JAVED IQBAL, J.---This appeal, under section 67/3 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Article 185(2) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has been preferred on behalf of Muhammad Khan Junejo (appellant) whereby the judgment, dated 16-1-2004 has been assailed.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case as enumerated in the judgment impugned are to the effect that "that the petitioner and Respondents Nos.1 to 9 contested Elections for National Assembly from the Constituency NA 236, Sanghar III, which elections were held on 10th October, 2002. At the time of scrutiny of the nomination papers, the Respondent No,1 had filed a copy of the bogus and fake certificate and degree of the Sindh University and had got his nomination papers accepted on the forge and fake documents as he had never graduated and therefore, he was not qualified to contest the elections in view of the condition imposed by section 99(1)(CC) of the Representation of People Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). It was further pleaded in the petition that the Respondent No,1 and his workers rigged the elections at certain polling stations and the Respondent No,1 secured 66543 votes with the connivance of the election authorities/Government agencies in violation of the rules and -regulations to achieve the desired result whereas the petitioner secured 56628 second highest votes. On an application of the petitioner, the Sindh University verified the degree and certificate of the Respondent No,1 from the record and it transpired that the certificate and degree of BA (Pass) Part-II which were submitted by the respondent No,1 before the Returning Officer were bogus/false. According to the University's record.
Muhammad Rafiq son of Muhammad Ramzan Memon, has passed BA (Pass) Part II Annual Examinations in January, 1986 in 2nd Class under seat No,3420 and the copy of the marks-sheet, pass Certificate and degree in the name of Respondent No,1 were bogus and false. The Sindh University issued a Notification on 18-10-2002 notifying this fact to the general public. On the following day, the petitioner approached the Returning Officer with an application with which he annexed the copy of Notification of the Sindh University with the request to take prompt action against the respondent No, 1 in accordance with law. The Returning Officer on 19.-10-2002 (the same day) addressed a letter to the Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan intimating him that the copies of the Degree and the Certificate of BA submitted by the respondent No,1 were declared bogus and false by the Sindh University and requested for appropriate orders against the respondent No, l. According to the petitioner the Election Commissioner did not take any action on the letter received by them from the Returning Officer. The petitioner, therefore, has filed the present Election Petition with the prayers made hereinabove. The respondent No,1 has filed his written statement denying and disputing the averments made in the petition and reiterated that his Degree and Marks Certificate were not bogus. Respondents No,2 to 9 neither put in appearance nor filed their written statement and, therefore, were declared ex parte. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by this Tribunal on 3-3-2003:-- "(1) Whether petitioner has failed to comply with the requirement of the section 55(1)(a)(b) of the Representation of People Act, 1976? If so, its effect?
(2) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of parties?
(3) Whether the copy of BA Degree, 1985 (annexure A-2) and the copy of Mark Sheet bearing No,000169, dated 16-8-2002 (annexure A-3) filed by the Respondent No,1 along with his nomination papers are real and genuine?
(4) Whether the respondent No,1 namely Muhammad Khan Junejo was qualified to contest the election, 2002, in view of Article 8-A of the conduct of General Election Order, 2002 read with section 99(1)(CC) of the Representation of People Act, 1976?
(5) What is the effect of the Notification, dated 18-10-2002 (annexure C) issued by the Assistant Controller of Examinations, University of Sindh?
(6) What is the legal effect of the order, dated 11-11-2002 passed by the Governor of Sindh (annexure G-1 of the written statement)?
(7) What relief the petitioner is entitled for?
(8) What should the order be?"
3. After completion of certain legal formalities and recording the evidence the election petition preferred on behalf of respondent has been accepted by the learned Election Tribunal vide judgment impugned by holding that the appellant was not on the nomination day qualified to contest the election for want of academic qualification in terms of section 99(1)(cc) of the Act and the degree/certificate of BA (Pass) Part II Annual Examination 1985 furnished by the appellant before the Returning Officer was false and bogus which has been assailed by means of this appeal.
