2026 PLP 581 (YLR)

Muhammad Aamir Nawaz Rana, Election TRibunal-III.

Preface

1. The petitioner, Mir Muhammad Usman Pirkani, contested the General Election, 2024, from Constituency PB-45, Quetta-VIII, held on 08.02.2024. However, respondent No.1, Ali Madad, won the election for the said constituency and, vide Notification No.F.2(12)/2024-Cord dated 18.02.2024, issued by the Election Commission of Pakistan, was declared as the returned candidate. The petitioner, while assailing the election result of the said Constituency as reflected in the aforesaid notification, filed Election Petition No.15 of 2024 before Election Tribunal-I, Balochistan. The said election petition was allowed by Election Tribunal-I vide judgment dated 16.09.2024, and a re-poll in the fifteen (15) disputed polling stations was ordered, which judgment was maintained by the Hounourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1349 of 2024.

2. The record reveals that, subsequent to the re-poll conducted in the fifteen (15) disputed polling stations, and as per the Final Consolidated Result (Form-49), the respondent No.1/returned candidate, again won the election. The petitioner, through the present election petition, has once again challenged the election result of the re-poll held in the said fifteen (15) polling stations of Constituency PB-45, Quetta-VIII, conducted in pursuance of the judgment dated 16.09.2024 of Election Tribunal-I, and has impugned the Notification dated 08.01.2025 issued by the Election Commission of Pakistan, whereby the respondent No.1 was again declared as the returned candidate. GIST OF PETITIONER S ALLEGATIONS:

3. The record transpires that the re-poll in the fifteen (15) disputed polling stations was held on 05.01.2025. The petitioner has alleged that the directions issued by Election Tribunal-I in its judgment dated 16.09.2024 were not complied with, and that a partial Returning Officer and District Returning Officer were appointed for the re-poll. According to the petitioner, he had filed Constitution Petition No.1959/2024 before the High Court of Balochistan, which was allowed vide judgment dated 27.12.2024, wherein a direction was issued for the appointment of well-reputed Returning and Deputy Returning Officer. The petitioner has contended that, in the re-poll of the fifteen (15) disputed polling stations, he secured 2,684 votes, whereas the respondent No.1/returned candidate, obtained 258 votes. The petitioner has further asserted that, consequently, the total number of votes obtained by him in all forty-nine (49) polling stations are 5,525, while the total votes secured by respondent No.1/returned candidate in the said polling stations are

801. The petitioner has alleged that, with mala fide intention and in a clandestine manner, Forms 47 and 48 were prepared in his absence.

4. The petitioner has also levelled allegations against the Deputy Commissioner, Quetta, and has averred that the Deputy Commissioner was involved in altering the result in Form-47, contrary to the result reflected in Forms-45. The petitioner has further alleged that, after the re-poll, mobile services in Quetta were suspended for two days due to public protests against alleged rigging and tampering in the election result. The petitioner has also alleged tampering and manipulation in the Pictorial Voter Lists by removing photographs of original and registered voters and inserting images of fictitious persons who were not registered in the said polling stations. The petitioner has further claimed that the same Returning Officer and Deputy Returning Officer who were appointed during the General Election of Constituency PB-45, Quetta-VIII, held on 08.02.2024, were again appointed for the fifteen (15) disputed polling stations, in violation of the directions issued by Election Tribunal-I in its judgment dated 16.09.2024. According to the petitioner, prior to filing the present election petition, he had approached the Election Commission of Pakistan by filing a petition for redressal of his grievances, but the said petition was not decided.

5. Notices were issued to the respondents. Respondent No. 1 (the returned candidate), respondents Nos.17, 22, and 23, as well as respondent No.31, contested the petition by filing separate replies. Respondent No.36, i.e., the Returning Officer for the By-Elections 2025 of Constituency PB-45, Quetta-VIII, also contested the petition by filing a reply. From the divergent pleadings of the parties, and in view of the controversy involved, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether the petitioner has complied with the mandatory provisions of section 142, 143 or 144 of the Elections Act, 2017?

2. Whether the respondent No.1/returned candidate is guilty of illegal and corrupt practices as mentioned in the memo of petition?

