Civil Appeal No.188 of 2019 . 18 rights, title and interest in the property and enjoyed full freedom to exercise proprietary rights thereon without any let or hindrance. 21. In the afore-noted context, reference may usefully be made to Hassan Nawaz v. Muhammad Ayub (PLD 2017 SC 70), where it was held as follows: “7. An honest and truthful declaration of assets and liabilities by a returned candidate in his nomination papers furnishes a benchmark for reviewing his integrity and probity in the discharge of his duties and functions as an elected legislator. His statement of assets and liabilities along with other financial disclosures contemplated by Section 12(2) of the ROPA provide the Election Commission of Pakistan and the general public with a picture of both his wealth and income. Such disclosures are crucial for demonstrating the legitimacy and bona fides of the accrual and the accumulation of economic resources by such a candidate. In other words, the said disclosures show the returns received from his economic- activities and can indicate if these activities may be tainted with illegality, corruption or misuse of office and authority. This important aspect of the financial disclosures by a contesting candidate has been noticed by this Court in Muhammad Yousaf Kaselia v. Peer Ghulam (PLD 2016 SC 689). 8. We, therefore, observe that any plausible explanation that exonerates, inter alia, mis-declaration of assets and liabilities by a contesting candidate should be confined to unintended and minor errors that do not confer any tangible benefit or advantage upon an elected or contesting candidate. This view finds support from the statutory aim and purpose of requiring all contesting candidates to file their statements and declarations as envisaged in Section 12(2) of the ROPA. Clearly there is a public interest object behind the statutory prescription for obtaining the said statements and declaration. It is to ensure integrity and probity of contesting candidates and therefore all legislators. The above purpose and object comes across clearly in Muhammad Yousaf Kaselia v. Peer Ghulam (PLD 2016 SC 689): “…………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………….. nondisclosure of any liability is to be met with penal action in the same manner as non-disclosure of any asset. It is for that reason that in a number of recent judgments, this Court has treated inaccurate disclosure of proprietary and financial resources to be fatal to the election of a returned candidate. In Muhammad Ahmad Chatta. v. Iftikhar Ahmad Cheema (2016 SCMR 763), the failure by a returned candidate to disclose a presumed inactive bank account and in Shamuna Badshah Qaisarani v.