4. Mr. S.M. Zafar, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court appeared on behalf of appellant and has very eloquently articulated his arguments and mainly contended that proper opportunity of defence was not afforded to the appellant which resulted in serious miscarriage of - justice. In order to substantiate the said contention it is pointed out that the Tribunal fixed the date for recording of evidence of the appellant as 5-1-2004 but the matter was adjourned for 1-1-2004 when the evidence of the appellant was closed in spite .Of his willingness to produce his evidence and 12-1-2004 was fixed for arguments. It is further argued that the election petition was disposed of by the learned Election Tribunal by means of judgment impugned on the basis of one sided argument and announced the judgment which resulted in grave prejudice against the appellant and the learned Election Tribunal acted illegally in refusing to allow the appellant to adduce evidence in defence which was essential to prove that appellant in fact has qualified BA and degree obtained in the year 1985 is authentic and genuine. It is also pointed out that the Principal Degree College was required to produce the record of the college showing the existence and validity of degree and to prove that the appellant was declared successful candidate against seat No, 3614 (B.A. Pass Part I) and seat No,3420 (BA Pass Part' II). Mr. S.M. Zafar, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court pressed time and again that it would be in the interest of justice, fair play and equity to remand the case enabling the appellant to lead his defence because one-sided evidence considered and relied upon by the learned Election Tribunal is not sufficient at all to establish that the degree of the appellant is fake or bogus and more so, the Tribunal was bound to note that if any record had been tampered with, the tampering had been done by the respondent for the purpose of raising the allegation of tampering against the appellant which could not be established as the evidence of the appellant was closed illegally which amounts to blatant violation of the fundamental rights of the appellant as guaranteed in the Constitution as well as the Act. It is argued that the action of the Tribunal depicts haste in closing the evidence in defence of the appellant which is contrary to law and impugned judgment is liable to be set aside cm this score alone. It is contended firmly that the onus was on the respondent to have proved that the appellant had obtained a bogus and fake degree of BA which could not be discharged without examining Muhammad Rafiq Memon son of Muhammad Ramzan Memon to show that the degree claimed by the appellant was genuine or otherwise and the Tribunal assumed wrongly without evidence of Muhammad Rafiq Memon that he had obtained the degree furnished by the appellant along with his nomination paper against seat No,3420 and the Tribunal failed to determine that in whose name the BA degree against seat No, 3420 has been issued. It is contended that the appellant was and is willing to produce Muhammad Rafiq Memon son of Muhammad Ramzan Memon as a witness to confirm that he never appeared in BA examination nor any decree was issued in his name.
5. It is contended that the appellant had made an application to the Chief Election Commissioner for transfer of the election petition and accordingly he submitted an application to the learned Election Tribunal stating that he did not have any confidence in the Tribunal but instead of waiting for the decision of learned Chief Election Commissioner, the learned Tribunal continued to hear the election petition and decided the matter against the appellant which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. In order to substantiate his esteemed views Mr. S.M. Zafar, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court has referred cases titled Manzoor Ahamd v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan (1990 M LD 2140), Secretary Works, Government of N.W.F.P. v. Hisamul Ahmad (1999 M LD 818).
6. Mr. Rasheed A. Rizvi, learned Advocate Supreme-Court entered appearance on behalf of Respondent No,1 and strenuously controverted the viewpoint as portraited by Mr. S.M. Zafar, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of appellant and supported the judgment impugned for the reasons enumerated therein with the further submission that fair opportunity of hearing was afforded but not availed by the appellant for the reasons best known to him, however, a deliberate and conscious attempt was made by the appellant to get the proceedings prolonged for one or the other baseless pretext. In order to substantiate his contention it is pointed out that various applications have been moved which should have been dismissed in limine but after affording proper opportunity of hearing the same were dismissed by the Election Tribunal.
7. We have carefully examined the respective contentions as agitated on behalf of the parties in the light of relevant provisions of the Act and record of the case. We have thrashed out the entire evidence with the eminent assistance of learned counsel. We have also perused the judgment impugned. The pivotal questions which need determination are as under:--
(i) Whether sufficient and proper opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the appellant to lead evidence/defence or otherwise?
(ii) Whether the degree of BA is fake, bogus and procured as a result of tampering with the relevant record.
