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court against which leave is sought.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, when questioned, admitted that at the time of initial counting of the ballot papers after close of the polling the election agents of the petitioners were present but no objection was raised by them on account of counting of 52 votes as valid votes secured by the respondents on the ground that they bore double stamps. In the application made before the Presiding Officer before consolidation and declaration of the result no such plea was raised though a plea in general terms was raised that a number of ballot papers had been counted in favour of the respondents though they were liable to be cancelled as invalid ballot papers.
6. The Election Tribunal examined the Presiding Officer who counted the ballot papers on the close of the polling as also on application of the petitioners for re-counting. The election agents by the respondents were also examined as witnesses. The petitioners only examined a person as witness who was present at the time of re-counting of the ballot-papers by the Returning Officer. In this background and in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, if the Election Tribunal had raised an inference that the said 52 ballot papers were validly cast in favour of the respondents as they did not bear double stamp at the time of initial counting by the Presiding Officer and double stamps were put before they were sealed in the sealed cover, is perfectly in accordance with law of evidence which is supported by the said evidence of the Presiding Officer as also the polling agents. The silencef the petitioners in their application seeking re-counting about the nature of invalidity though the ground of double stamps if had been noticed by the polling agents was so glaring that the same should have been pointed out in the said application as a man of ordinary prudent would do so if the said fact had any truth. It could safely be presumed that they did not bear double stamp when were counted by the Presiding Officer. Had they bore double stamp, polling agents of he petitioners would have objected to it and informed the petitioner which should have been incorporated in the application.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that 11 ballot papers which did not bore prescribed stamp had been wrongly and illegally counted in favour of the respondents. When questioned, the learned counsel admitted that even if these 11 votes are excluded from the count of the respondent, even then the respondent would still succeed by a margin of 3 votes. Therefore, in our view nothing turns upon this. We, are, therefore, not inclined to entertain plea for grant of leave on this account.
8. For the foregoing reasons the findings recorded by the Election Tribunal and affirmed by the Honourable High Court in the impugned judgment do not suffer from any legal infirmity, therefore, this petition is without merits and is dismissed. .