Back
1999(9) Supreme 282
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI., S. Rajendra Babu and R.C. Lahoti, JJ.
Mahant Ram Prakash Dass -Appellant
versus
Ramesh Chandra & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3131 of 1998
Decided on 27-10-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Ms. Rani Jethmalani, Sanjay M. Tripathi, Ms. Gauri Karuna Das, Ms. Leena Prasad, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate, Neeraj Kr. Jain, Manish Mohan, Ugra Shankar Prasad, Advocates.
A candidate or his agent has opportunity to ask for recount at two stages : the first, before election result is finally declared, and the second, by way of election petition before the High Court. An application under Rule 63(2) of the Conduct of Elections Rules is to be given immediately after the votes secured by each of the candidates is announced under Rule 63(1), but such an application cannot be given after the candidate is declared elected under Rule 64. If an application is made under Rule 63(2) the Returning Officer shall decide the matter either by allowing the application in whole or in part or may reject in its entirety, if it appears to him to be frivolous or unreasonable. The decision shall be in writing containing reasons therefor. The application for recount should contain valid precise grounds on which the recount is asked for. When the Rules provide for enough opportunity to a candidate or his agent to watch the counting process before the result is declared and if an objection is raised as to the validity of any ballot paper and if such objection is rejected improperly, it would afford a basis for recount in an election petition. The secrecy of the vote has to be maintained and demand for recount should not ordinarily be granted unless the election petitioner makes out a prima facie case with regard to error in counting of such magnitude that the result of the election of the returned candidate may be affected. Smallness of victory margin by itself may not be a sufficient ground for recount. However, if prima facie case is made out as to error in counting, small margin by which the returned candidate succeeded in the election assumes significance, inviting recount. (Para 12)
In the instant case the appellant election petitioner secured 31,701 votes, while the respondent returned candidate secured 31754 votes. The appellant alleging material irregularities in counting votes, rejection of valid votes polled in his favour as invalid votes, counting of invalid votes as valid votes in favour of returned candidate and that the objection filed by the returned candidate/his election agent was rejected by returning officer without allowing to note down serial numbers of ballot papers filed petition seeking rechecking and recounting in terms of rule 93 of conduct of Election Rules.
Held: that neither he nor his counting agent had filed objections in writing with regard to the process of counting. Only oral objections had been raised which had been rejected by the Returning Officer. Shri Ujagar Singh, the election agent of Smt. Swaran Kaur, who was a BSP candidate to the election, has been examined as PW 5. His evidence is significant in so far as his cross-examination is concerned. He states that whatever irregularity had been noticed by them in the counting had been stated in the complaint Exhibit No. PW3/1 and apart from that complaint no other complaint had been made. He admits that at the end of each round the Returning Officer prepared a statement regarding votes secured by each candidate and the election agents or the counting agents representing different candidates signed the said statements in token of the correctness of the votes mentioned therein and even he had signed such statements. Similarly, Shri Hardial Singh, election agent of the appellant, had also signed such documents and they are Exhibits PW3/R-1 to Exhibit PW3/R-5. PW 5 Ujagar Singh is an important witness. He acted as an election agent of Swarn Kaur who was a B.S.P candidate who contested in the election. He stated that the respective counting agents had signed statements of votes counted in token of correctness thereof in the appropriate forms as Ex. PW-3/R-1 to Ex. PW-3/R-5 and the same bears his signature as well as that of Hardial Singh the election agent of the appellant. However, he maintained in the course of his evidence that there were irregularities in the counting. In the light of the certificate given by them in Ex. PW-3/R-1 to Ex. PW-3/R-5 it is clear that there could not have been any complaint in regard to the first five rounds of counting. The complaint, if any, stood contradicted by this noting made by them on the said exhibits. Therefore, on such material the High Court rightly rejected the case put forth on behalf of the appellant that there was any defect in the counting of the first five round. (Paras 6 & 14)