8. After having gone through the entire record we are of the considered view that proper opportunity of hearing has been afforded but not availed by the appellant. We are also of the opinion that the degree of BA is fake and bogus. A careful scrutiny of the entire record would A reveal that the appellant has done his best to get the proceeding protracted at every stage and probably for the reason that false, fake and bogus degree could not have been converted into authentic and genuine one. Now let us see how the matter has been dealt with by the learned Election Tribunal and how the appellant behaved and what was his conduct. At first instance the respondent got him examined as P.W.2 by producing memo of election petition and his affidavit in evidence who was cross-examined by the learned counsel of the appellant and thereafter the side of the appellant was closed. The appellant did not enter appearance in the witness-box to lead evidence in spite of various opportunities afforded to him time and again. The appellant prayed for adjournment on 30-8-2003 when the respondent was in the witness-box for cross-examination on account of transfer application moved by the appellant to the Chief Election Commissioner to get election petition transferred. The matter was adjourned to 13-9-2003 with the clear direction that no more adjournment would be granted. The matter could not be processed further as again an adjournment was sought on 13-9-2003 as the transfer application was yet pending before the Chief Election Commissioner. The petition was adjourned to 20-9-2003. The respondent could not be cross-examined due to this adjournment who remained present in Court. The learned Election Tribunal adjourned the matter for 20-9-2003 but no material progress could be made as once again adjournment was sought by the appellant as Raja Qureshi, learned Advocate of appellant was substituted with Mr. Nawab Mirza who also prayed for adjournment enabling him to prepare the brief. The learned Election Tribunal granted adjournment and petition \ was fixed for 27-2-2003 on the ground that transfer application was pending, adjudication before the learned Chief Election Commissioner and comments were call by the Chief Election Commissioner. The needful was done by the Election Tribunal and petition was adjourned to 11-10-2003. It is worth mentioning that cross-examination of the respondent could not be completed due to the frequent adjournments sought on behalf of appellant. On 11-10-2003 the learned counsel for appellant remained absent and the petition was fixed for 3-11-2003. Once again no material progress could be made and an application for adjournment was preferred on behalf of appellant on 3-11-2003 stating that the transfer application was pending before Chief Election Commissioner. The learned Tribunal by showing indulgence once again adjourned the matter for 7-11-2003 with category observation that no more adjournment would be granted. It is interesting to note that on 7-11-2003 adjournment was sought on the same ground as mentioned above which was dismissed and the learned counsel for appellant was directed to cross-examine the respondent who declined as he had no instruction from the appellant to cross-examine the respondent. In this background the respondent was discharged who remained present continuously to get himself cross-examined which could not be done for the reasons as mentioned hereinabove and the learned Election Tribunal fixed 1-12-2003 for evidence of appellant and his witnesses. An application for recalling the order, dated 7-11-2003 was moved on 1-122003 by the appellant which was allowed by imposing cost of Rs,25,000 and the petition was adjourned for 15-12-2003 enabling the appellant to cross- examine the respondent. The petition was adjourned once again as the appellant failed to deposit cost on 15-122003. The petition was adjourned for 22-12-2003 when learned counsel on behalf of appellant moved four different applications and sought adjournment which were dismissed by learned Election Tribunal. The election petition was fixed for 24-12-2003 for cross-examination of the respondent which was concluded and election petition was fixed for evidence of the appellant and his witnesses for 5-1-2004 which could not be done as an adjournment was sought by the appellant due to his commitment in Islamabad. The learned Tribunal granted adjournment and petition was fixed for 10-1-2004 when appellant entered appearance along with his counsel namely Mr. Nawab Saeednllah Khan and preferred an application for transfer of the election petition from the Election Tribunal. The learned counsel was pointedly asked how this transfer application was competent before the Tribunal and instead of any answer the learned counsel decided not to press the transfer application. At this juncture the learned counsel for appellant prayed for a short adjournment enabling the appellant to peruse the contents of written statement and affidavit to get him prepared for cross-examination. The learned Election Tribunal took the matter for about an hour but the appellant was called absent and the learned counsel who remained present stated that no instructions were given by the appellant. In view of the above stated scenario the learned Election Tribunal closed the evidence of appellant and matter was fixed for arguments on 12-1- 2004 when again an adjournment was sought by Mr. Nawab Mirza learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant was also present in the Court. It is worth mentioning that in .Spite of order, dated 12-1-2004 the learned Election Tribunal asked Mr. Nawab Mirza that appellant may make available himself for the purpose of cross-examination but the appellant refused. On 12-1-2004 the learned counsel for respondent argued the matter which was adjourned for 13-1-2004 when learned counsel for appellant submitted that he had no instructions to argue the matter whose statement was recorded to that effect by means of order, dated 13-1-2004. In these circumstances there was no other option available to the learned Election Tribunal except to adjudicate the petition finally which was done.