3. Whether the result of election has been materially affected due to failure to comply with the provisions of the Elections Act, 2017 and rules framed thereunder?

4. Whether the petitioner had obtained 2684 votes in the repoll at fifteen (15) Polling Stations of PB-45, Quetta-VIII, and the respondent No.1/returned candidate had obtained 258 votes?

5. Whether there was prevalence of extensive corrupt and illegal practices at the elections?

6. Whether the allegations levelled by the petitioner in the Election Petition were communicated to the Returning Officer?

7. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief claimed for?

6. Thereafter, the parties were directed to produce evidence in support of their respective contentions. The petitioner produced the following witnesses: (i). PW-1, Niaz Muhammad son of Ghulam Muhammad, Election Agent. (ii). PW-2, Ali Muhammad son of Muhammad Khan, Election Agent. (iii). PW-3, Abdul Nabi son of Muhammad Yakoob, Polling Agent in Polling Station Government Girls High School Pirkani Abad, Portion-II. (iv). PW-4, Rashid Anwar son of Haji Muhammad Anwar, Polling Agent in Polling Station Government Boys High School Killi Shahnawaz, Portion-II. (v). PW-5, Faizullah son of Saifullah, Polling Agent in Polling Station DG Research Wali Jet Sariab Road Quetta, Portion-I. (vi). PW-6, Abdul Raheem son of Ghulam Qadir, Polling Agent in Polling Station Cambridge Islamic High School, Portion-I. (vii). PW-7, Nasar Ullah son of Dost Muhammad, Polling Agent in Polling Station Government Boys High School Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti, Portion (Male). (viii). PW-8, Naqeebullah son of Sher Khan, Polling Agent in Polling Station Cambridge Islamic High School, Portion-II. (ix). PW-9, Muhammad Ayub son of Bahadur Khan, Polling Agent in Polling Station DG Research Wali Jet, Portion-III. (x). PW-10, Atta-ur-Rehman son of Abdul Samad, Polling Agent in Polling Station Tameer-e-Nau College, Takhtani Bypass, Portion-II. (xi). PW-11, Zaib-un-Nisa wife of Muhammad Ishaque, Polling Agent in Polling Station Government Girls Degree Collage Sariab Mill, Portion-II. (xii). PW-12, Zarghoona daughter of Janat Gul, Polling Agent in Government Girls High School, Labour Colony, Eastern Bypass, Portion-III. (xiii). PW-13, Bibi Shabina daughter of Fida Muhammad, Polling Agent in Polling Station Iqra Bait-ul-Quran Islamic Model School, Portion-I. (xiv). PW-14, Bibi Kalsoom daughter of Dost Muhammad, Polling Agent in Polling Station Government Primary School Sadiq Abab, Eastern Bypass, Portion-I. (xv). PW-15, Bibi Zeenat daughter of Rehmatullah, Polling Agent in Polling Station Government Girls Degree College Sariab Mill, Portion-I. (xvi). PW-16, Abdul Jabbar son of Hayat Khan, Polling Agent in Polling Station Allama Iqbal Open University, Eastern Bypass, Quetta. (xvii). PW-17, Khuwaja Noor son of Muhammad Noor, Polling Agent in Polling Station Government Boys High School, Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti, Portion-I (Male).

7. On 13.06.2025, upon the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the representative of the Election Commission of Pakistan was directed to produce the following verified record, as mentioned at serial Nos. 1(i) to 1(vi) and 2(a) to 2(j) of the List of Witnesses, pertaining to the under-challenge fifteen (15) polling stations of PB-45, Quetta-VIII: 1. (i) Form-45 of fifteen (15) Polling Stations on which re-poll is made. (ii) Form-46 of fifteen (15) Polling Stations PB- 45 on which re-poll is made. (iii) Form-47. (iv) Form-48 (Consolidated Statement of Results of the Count furnished by the Returning Officer) of PB-45. (v) Form-49. (vi) Impugned Notification dated 08.01.2025 issued by the Election Commission of Pakistan. 2. (a) Block Code/Book No.451200577 (Serial No.1001 to 2238), (b) Block Code/Book No.451200522, (c) Block Code/Book No.451200518, (d) Block Code/Book No.451200513, (e) Block Code/Book No.451200593, (f) Block Code/Book No.451200576, (g) Block Code/Book No.451200586, (h) Block Code/Book No.451200575, (i) Block Code/Book No.451200521, (j) Block Code/Book No.451200506,

