Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11
PETITIONER:
MANPHUL SINGH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SURINDER SINGH
DATE OF JUDGMENT24/04/1973
BENCH:
ALAGIRISWAMI, A.
BENCH:
ALAGIRISWAMI, A.
PALEKAR, D.G.
CITATION:
1973 AIR 2158 1974 SCR (1) 52
1973 SCC (2) 599
CITATOR INFO :
RF 1975 SC 502 (4)
RF 1991 SC1557 (16)
ACT:
Representation of People Act, 1951, Sections 83(1)(a) and
(b) and 123-Election petition containing elaborate details
of allegations of corrupt practices-Petition need contain
only material facts and not evidence therefore-Earlier part
of Order VI, Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
similar to s. 83(1) (a) of the Act-Charges of corrupt
practices under s. 123 quasi-criminal nature and must be
proved satisfactorily-Allegation in election petition held
not liable to be struck down as not raising triable issue.
HEADNOTE:
The respondent filed an election petition challenging the
validity of the election to the Haryana Vidhan Sabha from
the Jhajjar Constituency held on 11-3-1973 in which the
appellant was declared elected. The election petition
contained elaborate details of allegations relating to votes
cast in the name of dead persons, votes cast in the name of
Government servants who did not cast their votes, votes
cast twice or more than twice either in the same
Constituency or more than one constituency, allegations of
corrupt practices and also of irregularities committed
during the course of the counting. Various issues were
framed in respect of these allegations and were made triable
by the learned single Judge of the High Court by his order
dated 17-8-1972. On appeal by special leave from the order
of the learned single Judge, dismissing the appeal,
HELD : (i) The election petition in the instant case gives
more particulars than would have been found by any body with
any amount of experience in respect of election petitions.
S. 83(1)(a) contemplates giving a concise statement of the
material facts on which the petitioner relies and s.
83(1)(b) requires full particulars of corrupt practice to be
furnished. To say as is done by appellant, that the
petition should contain not only the material facts but also
the evidence on which he relies to prove those material
facts is directly contrary to the provisions of Order VI,
Rule 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure, the earlier part of
which is similar to clause (1) (a) of s. 83. The Code of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11
Civil Procedure applies to all trials of election petitions
and to require that a party should not only state the
material facts on which he relies. which the respondent has
done more than amply in this case. but also that he should
state the evidence on which he relies is not a proposition
which can be accepted either as correct in law or as one
which justice requires. [55E, G]
(ii) The charges of corrupt practices under s. 123 of the
Act are quasi-criminal in nature, and should, therefore, be
proved satisfactorily as it has a double consequence, the
election of the returned candidate being set aside and the
candidate incurring a subsequent disqualification as well.
It could not be said in the instant case that the
allegations in the election petition are vague or general in
nature or lack material particulars and are as such liable
to be struck down as not raising a triable issue. The
procedure to be adopted for the trial would depend upon the
circumstances of each case and each fact sought to be
proved. it would not be feasible to lay down any hard and
fast rule on this subject.
[60H]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2727 of
1972.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
August 17, 1972 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in
Election Petition
45 of 1972.
R. K. Garg and S. C. Agarwala, for the appellant.
A. K. Sen, Bakhtawar Singh and M. M. Kshatriya, for the
respondent.
53
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ALAGIRISWAMI, J. This appeal arises out of the election to
the, Haryana Vidhan Sabha from the Jhajjar constituency held
on 11-3-1973 in which the appellant was declared elected on
receiving 24060 votes as against 23975 votes received by the
respondent. The respondent thereupon filed the petition
challenging the validity of the election.
The appeal itself is against the order dated 17th August
1972 passed by- the learned Single Judge of the High Court,
who heard the election petition in respect of issues 1, 2,
3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (a) and 7(b) Issue 2 itself was not challenged
before this, Court. Issues 1, 3, 4, and 5 form one group;
issue 6 relates to a corrupt practice; issues 7(a) and 7(b)
stand by themselves. Though they also do not refer to a
corrupt practice, we will discuss and deal with them
separately.
We shall first set forth the allegations in the election
petition which gave rise to these various issues. The
allegation in the election petition with regard to issue (1)
is found in para 9(ii) of the election petition, with regard
to issue (3) in para 9(iv), issue (4) in para 9(v) and issue
(5) in para 9(vi) :
"Para 9(ii) That the respondent got 28 votes
of the dead voters polled at Chhapa Booth No.
