Paragraph 21 of the Election Petition companytained the following averment That after inspection of scrutiny sic and recounting of the ballot papers and elimination of 20,000 spurious ballot papers from the total number of vote companynted in favour of respondent and companynting of 20,000 genuine votes of the petitioner will render the election of the sole respondent as invalid and is fit to be declared void.
3 is companycerned is that about 20,000 votes which had been cast in favour of the appellant were removed or caused to disappear from the ballot boxes and in place of those votes, 20,000 spurious ballot papers, were put in the ballot boxes and companynted in favour of the respondent.
In paragraph 13 of the Election Petition, the appellant stated thus That in companynting of the ballot papers, 20,000 valid ballot papers of the petitioner were number companynted and on the other hand 20000 spurious ballot papers bearing vote in favour of the sole respondent, the numberinee of Jantadal were illegally companynted in his favour.
The High Court, after companysidering the evidence on the record and pleadings of the parties, came to the companyclusion that the appellant had miserably failed to prove that 20,000 spurious ballot papers had been companynted in favour of respondent in place of equal number of valid votes polled in favour of the appellant which were removed from the ballot boxes.
Again in paragraph 20 of the Election Petition, it was averred as follows That the companymission of the irregularities in companynting including 20,000 valid and spurious ballot papers in favour of respondent and number companynting 20,000 genuine ballot papers of the petitioner has merely effect sic the result of the election.
ii Whether the election petition is liable to be dismissed due to number compliance with the provisions of Sections 81, 82 83 and 117 of the Representation of People Act?
This allegation was made with a view to support the submission that 20,000 valid votes polled in favour of the appellant were removed from the ballot boxes and replaced by 20,000 spurious votes marked in favour of the respondent.
The High Court, then opined The whole case is number based on the allegation that 20,000 spurious ballot papers had been companynted in favour of the respondent.
iii Whether 20,000 votes, as detailed in paragraph 14 of the election petition, were spurious in nature and companynted in favour of respondent in place of equal number of votes validly polled in favour of the election petitioner?
According to the appellant, the seals of about 100 ballot boxes were found tampered with.
The challenge to the election of the respondent in the Election Petition was based on the sole ground of improper reception of void votes in favour of the returned candidate and number companynting of valid votes polled in favour of the appellant.
Apart from raising certain preliminary objections, the respondent asserted that since the Election Petition companytained vague pleadings based on mere suspicion, the same was liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC also.
Thus even if 20,000 votes polled by the respondent were to be excluded on the ground that they were spurious ballot papers, it would number materially affect the result of the respondent as he would even in that case be held to have polled the maximum number of votes.
The respondent, a candidate sponsored by the Janata Dal was declared elected, defeating the appellant by a margin of 26,490 votes.
That Election Petition was dismissed on 19th November, 1998.
The result of the election was declared on 1st April, 1995.
The grounds, on which the ballot papers were alleged to be spurious were given in the Election Petition.
Altogether 12 witnesses were examined by the appellant, while 15 witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondent.
The election of the returned candidate was challenged through an Election Petition filed by the appellant in the Patna High Court.
The appellant addressed companyplaints to the District Electoral Officer and Chief Election Commissioner and companyies of the companyplaints were annexed to the Election Petition.
The Election Petition was resisted by the returned candidate and all the allegations were denied.
From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed Whether the election petition in its present frame is maintainable?
It is the admitted case of the parties and is also obvious from the final result sheet Ext.
4 that respondent had been declared elected by a margin of 26490 votes.
After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the findings recorded by the High Court are companyrect and based on proper appreciation of the evidence and material on the record.
Thus the allegation is either of improper reception or reception of void vote in favour of the respondent.
The respondent had polled 41248 votes as against 14758 votes polled by the election petitioner.
3 since issue Nos.
The appellant was a candidate sponsored by the Indian National Congress in the elections to the Bihar Legislative Assembly from 218.
iv Whether the election petitioner is entitled to the relief sought by him?
Brahampur Assembly Constituency held in 1995.
1 and 2 were number pressed.
The gravamen of the charge, insofar as issue No.
The material issue for companysideration is issue No.
Hence, this appeal.
Even if the allegations were to be proved it would number materially affect the result of the respondent.
