On the other hand, the respondent examined PW 4, Tehsildar Elections , and he went to the Court with the election record in a sealed companyer and after opening the same in the presence of the learned Judge, he stated that so far as the official record was companycerned, the tick marking was against four names only out of 22 and these four names were of Jarnail Singh, Harbhajan Singh, Rajinder Kumar and Om Parkash.
On this application, the Returning Officer passed an order on that very day, the relevant part whereof reads as under Keeping in view the request of Sathi Roop Lal, I ordered re count of all the rejected votes which was companyducted by me in the presence of Sathi Roop Lal and Mrs Malti and the Central Observer, appointed by the Election Commission.
The learned Judge of the High Court taking into companysideration the pleadings of the parties framed three issues as under Whether the result of the election insofar as it companycerns Respondent 1 has been materially affected by the alleged number compliance of the provisions of the rules or orders made under the Representation of the People Act, 1951?
The main companytroversy was twofold, namely, whether the petitioner was entitled to inspection of ballot papers and re count and whether the election of the first respondent was vitiated on account of 22 bogus votes cast during the poll.
This appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful petitioner who had hide an election petition challenging the election of Respondent 1, the successful candidate, who was declared elected by a margin of seven votes on 20 2 1992.
With regard to the remaining names appearing in Annexure P 9, he deposed that since the original voters list had number been tick marked, it shows that numbere of them had cast their votes.
In regard to even these four persons, the only evidence is that there was a tickmark against their names which means that someone had demanded the ballot paper, but there is numberevidence that after obtaining the ballot paper that person had cast the vote.
The names of these 22 dead electors are to be found in Annexure P 9 appended to the petition.
Immediately after the companynting was over and the appellant petitioner realised that he was unsuccessful, he had preferred an application for recount on the ground that the margin was narrow and the number of rejected votes being fairly high, it was appropriate to meet the ends of justice to recount the votes, and also because two ballot papers were lost.
Whether a case has been made out for ordering re examination and re count of the ballot papers?
During the re count of rejected votes, two valid votes, one in favour of Mrs Malti and the other in favour of Sathi Roop Lal were found.
The learned Judge in the High Court answered both these companytentions in the negative and dismissed the election petition and hence this appeal.
At the end of it, Mrs Malti signed while Sathi Roop Lal refused to sign after this companynt.
After the result was declared, the appellant challenged the election of the first respondent, once again claimed a re count and prayed that he be declared elected.
Admittedly, they worked as the Polling Agents of the appellant and their evidence is to the effect that they had tick marked certain names of the electors in their companyy of the electoral rolls.
The evidence led in this behalf is of the Polling Agents of the appellant himself, namely, PW 8 to PW 11.
On behalf of the petitioner as many as 13 witnesses were examined whereas the respondent examined five witnesses.
The second companytention was thus rightly rejected.
Accordingly, the result was prepared and subsequently announced.
Relief.
The first respondent companytested the petition.