19, Machhrauli Booth No. 31, Silani Booths No.
38 and 39, Silani Pans Zalim Booth No. 40,
Silani Panna Keso Booth No. 41, Bhadani Booth
No. 56, Chhudani Booth No. 58, Sheikhupura Jat
Booth No. 61 and Badli Booth No. 79.
(iv) That a large number of voters, who were
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11
either absentees or missing or sick in
hospitals or convicts lodged in jail and
deserted ladies have been impersonated by the
friends and relations of the respondent for
whom they have all polled and their total
number is 710.
(v) That a large number of Government
servants numbering 158 who were not present in
their respective villages and did not cast
their votes in fact, have been impersonated
and their votes have been polled in favour of
the respondent.
(vi) That the respondent got the same votes
registered in two or more different places in
Haryana Assembly Jhajjar Constituency No. 44-
The said persons are near or distant relations
or friends of the respondent. The said voters
polled their votes at two different places in
the same constituency and in other
constituencies i.e. Jhajjar Assembly Con-
stituency No. 44, Beri Assembly Constituency
No. 42, Salhawas (S.C.) No. 43, Bahadurgarh
No. 45, Kalanaur No. 41, Hasangarh No. 38,
Pataudi No. 55, Jattusana No. 58 and outside
Haryana in Delhi (Union Territory) in village
Ghewra, Mitrau, Dichau and Charagh Delhi. The
votes were polled in Thajjar Constituency and
in, other constituencies as well...... it
may further be added that respondent had
arranged some chemicals by which the indelible
ink used for identity of a voter on the first
finger, that he had already
54
cast his vote had been evaporated and in this
manner several of the voters exercised their
votes multiple time in the said constituency.
For example his sister Mano impersonated for
Mitro wife of Mangal, vote No. 934, and Shanti
Wife of Chhotu vote No. 940 at Booth No. 40.
Besides this she herself voted twice i.e. at
Booth No. 40 against vote No. 824, and at
Booth No. 1 against Vote No. 41."
It would be noticed that these allegations relate to votes
cast in the name of 28 dead persons, votes cast in the name
of 710 persons who were absent due to various reasons, those
cast in the name of 158 Government servants who were not
present in their respective villages and did not cast their
votes. Issue (5) relates to the case of about 149 persons
who were said to have voted twice and in some cases more
than twice either in the same constituency or in more than
one constituency. The appellant denied all the allegations
made in these Paragraphs but he also filed a recrimination
petition making the same allegations against the appellant
in respect of about 2200 votes. We are not just now
concerned with them. The main contention of Mr. Garg, who
appeared on behalf of the appellant, was that these issues
should not have been allowed to be raised as the election
petition did not contain enough material particulars, that
what was asked for was in the nature of a roving and fishing
inquiry and should not be allowed. He was particularly
alarmed by the fact that the respondent had cited as many as
1100 witnesses whom he sought to examine in respect of
various allegations made in the petition and the issues
arising out of them. We shall first of all deal with issues
1, 3, 4 and 5.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11
Five schedules were attached to the election petition.
Schedule I gives the names and various details of all the 28
persons alleged to have been dead in whose name others were
alleged to have voted. The dates on which they died were
also given except in four cases. It appears that as many as
24 death certificates have also been produced. Schedule HI
contains 705 names giving details of the polling stations
and polling booths to which they were attached, their number
in the electoral roll, the names of their fathers or
husbands. In 44 cases even the names of persons who had-
voted for the absent persons were also given in the list.
In many other cases reasons were also given why the real
voter could not have voted and somebody else should have
voted in his or her name. Schedule IV gives the names of
various Army personnel, Government servants, quasi-
Government servants and people in private service and fairly
elaborate details are given there as to where they are
employed in order to show that they could not have voted and
votes in their names should have been cast by somebody else.
Schedule V gives the names of double or multiple voting.
The 1st page of that schedule contains the names of the
appellant, his wife, his brother’& daughters, his daughter,
his son, his driver and his driver’s wife and shows the two
booths where. they are registered as voters and as having-
voted twice. Similarly, details are given regarding other
cases of multiple or double voting covering whole of the 149
votes. One. would have to searth long and wide in order to
come across any election Petition Which gives inch elaborate
details.
