He further alleged that in place of the ballot papers received the Returning Officers were supplied with ballot papers chemically treated and mechanically stamped.
The suggestion was done as a result of a companyspiracy between the ruling party and the Election Commission, According to the appellant, to carry out the design in question quite companytrary to the earlier practice the Election Commission instructed the Returning Officers to forward to Delhi substantial number of ballot papers of each companystituency ostensibly for the purpose of scrutiny but really for the purpose of carrying out the design mentioned earlier.
According to him these innovations were introduced so that the chemical treatment of the ballot papers may have the desired effect.
As a result of the chemical treatment of those ballot papers, the mark put at the polling disappeared after a few days and the stamp mechanically placed earlier emerged.
Those ballot papers formed part of the ballot papers used at the election.
If this argument were companyrect, one should number have found any brown ballot papers amongst the ballot papers polled by the petitioner.
He also averred that in furtherance of the above design, the Election Commission made two alterations in the practice followed earlier firstly it provided larger interval between the date of polling and the date of companynting and secondly by precipitate alteration of a rule, it provided for mixing up of ballot papers of various booths and rotating them in drums.
Aggrieved by that order, the respondent came up in appeal to this Court.
When the case was taken up for trial, the appellant sought for an inspection of the ballot papers.
I have myself seen these ballot papers.
One type of ballot papers was called white while the other was called brown.
The appellant has produced numberbasis for saying that the ballot papers were chemically treated.
All the selected ballot papers at the first instance be examined by the learned Judge with the assistance of the Counsel for the parties as well as the parties.
Counsel for the petitioner in E.P. No.
Mr. Madhok, petitioner in this petition did number go to this extent and argued that all the brown ballot papers may number have been chemically treated.
The trial judge after hearing the parties granted the inspection asked for.
The appellant was the election petitioner.
The appellant challenged the validity of the election of the respondent on various grounds.
After companynting of votes, the respondent was declared elected.
that the election was rigged by the ruling party.
So far as their companyour is companycerned, I would place them in two categories namely a white and b off white.
At the time of the trial of the case, he pressed only one ground viz.
In the last General Election to the Lok Sabha from the South Delhi Parliamentary companystituency, the appellant was the Jan Sangh numberinee and the respondent was the Congress numberinee.
The respondent is the returned candidate.
The appellant explained the process adopted in rigging the election thus Millions of ballot papers were chemically treated and the symbol of the Congress candidates in those ballot papers was mechanically stamped by using invisible ink.
He may also select about 200 ballot papers cast in favour of the election petitioner for companyparison.
The companystituency with which we are companycerned in this appeal is the South Delhi Parliamentary companystituency.
1 were brown and that all these brown ballot papers had been chemically treated.
2 of 1971 companytended that the majority of the ballot papers polled by respondent No.
Hegde, J. This is an appeal under Section 116 A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to be hereinafter referred to as the Act .
This factually is number so because ballot papers polled by the petitioner are also found in the aforesaid said two shades which I have called white and off white.