8. Thereafter, Syed Nazir Ahmed, District Election Commissioner Quetta, appeared as PW-18 and exhibited the aforementioned record. He was cross-examined by learned counsel for the petitioner, by learned counsel for respondent No.1/returned candidate and by learned counsel for respondents Nos.17, 22, and 23, Thereafter, the petitioner filed C.M.A. No.956/2025, seeking permission from this Tribunal to further cross-examine PW-18 on the ground that, during the earlier cross-examination, he was unaware that the representative of the Election Commission of Pakistan, who had produced the record, was also the Returning Officer of Constituency PB-45, Quetta-VIII. Permission was accordingly granted, and PW-18 was further cross-examined by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as by the learned counsel for respondent No.1/returned candidate. Arguments heard. Record perused.

9. The petitioner has alleged that on repoll in fifteen (15) disputed polling stations, he obtained 2,684 votes, whereas the respondent No.1/returned candidate secured only 258 votes. Per petitioner, the said result was thereafter unlawfully manipulated with mala fide intent by respondent No.1/returned candidate, in active collusion with the Returning Officer. The petitioner has further asserted that mobile services in the area were deliberately suspended and various illegal acts were committed to extend undue advantage to respondent No.1/returned candidate. According to the petitioner, Forms-45 received by his polling agents reflect the genuine result; however, with ulterior motives, the Presiding Officers and Senior Assistant Presiding Officers inserted incorrect CNIC numbers in respect of thirteen (13) polling stations. The petitioner has additionally alleged that the Pictorial Voter Lists pertaining to the fifteen (15) disputed polling stations were tampered with, inasmuch as the photographs of genuine voters were removed and, in their place, fictitious names and fabricated CNIC numbers were unlawfully inserted.

10. The allegations levelled by the petitioner have been examined in detail in the light of the evidence produced on record. It is an admitted position that, prior to the repoll at the fifteen (15) disputed polling stations, the petitioner had filed Constitution Petition No.1959/2024 before the High Court of Balochistan, pursuant to which the Returning Officer was replaced and PW-18 (Syed Nazir Ahmed, District Election Commissioner, Quetta) was appointed as the Returning Officer. PW-18 appeared before this Tribunal and produced the relevant record pertaining to the petitioner s allegation that the polling staff deployed in the General Elections, 2024 held on 08.02.2024, had again been appointed at the said fifteen (15) disputed polling stations. During cross-examination, the Returning Officer (PW-18) stated as follows:

11. The Returning Officer (PW-18), during his cross-examination by learned counsel for Respondent No.1/returned candidate, gave the following replies:

12. As mentioned earlier, the Returning Officer (PW-18) was resummoned for further cross-examination upon the petitioner s application, which had been allowed vide order dated 23.07.2025. Accordingly, on 02.08.2025, PW-18 was subjected to additional cross-examination by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as by learned counsel for respondent No.1/returned candidate. Nevertheless, nothing emerged from recross-examination which could lend support to the petitioner s allegations. Thereafter, the petitioner himself entered the witness box as PW-19 and produced the Pictorial Voter Lists, which were taken on record as Mark-PW/19-C-1 to Mark-PW/19-C-705. The petitioner did not mention that from whom and from where he received Pictorial Voter Lists as admittedly he had not followed the process of obtaining the Pictorial Voter Lists as mentioned by the PW-18.