55
Under section 83(1)(a) of the Representation of the People
Act 1951, an election petition shall contain a concise
statement of the material facts on which the petitioner
relies. Under clause (b) it shall set forth AM particulars
of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges,
including as full a statement as possible of the names of
the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice
and the date and place of the commission of each such
practice. The issues that we are just now discussing fall
under clause (a) and not under clause (b). Mr. Garg first
took the extreme position that in respect of all these
thousand and odd votes no challenge could be made in the
election petition unless the respondent’s polling agents had
challenged them at the time of the potting relying upon Rule
36 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 which has made
provision for challenges at the time of polling. As we have
already indicated, the election petition gives more
particulars than would have been found by any body with any
amount of experience in respect of election petitions: Mr.
Garg then went on to argue that where it is alleged that
votes have been cast in the name of dead or absent persons
it should be specifically stated who exactly voted in place
of the dead or absent persons. In respect of his first
objection it has to be pointed out that it May very often
happen that a candidate has no polling agents at all in
various polling stations and polling booths. Very often the
polling agent may not be a person belonging to that village
so that he may not be able to challenge those votes then and
there. Therefore, it is enough if he has made subsequent
enquiries and come to know the facts and alleges them within
the period , of limitation provided in the Act. Whereas s.
83(1)(a) contemplates giving a concise statement of the
material facts on which the petitioner relies, Mt. Garg’s
argument really amounts to saying that the, petition should
contain not only the material facts but so the evidence on
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11
which he relies to prove those material facts. This is
directly contrary to the provisions of Order VI, Rule 2 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that :
"Every pleading shall contain, and contain
only, a statement in a concise form of the
material facts on which the party pleading
relies for his claim or defence, as the case
may be, but not the evidence by which they are
to be proved...... "
The earlier part of the Rule, it would be noticed, is
similar to clause (1) (a) of section 83. The Code. of Civil
Procedure applies to all trials of election petitions and to
require that a party should not only state the material
facts on which he relies, which the respondent had
had done more than amply in this case, but also that he
should state the evidence on which he relies is not a
proposition which can be accepted either as correct in law
or as one Which justice requires. The evidence by which
they are to be proved, if included in the election petition,
as contended by Mr. Garg, it would be directly contrary to
the Provisions of law. Most of the decisions which he cited
were cases where a general recount was asked for and there
was no evidence to establish that the counting already made
was defective or not reliable. In some cases except vague
and-,general allegations nothing else had been stated. It
is in such cases that this Court held that the
56
should not be allowed the opportunity of a roving and
fishing inquiry. But this Court has also always reiterated
that for the purpose of doing justice even a general recount
can be ordered if the circumstances demanded. That is why
in the face of the extreme care with which the election
petition in this case has been drawn up and the very minute
details given in it we do not consider that any of the
decisions of this Court relied upon by Mr. Garg are to the
point and have not referred to them. As we have already
indicated, one rarely comes. across an election petition
giving such minute details and there is nothing more that
the petitioner could have done except to state the evidence
by which the material facts are to be proved.
Indeed, for example, in this case one witness had come
forward and given evidence that he had cast the vote of his
absent uncle. As and when the trial proceeds in the case of
votes cast- in the name of dead persons the death
certificates already produced would have to be proved as
relating to the particular individual whose name is found in
the electoral roll and then the Counterfoil relating to the
particular number of the voter would have to be looked into
to see whether the vote had been cast and then it would have
to be found out in whose favour that vote had gone. In the
case of absent voters in whose name votes have been cast,
either the voters concerned or somebody closely related to
them or who knows them very well would have to give evidence
that on the particular polling day the voter was not in town
to be able to cast the vote. It is possible that in some
cases, as in the 44 instances which we have earlier referred
to, it might also be proved that a particular person had
cast the vote in the name of the absent person, but that is
not always necessary if it is established to the satis-
faction of the Court that the voter concerned was not
anywhere near the polling station on that day and could not
have cast the vote. Then the voting paper itself would have
to be looked into to see in whose favour it has been cast.