9. The above mentioned detail is indicative of the fact that sufficient opportunities have been provided which could not be availed for the reasons mentioned on each date by the learned Election Tribunal. It may be mentioned here at this juncture that it is mandatory requirement of the Act that Election Tribunal shall proceed with the trial of the election petition on day to day basis and the decision thereof shall be taken within four months from its receipt as provided under section 67 of the Act. How the election petition could have been adjourned for an indefinite period and how frequent adjournments could have been given without any justification when such petition was to be concluded within a period of four months. In our considered view the learned Tribunal has afforded fair opportunities time and again which were not availed by the appellant and thus the prime contention of the learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court adduced on behalf of appellant that fair opportunity of leading defence was not afforded is devoid of merit but on the contrary the conduct of appellant demonstrates propensity to prolong litigation at any cost.
10. We have also adverted to the question as to whether the degree of BA is fake, bogus and procured as a result of tampering with the record. The answer would be in affirmative. The statement of Dr. Abdul Razzaq Abro, Controller of Examinations University of Sindh, Jamshoro (P.W.1) has rightly been considered, examined and relied upon by the learned Election Tribunal who succeeded in proving that the degree of BA obtained by the appellant was and fake bogus by producing cogent, concrete and forthright documentary evidence which was got exhibited before learned Election Tribunal, the details whereof are as under:--
(1) Extract of the Enrolment Register (Exh.2).
(2) Entry, dated 31-5-1985 showing the name of Muhammad Rafiq Memon son of Muhammad Ramzan Memon, his Enrolment No,35085-A (Ex. 3).
(3) Examination Signature Sheet, dated 22-1-1985 of Shandadpur Centre duly signed by Muhammad Rafiq Memon (Exh.4).
(4) Appearance of Muhammad Rafiq Memon against seat No,4614 in the paper of Pakistan Studies (Exh.4-A).
(5) BA Part-I examination signature sheet, dated 23-1-1985 of Shandadpur Centre (Exh.5).
(6) Entry at Sr. No, 15 showing the signature of Muhammad Rafiq Memon against seat No, 4614 in the paper of Muslim History (Exh.5-A).
(7) Attested copy of BA Part-I examination signature sheet, dated 26-1-1985 of Shandadpur Centre (Exh.6).
(8) Entry at Sr. No,30 showing the signature of Muhammad Rafiq Memon who appeared in the paper of Political Science against seat No,4614 (Exh.6-A).
(9) Attested copy of BA Part-I examination/signature sheet, dated 28-1-1985 of Shandadpur Centre (Exh.7).
(10) Entry at Sr. No,15 showing the signature of Muhammad Rafiq Memon against seat No, 4614 who appeared in the paper of Islamic Culture (Exh.7A).
(11) Attested copy of BA Part-II examination/signature sheet, dated 6-2-1986 of Shandadpur Centre (Exh.8).
(12) Entry at Sr. No,4 showing the signature of Muhammad Rafiq Memon against seat No,3420 who appeared in the paper of English (Exh.8A).
(13) Attested copy of BA Part-II examination/signature sheet, dated 9-2-1986 pertainnig to Shandadpur Centre (Exh.9).
(14) Entry at Sr. No, 15 showing the signature of Muhammad Rafiq Memon against seat No,3420 who appeared in the paper of Sindhi language (Exh.9A).
(15) Attested copy of BA Part-II examination/signature sheet, dated 10-2-1986 pertaining to Shandadpur Centre (Exh.10).
(16) Entry at Sr. No,26/signature of Muhammad Rafiq Memon against seat No,3420 who appeared in the paper of Muslim History (Exh.10-A).
(17) Attested copy of BA Part-II examination/signature sheet, dated 13-2-1986 of Shandadpur Centre (Exh.11).
(18) Entry at Sr. No,26 showing signature of Muhammad Rafiq Memon against seat No,3420 who appeared in the paper of Political Science (Exh.11A).
(19) Attested copy of B.A., Part-II examination/signature sheet, dated 17-2-1986 pertaining to Shandadpur Centre (Exh.12).
(20) Entry at Sr. No, 22 showing the signature of Muhammad Rafiq Memon against seat No,3420 who appeared in the paper of Islamic Culture (Exh.12-A).