13. The witnesses produced by the petitioner claimed themselves as the election agents and polling agents of the petitioner. The perusal of their affidavits reveals that only general allegations have been levelled. The petitioner s witnesses repeatedly asserted that the original names of voters were missing in the Voter Lists and that photographs of the voters had been changed; however, not a single witness identified any voter whose name, parentage, or photograph had allegedly been replaced, tampered with, or substituted. The Forms-45 produced by the petitioner also fail to substantiate the petitioner s case, as not a single Presiding Officer or Senior Assistant Presiding Officer was included by the petitioner in the filed List of Witnesses to be summoned. Instead, the petitioner made all the Presiding Officers and Senior Assistant Presiding Officers parties to the memo of petition, which was impermissible under the law, as section 143 of the Elections Act, 2017 stipulates that: (1) the petitioner shall join as respondents to his election petition all other contesting candidates; and (2) the Election Tribunal may direct the petitioner to join any other person as respondent against whom any specific allegation of contravention of this Act has been made. It is quite strange that the petitioner, on the one hand, alleges that the Presiding Officers and Senior Assistant Presiding Officers provided his polling agents the actual results through Forms-45, while at the same time asserting that the actual Forms-45 do not contain the correct CNIC numbers of those Presiding Officers or Senior Assistant Presiding Officers. This inconsistency suggests that a fabricated narrative has been constructed to support the petitioner s bald allegations. If the Presiding Officers or Senior Assistant Presiding Officers were indeed so interested, biased, and even willing to commit forgery, as alleged by the petitioner, then it is illogical that they would provide the petitioner s polling agents the actual results of those polling stations.

14. It was incumbent upon the petitioner, within the scope of section 144(1)(b) of the Elections Act, 2017, to provide full particulars of any corrupt or illegal practice or other illegal act alleged to have been committed, including names of the parties who are alleged to have committed such corrupt or illegal practice or illegal act and the date and place of the commission of such practice or act. However, instead of meeting this legal requirement by identifying the voters whose details were allegedly altered in the Pictorial Voter Lists, the petitioner threw an excessively wide net and resorted to unfounded accusations against the polling staff. Even the witnesses produced by the petitioner failed to name a single member of the polling staff or any other individual who, according to them, was committing rigging during the election process. The petitioner s stance is again marked by glaring self-contradiction: on the one hand, he alleges changes in the Pictorial Voter Lists and large-scale bogus voting, yet in the same breath he claims that he secured 2,684 votes while respondent No.1/returned candidate, obtained only 258 votes. If, as alleged by the petitioner, massive rigging had indeed taken place, it is inexplicable how the Forms-45 received by the petitioner reflect that he secured 2,684 votes and the respondent No.1/returned candidate secured 258 votes.

15. The Hon ble Supreme Court, while interpreting section 144 of the Elections Act, 2017, in the case titled as Usman Dar v. Khawaja Muhammad Asif[1], held as follows: Reference may be made to Muhammad Saeed v. Election Petitions Tribunal, West Pakistan, etc. (PLD 1957 SC (Pak.) 91) wherein it was held that, "The law relating to the trial of elections petition, though volumes have been written on it, in so far as it is relevant to the present case, is so simple that it can be summed up in one sentence, namely, where an election is sought to be set aside on the ground of commission of corrupt practices, the party challenging its validity must specify in the petition the corrupt practices committed, giving in the list attached to the petition or in his statement before the settlement of issues full particulars of those corrupt practices; that no fresh charge or instance of a corrupt practice can be added at the trial, that the burden of proof of corrupt practices is on the petitioner; that the evidence in proof of such practices must be restricted to the charges or instances mentioned in the petition and the particulars; that each ingredient of a corrupt practice so charged must be affirmatively proved by evidence, direct or circumstantial; and that where the evidence is wholly circumstantial, the commissioners before finding a corrupt practice proved must exclude all reasonable hypotheses which are consistent with that corrupt practice having not been committed". Reference may also be made to the case of Hafeezuddin v. Abdul Razzaq (PLD 2016 Supreme Court 79) in which this Court held that, 'Before we embark upon an analysis of the evidence and a determination about the correctness or otherwise of the findings of the learned Tribunal, it is pertinent to mention that the rules of proof for the grounds challenging the election which are founded on corrupt and illegal practices are quite strict and stringent and the allegations in this regard must be absolutely proved through positive evidence without accepting any inferences and if there is any doubt, the benefit must go to the person against whom corrupt or illegal practices are being alleged, as held by this Court in the cases reported as Muhammad Saeed and 4 others v. (1) Election Petitions Tribunal, West Pakistan, (2) Mehr Muhammad Arif Khan, (3) Ghulam Haider and (4) West Pakistan Government and others (PLD 1957 SC (Pak.) 91); Mian Jamal Shah v. (1) The Member Election Commission, Government of Pakistan, Lahore, (2) The Returning Officer, Constituency of the National Assembly of Pakistan No.NW-II, Peshawar II, and (3) Khan Nasrullah Khan (PLD 1966 SC 1); Khan Muhammad Yusuf Khan Khattak v. S. M. Ayub and 2 others (PLD 1973 SC 160)".