It might even be necessary to look into the counterfoils if
the respondent wants to establish that the vote has been
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11
cast by the real voter. If the person who gives evidence
admits that he had voted in the name of an absent voter he
may have to be confronted with the counterfoil and the
signature or thumb impression thereon and it may have to be
compared with the signature or thumb impression of the
person who gives evidence. This might even become necessary
in some cases where even the voter concerned comes forward
and gives evidence that he did not cast his vote. If his
statement is questioned it may be necessary to compare his
signature or thumb impression with The signature or thumb
impression found in the counterfoil of the voting paper
issued in his name. This would apply to the 705 votes found
in Schedule III as well as the 155 votes found in Schedule
TV. The cases of double voting might also involve the same
procedure and probably even more in order to establish that
the same person has voted more than once either within the
same constituency or in two different constituencies. All
this is exacting and exhausting work. It appears that about
1100 witnesses have been summoned and a sum of Rs. 60.000/-
his been deported ,in the Court for the purpose of summoning
these witnesses. But that duty cannot be shirked in the
face of the pleadings in this case. They cannot be brushed
aside as vague or general or as not raising any
57
triable issue. It has also to be noted that the, petitioner
does not ask for a blanket order for opening of the ballot
boxes or looking into all the counterfoils and thus seek to
violate the secrecy of the ballot papers. In the
application filed in support of the petition for production
of records it is pointed out that the evidence is to be led
by the production of genuine voter and he is to be shown the
counterfoil whether it bears his signatures or not and then
whether he in fact polled his vote or not or somebody else
had cast his vote. It was specifically stated that the
petitioner will pray for inspection of ballot papers when he
succeeds in proving that they have not cast their votes and
have been impersonated. Nothing could be clearer or mote
reasonable than this. We are, therefore, of the opinion
that the learned Judge was right in his conclusions with
regard to these issues.
As regards issue- (6) which relates to a corrupt practice,
naturally particulars would have to be given as required
under clause (1)(b) of section 83. In order to see whether
the requirements of s. 83(1) (b) of giving full particulars
of corrupt practices alleged by the respondent, including as
full a statement as possible of the names of the parties
alleged to have committed such corrupt practices, and the
date and place of the commission of each such practice,
have been met it is necessary to set out paragraphs 13 and
14 of the petition which are as follows :
"13. That there were total 568 votes
registered in village Bhatera in Jhajjar
Assembly Constituency No. 44. The respondent
had visited village Bhatera a week before in
Holi festival on or about 20-2-72 and
approached Thakur Mohinder Singh to help him
in securing the votes of village Bhatera. One
Fakirda Member Panchayat of village Bhatera,
Sukhdev son of Mania of village Bhatera, and
Maru Singh son of Gulzari Singh of village
Bhatera besides other residents of village
collected in the Baithak of Maru Singh son of
Gulzari Singh at about 8 p.m. on 20-2-72 and
they were requested to vote for Ch. Man Phool
Singh, but the Harijans voters including Bhiku
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11
son of Muni Lal, Leela son of Dulia, Thawarya
son of Jhagru, Fakiria son of Mukh Ram, Sukh
Din son of Mania and backward classes voters
of the village including Chhotan s/o Gugal,
Jugti Ram s/o Nanak, Mangtu s/o Sukh Lal
declined to endorse the request of Shri
Mohinder Singh who canvassed them for the
respondent. On this the said Harijan and
backward classes voters referred to above
along with other Harijan voters and backward
classes voters were threatened by Thakur
Mohinder Singh s/o Sheo Nath belonging to
Rajput Community to either vote for the
respondent or else not to go to the Dools at
all, otherwise they would be socially and
economically boycotted and their living in the
village would be made hell for them. in this
manner undue influence was exercised on them
to restrain them from exercising their
electoral right."