(21) Attested copy of page 233 of ledger book (Checkers' copy-secret section) containing forged/fictitious typed page (Exh.13).
(22) The fictitious entry showing the name of Muhammad Khan Junejo against seat No,4614 (Exh.13-A).
(23) Attested copy of actual page No,233 (Checkers' copy-sheet section) (Exh .14).
(24) The actual entry showing the name of Muhammad Rafiq Memon against seat No, 4614 (Exh.14- A).
(25) Attested copy of pages 232 and 234 of the ledger book (Checkers copy-secret section)
(Exh.14/1) and 14/2).
(26) Attested copy of entire ledger forged page 233 of Duplicate "Top Secret Ledger" of BA Part-I for the year 1984-85 double pasted/super imposed on the original paper (Exh.15).
(27) The forged entry showing the name of Muhammad Khan Junejo (Exh.15-A).
(28) Attested copy of page 233 of the Ledger "Top Secret Duplicate" after removing the double pasting (Exh.15-B).
(29) The porting of actual entry at page 233 showing the name of Muhammad Rafiq Memon against seat No, 4614(Exh.15-C).
(30) Attested copy of pages 232 and 234 of "Duplicate "Top Secret Ledger" (Exh.15/1 and 15/2).
(31) Attested copy of page 161 of the Checker's copy of BA 'PartII/Secret Ledger (Exh.16).
(32) The entry showing the name of Muhammad Rafiq Memon against seat No, 3420 with his previous seat. No, 4614 (Ex.16-A).
(33) The attested copy of page 161 of Top Secret Ledger (Duplicate) of BA Part-II having fictitious types double pasted page on actual page (Exh.17).
(34) The fictitious and forged entry in the name of Muhammad Khan Junejo substituting the name of Muhammad Rafiq Memon against seat No,3420 (Exh.17-A).
(35) The attested copy of fictitious typed page double pasted on the original types page of Duplicate Top Secret Ledge (Exh.18).
(36) The attested copies of pages Nos.160 and 162 of Top Secret (Duplicate) Ledger (Exh.18-A - 18- B).
(37) The report of High Powered Committee (Exh.26).
11. We have, carefully examined the documentary evidence mentioned herein - above, authenticity and genuineness whereof neither could be rebutted nor challenged. The only irresistible conclusion would be that the degree furnished by the appellant alongwith his nomination paper was fake and bogus.
12. There is another strong circumstance, observed in the same wake of events, which the appellant cannot wriggle out from that he approached the Hon'ble Governor of Sindh/Chancellor of Sindh University for making a thorough probe and an in-depth inquiry to ascertain the authenticity and genuineness of the notification, dated 18-10-2002 duly issued by the Sindh University declaring that the pass/marks and degree certificate of B.A. (Pass). Part-II annual examination of 1984 against seat No,4614 and BA (Pass) Part-H annual examination of 1985 against seat No,3420 in the name of Muhammad Khan Junejo (appellant) was false and bogus. The Governor in his capacity as Chancellor of Sindh University directed the Vice Chancellor to constitute a High Power Committee to make a thorough probe in this regard and more so, the notification, dated 18-10-2002 was also suspended. Pursuant to the directive of Governor a High Powered Committee was constituted by the Vice-Chancellor with the following composition:-- "1 Mr. Ahmed Ali Shaikh, Dean. Faculty of Law & Member of the SyndicateConvenor
2. Prof. Dr. Muhammad Usman Memon, Director, Institute of Pharmacy, University of SindhMember
3. Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Rajput, Chairman, Department of Statistics University of Sindh.Member
4. Prof. Dr. Anwar Ali Shah G. Syed Director, Institute of Business Administration, University of SindhMember
5. Mr. Agha Riaz Hussain, Chairman, Department of Commerce, University of Sindh.Member
6. The Deputy Controller of Secretary" Examination (Annual), University of Sindh.Member
13. After having gone through the entire record and affording proper opportunity of hearing to appellant as well as respondent the High Powered Committee arrived at the following conclusion:- "In view of the observation stated above and the relevant record so far available as annexed herewith along with this report the Committee is of the considered view that the Degree/Certificate issued to Mr. Muhammad Khan Junejo is not genuine at all and is false and fake. Accordingly, Notification, dated 18-10-2002 issued by the University of Sindh, declaring the Degree certificate as false and bogus is correct. (Emphasis provided). The Committee in order to ensure transparency in the institution suggests that the officials concerned in the Secret Branch of the University of Sindh be taken to task and recommends for imposition of major penalty under relevant rules."