16. The corrupt practice, personation, undue influence, capturing a polling station or polling booth, tempering with papers and illegal practice have been defined under sections 167, 169, 170, 171, 172 and 175 of the Elections Act, 2017. For the facility of reference, the ibid sections are reproduced:

167. Corrupt practice. A person is guilty of the offence of corrupt practice if he (a) is guilty of bribery, personation, exercising undue influence, capturing of polling station or polling booth, tampering with papers, and making or publishing a false statement or declaration; (b) calls upon or persuades any person to vote, or to refrain from voting, for any candidate on the ground that he belongs to a particular religion, province, community, race, caste, bradari, sector tribe [or is of a particular gender or is a transgender person]; (c) causes or attempts to cause any person present and waiting to vote at the polling station to depart without voting; or (d) contravenes the provisions of section 132. 168. - - - - - - - -

169. Personation. A person is guilty of personation, if he votes or applies for a ballot paper for voting, as some other person whether that other person is living or dead or fictitious.

170. Undue influence. A person is guilty of exercising undue influence if he (a) in order to induce or compel any person to vote or refrain from voting, or to offer himself as a candidate, or to withdraw his candidature or retire from the contest, at an election, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf (i) makes or threatens to make use of any force, violence or restraint; (ii) inflicts or threatens to inflict any injury, damage, harm or loss; (iii) calls down or threatens to call down divine displeasure or the displeasure or disapprobation of any saint or pir; (iv) gives or threatens to give any religious sentence; (v) uses or threatens to use any official influence or governmental patronage; (vi) maligns the Armed Forces of Pakistan; or [(vii) prevents any woman or a transgender person from contesting an election or exercising the right to vote.] (b) on account of any person having voted or refrained from voting, or having offered himself as a candidate, or having withdrawn his candidature or having retired, does any of the acts specified in clause (a). (c) directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf (i) uses any place of religious worship, or any place reserved for the performance of religious rites, for the purpose of canvassing for the votes or not to vote at an election or for a particular candidate; or (ii) for any of the purposes specified in sub-clause (i) by words, spoken or written, or by signs or visible representation, publishes anything or does any act prejudicial to the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan or any part of Pakistan; or (d) by abduction, duress or any fraudulent device or contrivance (i) impedes or prevents the free exercise of the franchise by a voter; or (ii) compels, induces or prevails upon any voter to vote or refrain from voting. Explanation. In this section, harm includes social ostracism or excommunication or expulsion from any caste or community.

171. Capturing a polling station or polling booth. A person is guilty of capturing a polling station or polling booth if he (a) seizes a polling station or a polling booth or a place fixed for the poll or makes [election officials] surrender the ballot papers or ballot box or both [or] does any other act which affects the orderly conduct of elections; (b) takes possession of a polling station or a polling booth or a place fixed for the poll and allows his supporters to exercise their right to vote while preventing others from free exercise of their right to vote; (c) coerces, intimidates or threatens, directly or indirectly, any voter and prevents him from going to the polling station or a place fixed for the poll to cast his vote; or (d) being in the service of any Government or corporation or institution controlled by the Government, commits all or any of the aforesaid activities or aids or connives in, any such activity in furtherance of the prospects of the election of a candidate.

172. Tampering with papers. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person is guilty of tampering with papers, if he (a) intentionally defaces or destroys any nomination paper, ballot paper or official mark on a ballot paper; or (b) intentionally takes out of the polling station any ballot paper or puts into any ballot box any ballot paper other than the ballot paper he is authorized by law to put in; or (c) without due authority (i) supplies any ballot paper to any person; (ii) destroys, takes, opens or otherwise interferes with any ballot box or packet of ballot papers in use for the purpose of election; or (iii) breaks any seal affixed in accordance with the provisions of this Act; or (d) forges any ballot paper or official mark; or (e) causes any delay or interruption in the beginning, conduct or completion of the procedure required to be immediately carried out on the close of the poll. (2) An election official on duty in connection with the election who is guilty of the offence under subsection (1) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one hundred thousand rupees or with both [in addition to such penalty as may be imposed as a result of disciplinary action initiated by the Commission under section 55.] 173. - - - - - - - - 174. - - - - - - - -