"14. That the agents and representatives of
Respondent No. 1. Bhanwar Singh and Pandit
Rattan Lal had been
58
visiting this village Bhatera between 23rd
February 1972 to 10th March, 1972 and trying
to persuade the Thakurs, Harijans,
backward
classes, Gujjars and Brahmin voters to vote
for the respondent and on their declining to
toe their line the said representatives or
agents of respondent extended threats of
danger to the life and property of the said
voters. As a result of this the entire
village did not poll even a single vote on the
day of polling at polling station No. 28 at
village Bhatera. The petitioner approached
the local Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Shri Ved Parkash on the night between 10th and
11th March, 1972 conveying to him that the
voters of village Bhatera, who have been
always supporting the Congress candidate since
the elections started were threatened by
Mohinder Singh of this village, Bhanwar Singh
and Pt. Rattan Lal at the instance of and
under the instigation of the respondent, his
agents or supporters not to cast their votes
on the polling day. From the enquiry of the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, the
petitioner learnt that the leaders Shri
Mohinder Singh son of Sheo Nath, Arisal son of
Jai Narain, Maru Singh son of Gaggan Singh,
Fakiria son of Mukh Ram and Mohinder Singh son
of Magha Singh of village Bhatera and all
other voters of the said village had decided
not to cast their votes for the fear of their
life and security of person and property. The
Deputy Superintendent of Police at the request
of the petitioner rang up the Station House
Office Jhajjar but no safeguards or security
measures were taken. As a result of this no
polling took place at this polling booth.
The poll was to be adjourned under section
57(i) of the Representation of the People Act
(No. 43 of 1951) as there existed a sufficient
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11
cause for the same. But the Returning Officer
or the Presiding Officer failed to report to
the Election Commission, the Chief Electoral
Officer and the appropriate Government.
Besides the efforts of the petitioner to
secure safety for the Harijan and backward
class voters besides others of the village,
who were so much terrified no help came forth
and none of them turned up to the polling
station to cast their votes. No re-poll,
however, had been ordered."
It would be noticed that the allegation is that not even one
vote was cast in village Bhatera which contains 1 568
registered votes. That itself is of considerable
significance. the. date of the visit of the respondent is
given and he and his friend Thakur Mohinder Singh as well as
Fakiria, Sukhdev and Maru Singh are alleged to have
requested the Harijan voters, whose names are given
’therein, to vote for the respondent and as they declined to
do so they were threatened either to vote for the-
respondent or not to go to the polling station and that
otherwise they would be socially and economically boycotted
are all mentioned therein. Though paragraph 14 does not
give particulars to the same elaborate extent as paragraph
13, it ha to be read alongwith paragraph 13. The
allegations were directly disputed by the res-
59
Pondent and therefore a triable issue arises and we are of
the opinion that issue (6) has been rightly raised.
As regards issues 7(a) and 7(b), which relate to the
irregularities committed during the course of the counting,
it is necessary to set out the contents of paragraphs 27 to
31 of the election petition in extenso
"27. That the counting of the ballot papers
started an 12-3-72 at 6.30 p.m. There were 12
tables in the room on Which there were
counting Assistants and the Supervisor on each
table and each candidate had one counting
agent on each table. The counting continued
right up till 2.50 A.M. on 13-3-72. During
the course of counting the counting agents of
the petitioner several times objected that on
tables 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 and 12, the Counting
Assistants and Supervisors were not properly
bundling the votes for the candidates. The
Petitioner was leading by 239 votes after the
close of the third round in spite of all the
illegalities and irregularities committed in
the counting. Particularly ’When the fourth
round started the main complaint of the
counting agents was that the counting
Assistants and Supervisors are preparing
bundles for the petitioner of more than 50
ballot papers and declaring the same to be a
bundle of 50 votes whereas in the case of
respondent they were including less than 50
ballot papers in the bundle as required by the
rides. This caused a lot of flatter and a
complaint was made to the Returning Officer.
At table No. 6 recounting was ordered and it
was found that 76 ballot papers of the
petitioner were included in the bundles of the
respondent in the fourth round. The
petitioner and his counting agents requested
the Returning Officer that the same illegality
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11
or irregularity was being committed at
counting tables No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 and 12 but
neither the Returning Officer nor the
supervisory staff or the counting assistants
paid any heed to, the complaints of the
petitioner. On these tables more than 300
votes of the petitioner have been wrongly
counted and included in the bundles of the
respondent."
"28. That about 100 valid votes of the
petitioner have been wrongly and illegally
rejected I by the Returning Officer and
likewise about the same number of invalid
votes of the respondent have been declared
valid and included as valid votes for the
respondent."
"29. That about 500 votes of the petitioner
have been wrongly counted and included in the
votes of the respondent."’