14. A bare perusal of the conclusion of the High Powered Committee lends full corroboration to the statement of Dr. Abdul Razzaq Abro, the Controller of Examination. It is worth-mentioning that Committee has observed unanimously and unequivocally that the Degree/certificate issued to Muhammad Khan Junejo (appellant) is not genuine at all and is false an fake and accordingly notification, dated 18-10-2002 issued by the University of Sindh declaring the Degree/certificate a false and bogus was determined as correct. The report of the Committee (Exh.26) was produced before the learned Election Tribunal by Dr. Abdul Razzaq Abro (Controller of Examination) which was never cross-examined and the genuineness and authenticity of the report went unchallenged which amounts to admission. The learned Election Tribunal after having gone through the entire record with diligent application of mind has rightly held as under:- "43. In the written statement the respondent No,1 has merely denied the allegation of forgery of his academic documents but has neither filed any other academic document showing his educational qualification as B.A. Except copies of B.A. Degree. B.A. (Pass) Part-II Certificate/Marks Sheet and copy of seat list of Shandadpur Centre nor has he given any particulars of his educational qualification as to when he passed his Matric examination, Intermediate examination and or when was he enrolled in the Sindh University. Even not only in this Election Petition but also in Constitution Petition No, D-1923 of 2002 which was filed by him before the Sindh High Court, such particulars are missing. The respondent No,1 has appeared on 24-12-2002 before the High Powered Committee who was conducting inquiry at his request and he did not submit any document and or any particular before the Committee.
44. In the face of the documentary evidence which is the authentic record of the Sindh University from whose custody it was produced, it is established beyond doubt that the respondent No,1 was issued the BA (Pass) Part-II Certificate, Degree and Marks Sheet, copies of which he has annexed with his written statement, were fake documents and were procured by tampering with the Checker's copy of Secret section and Top Secret Ledgers Exhibit 13, Exhibit 15 and Exhibit 17. Even the record shows that the respondent No,1 was not enrolled with the Sindh University. I, therefore, hold that the respondent No,1 was not qualified to contest the elections for the National Assembly on the date of filing of his nomination papers for want of his academic qualification as the Degree, Certificate, BA (Pass) Part-II Certificate and the Marks Certificate produced by him before the Returning Officer were fake and bogus."
15. The record is indicative of the fact that the appellant did his best to get the proceedings prolonged for an indefinite period enabling him to complete his tenure under the garb of different proceedings initiated before different forums by exploiting different legal provisions which cannot be appreciated. The appellant at first instance filed writ petition and subsequently made different applications to get it adjourned on the plea that matter was pending before Election Tribunal which too was not allowed to proceed expeditiously and transfer application of election petition was moved and subsequently the appellant refused to appear before the learned Election Tribunal.
Besides that the appellant met the Governor and a High Powered Committee was constituted at the request of appellant to determine the authenticity and genuineness of the degree in question but amazingly the appellant attempted to get the proceedings of High Powered Committee stopped on flimsy grounds.
16. The question as to whether the degree in question was fake and bogus is a question of fact which has rightly been determined by the learned Election Tribunal and no illegality whatsoever has been committed warranting interference by this Court. As mentioned above the matter which relates to question of fact stands concluded by a well-reasoned findings of the learned Election Tribunal and no reason could be shown to exist which could persuade us to reopen the said issue by remanding the case as pressed time and again by Mr. S.M. Zafar learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the appellant. The appellant failed to produce original degree before the Election Tribunal and the presumption would be that no genuine degree was ever obtained. It is worth-mentioning that the appellant allegedly qualified the examination of BA in the year 1986 and first time he applied for the copy of degree in the year 2002 which is a classic example of maneuvering the affairs in his favour. Even no date whatsoever has been mentioned on the list of witnesses required to be produced in defence which shows that the appellant was never serious to contest the Election Petition.
17. In the light of what has been discussed hereinabove we are of the considered opinion that the conclusion as arrived at by the learned Election Tribunal being well-based does not warrant interference as no illegality or irregularity has been committed. The appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.