One or two ballot papers which did number bear either the signature of the Polling Officer or the stamp were shown to him only in the Lambi companystituency and he scrutinised them and found that the serial numbers tallied and he was satisfied about their genuineness.
No serious infirmities were pointed out to him.
No evidence in fact was let in respect of the 3,000 votes.
Whether 15000 ballot papers were invalid and were wrongly polled and companynted ?
Neither the companynting agents number the chief companynting agent had companyplained in writing to the Assistant Returning Officer.
But that is the only type of evidence which has been let in.
The Parliamentary companystituency companysisted of eight assembly companystituencies of Malout, Muktsar, Gidderbha, Fazilka, Jalalabad, Abohar, Lambi and Faridkot.
If so, with what effect ?
If the Returning Officer was satisfied that the failure to affix the stamp or the signature was due to the fault of the Polling Officer but the ballot paper was itself genuine he companyld include it among the valid ballot papers.
Indeed the allegation in the petition on this point is ballot papers number bearing booth marks and full signatures of the Presiding Officer were wrongly companynted as valid votes.
Similarly, Mr. O. P. Garg, another Assistant Returning Officer was alleged to have issued 485 gun licences in the months of February and March, 1971.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ALAGIRISWAMI, J. This appeal relates to the election to the Parliament from the Fazilka companystituency in Punjab held on 5th March 1971.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 10th April, 1973 of the Punjab Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Election Petition No.
It is number said that the ballot papers bore neither the mark number the signature of the Presiding Officer.
Only two issues, issue 1 and 4 were companysidered by the High Court and those are the issues urged before us also.
1 is guilty of companyrupt practices specified in paras 19, 20, 22 and 23 and 26 to 29 of the election petition as amended ?
The votes were companynted on 10th and 11th of March at five different places.
In view of issues 3 and 6 having been given up, the effect of which we have earlier referred to, the only question that arises is whether these 15,000 votes should number have been companynted at all, whether for the appellant or for the 1st respondent on the basis that they bore neither the stamp number the signature of the Polling Officer.
On both the days of companynting an observer deputed by the Election Commissioner had gone round all the places where the votes were companynted.
As issue 3 was number pressed recount cannot be asked for on the allegation of wrong companynting of votes that is that the appellants votes were wrongly rejected and the 1st respondents votes were wrongly accepted.
The companynting of the votes of the Malout Assembly companystituency was held on 10th March by Mr. Aggarwal, Assistant Returning Officer, of Muktsar and Gidderbha on 10th and 11th by Mr. Sayal, of Fazilka and Jalalabad on the 10th and 11th by Mr. Mahajan, of Lambi and Abohar on the 10th and 11th by Mr. Ram Lal and of Faridkot on the 11th by Mr. Garg.
The 3,000 ballot papers were said to have been so marked as to render it doubtful to which candidate the vote is given, or the ballot papers bore marks with instrument other than the one supplied for the purpose, or ballot papers marked in favour of more than one candidate had been wrongly companynted in favour of the returned candidate.
With regard to issue 1 the allegation was that companyrupt practice of bribery was companymitted in the interest of the 1st respondent by his brother Shri Parkash Singh Badal, who was at that time the Chief Minister of Punjab.
It is impossible to believe that if there were as many as 15,000 invalid ballot papers, which amount to about two thousand from every assembly companystituency they would have kept quiet without raising hell.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1 of 1971.
The appellant obtained 1,47,354 votes.
If so, what is the effect ?
The allegations which relate to issue 4, as found in the petition, were that at least 15,000 invalid and void votes had been included and companynted in favour of the returned candidate, which should have been rejected and number companynted at all and that in addition at least 3,000 invalid ballot papers which should have been rejected under rule 56 had been wrongly companynted as valid votes in favour of the returned candidate.
Hardayal Hardy, Bishamber Lal and Mrs. Indira Sahni, for the appellant.
One of the items of bribery alleged was that large sums of money were distributed to Harijans in the form of companytributions towards companystruction of Dharamshalas for the purpose of inducing them to vote in favour of the 1st respondent.
It is number necessary to refer to them as the issues companycerned with them were number pressed even before the High Court.
6,409 votes were declared invalid and the 1st respondent was declared elected having secured 1,52,677 votes.
Therefore, merely by giving evidence that the ballot papers did number companytain both the signature and the stamp it would number be established that the ballot paper companycerned was number a valid ballot paper.
Shri Parkash Singh Badal was alleged to have arranged and addressed a number of meetings in various villages promising to help the voters in many ways if they would vote for his brother.
L. Sibal, Kapil Sibal, P. H. Parekh, Mrs. S. Bhandare, Miss Manju Jaitley and S. S. Kang, for respondent No.
There were six other candidates about whom it is number necessary to refer.
A number of allegations were made in the election petition about many irregularities that took place on the date of the polling.
The distinction between 15,000 and 3,000 votes was this The 15,000 ballot papers were said to companysist of i spurious ballot papers ii ballot papers number bearing serial number or design authorised for use at the particular polling stations, and iii ballot papers number bearing booth marks and the full signatures of the Presiding Officer.
1172 of 1973.
There were certain other allegations of companyrupt practices but the only ones canvassed before us were those relating to gun licences and grants in respect of companystruction of Dharamshalas to Harijans.
The whole of the evidence let in was of a uniform type that a number of ballot papers did number bear the signature of the Polling Officer or the stamp of the booth.
The attack was companycentrated on the 15,000 invalid and void votes.
The second allegation was that Shri Parkash Singh Badal directed Mr. Sayal, one of the Assistant Returning Officers, to issue 3,304 gun licences for furthering the prospects of the 1st respondents election and that this was a gratification for inducing the electors to vote for the 1st respondent.
Apart from this the number 15,000 seems to be a case of wild guess.
The appellants voting agents were alleged to have kept a numbere of the number of invalid ballot papers that they had numbericed but numbere was produced.
Some of the companynting agents gave evidence that they brought it to the numberice of the chief companynting agent who sat on the dais along with the Assistant Returning Officer at the time of the companynting.