175. Illegal practice. A person is guilty of the offence of illegal practice if he (a) is guilty of disorderly conduct near a polling station, canvassing in or near a polling station, interferes with the secrecy of voting, or adversely affects the interests of a candidate; (b) obtains or procures, or attempts to obtain or procure, the assistance of any person in the service of Pakistan to further or hinder the election of a candidate; (c) votes or applies for a ballot paper for voting at an election knowing that he is not qualified for, or is disqualified from, voting; (d) votes or applies for a ballot paper for voting more than once in the same polling station; (e) votes or applies for a ballot paper for voting in more than one polling station for the same election; (f) removes a ballot paper from a polling station during the poll; (g) violates restrictions on publicity laid down in section 180 or restrictions on announcement of development schemes under section 181; (h) violates prohibition on public meetings during a certain period as provided in section 182; (i) fails to comply with section 134 relating to election expenses; (j) carries or displays any kind of weapon or fire arm in a public meeting or procession during campaign period, on the poll day and till twenty four hours after the announcement of the official results by the Returning Officer; (k) resorts to aerial firing or uses firecrackers and other explosives at public meetings or in or near a polling station; or (l) resorts to violence in any form or manner against an election official or any other person officially deputed to work at a polling station. Explanation. The word weapon used in clause (j) includes a danda, lathi, knife, axe or any other thing which can be used as a weapon to inflict injury to a person.

17. In view of the specific definitions provided for corrupt and illegal practices under the above-mentioned provisions, the petitioner was required to fulfil the mandatory requirements provided under Section 156 of the Elections Act, 2017 to get the election of the returned candidate declared void. Section 156(3)(a) of the Elections Act, 2017 postulates as under:

156. Ground for declaring election of returned candidate void. (1) - - - - - - - - - (a) - - - - - - - - - (b) - - - - - - - - - (c) - - - - - - - - - (d) - - - - - - - - - (2) - - - - - - - - - (3) The election of a returned candidate shall not be declared void on the ground (a) that any corrupt or illegal practice has been committed, if the Election Tribunal is satisfied that it was not committed by or with the consent or connivance of that candidate or his election agent and that the candidate and the election agent took all reasonable precaution to prevent its commission; or (b) - - - - - - - - - (Emphasis supplied)

18. The petitioner did not produce any trustworthy evidence to prove the connivance of the returned candidate in the commission of the alleged illegal and corrupt practices, as not a single person from any of the fifteen (15) polling stations, allegedly associated with the returned candidate, was identified by the petitioner s witnesses as having committed rigging. In the same manner as discussed in detail above, not a single voter whose bogus vote is alleged to have been cast in favour of respondent No.1/returned candidate has been identified by the petitioner s witnesses. The main thrust of the petitioner s case has been that he possesses certain Forms-45 of fifteen (15) polling stations which reflect that he received 2,684 votes, whereas respondent No.1/returned candidate received 258 votes. The petitioner is also claiming that, while issuing Forms-45 to his polling agents, the Presiding Officers and Senior Assistant Presiding Officers deliberately and intentionally mentioned incorrect CNIC numbers on the Forms-45, which Forms-45 bear the original signatures and thumb impressions of the Presiding Officers and Senior Assistant Presiding Officers. The petitioner, neither in his petition nor at any stage during the trial, made any effort to get forensic analysis of the thumb impressions of the Presiding Officers and Senior Assistant Presiding Officers. In case the petitioner intended to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Forms-45 he is relying upon bear the original thumb impressions of the Presiding Officers and Senior Assistant Presiding Officers, he could have filed a specific application in this regard or asserted this fact in his petition, but for the reasons best known to him, he did not do so. In view of the above discussion and after a thorough examination of the evidence adduced by the petitioner, it is concluded that no ground exists for declaring the election of respondent No. 1/returned candidate void or for setting aside the election result as a whole. Accordingly, the petition, being without merit, is dismissed. MH/143/Bal. Petition dismissed. [1] 2017 SCMR 292 SC