As regards allegation correction in Form No. 20, we have seen the original Form 20 and we do not find any corrections made therein. It is only in the copies, that were typed thereafter, that discrepancies have crept in, which have been sought to be corrected and copies thereof are furnished to the appellant. On the basis of such copies no case could have been made out by the appellant. Thus there is no plea at all so far as round 6 is concerned pointing out any discrepancy or irregularity in the matter of counting. Hence we find no case is made out by the appellant in the course of the petition. Now we shall advert to the contention put forth as to the manner in which the Returning Officer dealt with the complaint made and claim for recount. The only ground stated for counting of votes is that his staff had done many wrong things in spite of objections and that his staff had mixed votes cast in their favour with that of the Congress candidate. The allegation made in this complaint so far as the first five rounds are concerned cannot stand close scrutiny for the reasons already stated that the appellant s election agent himself had certified that the counting was proper in those rounds. If that is so, and when no irregularity is pointed out even at the stage of the filing of the election petition in the 6th round, we hardly find there is any substance in the complaint made and the Returning Officer has rightly rejected the same stating there is no substance in the application. Further pleadings regarding the counting are contained in para 15, 16, 18 to 23, 30 and 34 of the petition which are based on the information received from the election agent Hardial Singh, but significantly Hardial Singh has not been examined in the case at all. Thus we find the appellant s case to be hopelessly bad and no foundation had been laid for recount either at the stage of filing the application before the Returning Officer or at the stage of the filing of the election petition before the High Court much less before us. (Paras 16, 17 & 18)
(ii) Representation of People Act, 1951- Evidence -Video cassette of counting process-No evidence who recorded cassette-No witness to speak veracity of recording-No material as to whether editing was done-Cassette could not be relied upon. (Para 13)
JUDGMENT
Rajendra Babu, J. -Respondent No. 1 was declared elected from the 51, Dasuya Assembly Constituency to the Punjab Vidhan Sabha in the election held on February 7, 1997. The appellant secured 31,701 votes, while respondent No. 1 secured 31,754 votes. The appellant raised an election dispute by filing a petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for a declaration that the election of respondent No. 1 is void and that the appellant is duly elected as he has secured majority of the valid votes.
2. The appellant in his petition before the High Court set out that the counting of votes cast in the said election was conducted in a hall measuring 78 ft. by 23 ft. There were 14 counting tables in addition to a separate table for the Returning Officer. All the ballot papers were put in a huge box and were mixed and, thereafter, packets of 25 ballot papers in each packet were made. In each round 40 packets of 25 ballot papers each were entrusted to the staff at the counting tables. The staff consisted of five persons including a Supervisor. In the first five rounds 1,000 ballot papers were given on each table and in the sixth round 1,000 ballot papers each were entrusted to the personnel on 12 tables and only 132 ballot papers were entrusted to the staff on the 13th table. The total votes polled were about 82,176. 1,278 votes were rejected. Thereby 80,898 valid votes were counted.
3. It is alleged in the petition that the Returning Officer was obliged to respondent No. 1 who was a Minister of State in Punjab and the Returning Officer did not heed to the objections raised by the appellant and his counting agent orally as well as in writing to the effect that a lot of material irregularities took place in counting the ballot papers; that the appellant s election agent Shri Hardial Singh made an application to the Returning Officer for re-check and recounting of the votes; that the application was also signed by the election agent of the candidate from the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP); that the said application was presented at 6 p.m. but was not properly considered nor the grievance made therein was duly enquired into by the Returning Officer; that although the appellant was assured by the Returning Officer that he was seeking a direction from the Election Commission of India regarding recount, he announced that the application had been rejected; that about 250 votes had been wrongly rejected as invalid and the counting agents of the appellant had objected to the rejection of such votes, but the Returning Officer and the counting staff were adamant in not treating them as valid votes; that in the second, third and fourth rounds about 150 votes had been put in the bundles of respondent No. 1; that the counting staff at table Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 14 mixed these votes and the packets of valid votes containing votes in favour of the appellant were treated as if cast in favour of respondent No. 1 and counted in his favour; that, similarly, about 150 valid papers which were invalid were wrongly counted in favour of respondent No. 1; that, upto fourth round respondent No. 1 was leading but after the fifth and sixth rounds the position had changed and at about 5.30 p.m. lights went off for about two minutes and during that period the counting staff had managed to change the bundles to favour respondent No. 1. The appellant relied upon some corrections made in Form 20 to support his assertion that the votes polled in his favour were reduced and those in favour of respondent No. 1 were increased. In addition, it is alleged, there were irregularities in the counting of the postal ballot papers. The appellant contends that there was fencing wire between the counting agents and the supervisory staff and the Returning Officer rejected the votes without allowing the appellant and his election agent or counting agent to note down the serial number of the ballot papers. The appellant maintains that the staff, including the Returning Officer, was bent u
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