"30. That the petitioner claimed recount-of
the votes on account of the various
irregularities and illegalities committed by
the Returning Officer, some of which have been
stated above by an application dated 13-3-1972
at about 00.50 hours. but the said application
was rejected by the Returning Officer inter
alia stating doubtful ballot papers of each
table at each round were decided after giving
full
60
opportunity to the candidates as well as their
agents and their due objections removed at
every stage, notwithstanding the fact that the
petitioner claimed the recount on the grounds
that doubtful and invalid votes were being
counted in favour of the respondent and also
that several votes for petitioner were
included in the bundles of the respondent, the
Returning Officer did not advert to these
objections and declined the application for
recount on totally frivolous and irrelevant
grounds. Again the petitioner moved another
application at about 2.3O A.M. before the
result was declared by the Returning Officer,
inter alia giving the grounds counting had
been not only irregular but almost illegal and
partial and also specifying particular
counting tables 1, 5, 10 and 12. The said
application, again was declined by the Re-
turning Officer on frivolous grounds. The
petitioner applied for the copies of both the
applications for the purposes of this Election
Petition but the Returning Officer issued a
copy of the one made at 00.50 hours and has
declined to give a copy of the second
application for reasons best known to him."
" 31. That the counting had also been
otherwise illegal and not in accordance with
the prescribed procedure and rules or
instructions thereby it was incumbent upon the
Returning Officer to satisfy himself that the
votes of valid ballot ’papers had been
correctly sorted and did not contain any bal-
lot paper which ought to have been rejected or
ought to have been placed in the bundle of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11
valid votes of any other candidate. He was
required to verify by making a test check of
at least 5% of the votes to ensure that the
bundles do not contain any ballot paper which
ought to be rejected or which ought to be
placed in the bundle of any other candidate.
The rules further required to ensure accuracy
in the counting of votes that 5 % of the total
number of votes or valid ballot papers of each
candidate shall be counted by the Returning
Officer and be was to make a selection of this
5% in such manner that it contains bundles
pertaining to different candidates. The
Returning Officer kept sitting quite in his
seat and did not comply with the rules at all
in spite of the fact that his attention was
drawn to the second application for a test
check; as a result of which the counting staff
was all the more encouraged and they committed
irregularities and illegalities in order to
assist, help and further the prospectus of the
election of the respondent."
The respondent totally repudiated these allegations and
they also therefore give rise directly to issues 7(a), (b)
and (c) as rightly held by, the learned High Court Judge.
It is to be remembered that in this case we are still at
the stage of pleadings and not at the stage of proof. It
has been held by this Court that charges of corrupt
practices under s. 123 of the Representation of the People
Act, 1951 are quasi-criminal in nature, and should, there
fore, be proved satisfactorily as it has a double
consequence, the ,election of the returned candidate being
set aside and the candidate
61
incurring a subsequent disqualification as well. All this
would naturally be borne in mind when the learned Judge
decides a question, whether the corrupt practice alleged has
been established. All that we wish to emphasise at this
stage is that it could not be said that the allegations in
the election petition are vague or general in nature or lack
material particulars and are as such liable to be struck
down as, not raising a triable issue. As we have remarked
earlier, the very prospect of having to examine over a
thousand voters is staggering.. The learned Judge trying the
election petition should have had enough. experience of
trial work both civil and criminal and we do not consider it
necessary to lay down any hard and fast rule as to how he
should proceed in the matter of his trial. He should, of
course, try to eliminate as much of unnecessary evidence as
possible. But this he can do only with the active and
willing cooperation of both the parties. One. of the things
which he might do is perhaps to receive affidavits in the
first instance in respect of, say, about 50 votes and on the
basis of the affidavits and counter affidavits it may be
possible to decide the question. If that is not possible he
would naturally have to examine the witnesses. In this case
he may try to the extent possible to reduce the necessity
for the examination of the witnesses themselves. This would
apply particularly to the case of the absent voters. There
should be very little difficulty about the dead voters. We
do not wish to Say much on the subject as the procedure to
be adopted would depend; upon the circumstances of each case
and each fact sought to be proved. It would not be feasible
to lay down any hard and fast rule on this subject. An
experienced Trial Judge may be expected to deal with the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11
matter in a way which would not only give satisfaction to
both the parties but also help to expedite the matter and
dispose of the election petition as quickly as possible.
There is no substance in any of the contentions of the
appellant and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The
appellant will pay the respondent’s costs.
S.B.W. Appeal dismissed.
62