Allahabad High Court
Sabir S/O Jamaluddin vs Additional District Judge, Court No. 4 ... on 24 January, 2003
Equivalent citations: AIR2003ALL182
Author: Sunil Ambwani
Bench: Sunil Ambwani
ORDER Sunil Ambwani, J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Krishna Murari for petitioner and Sri R.B, Singhal as well as learned standing counsel for respondents. With the consent of parties, the matter was finally heard on 31-10-2002 and judgment was reserved. Interim order dated 9-9-2002 was directed to continue till the date of delivery of judgment.
2. Brief facts, giving rise to this writ petition, are that the election for Chairman of Nagar Palika Parishad, Jahangirabad, Tehsil Anoop Shahar, district Bulandshahr, was held on 23-11-2000 along with election of members of Parishad. Petitioner arid respondents 2 to 5 were the contesting candidates. Counting took place on 25-11-2000. after which petitioner Sabir was declared elected, having secured highest number of votes 7418 while respondent No. 2 Amrish secured 7387 votes, respondent No. 3 Surajbhan secured 6482 votes; respondent No. 4 Himachal secured 3961 votes and respondent No. 5 secured 347 votes. Apart from above 1246 ballot papers were declared invalid during the process of counting on the ground that these were marked by a 'round seal' (Triveni seal) whereas the authorised seal issued by poll authorities was the seal bearing 'arrow mark' (Swastik seal).
3. Amrish, respondent No. 2, filed an election petition under Sections 19/20 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, challenging petitioner's election. In paragraphs 10 to 15 of writ petition, it was stated that all 1246 votes were invalidated on the ground that they were marked with 'round seal'. These votes were, in fact, cast in favour of petitioner. They were improperly and wrongly invalidated and in case they were counted , petitioner would have been declared elected. In substance, the ground taken in the election petition was that valid votes in favour of petitioner, were invalidated on account of the fact that they were marked with 'round seal'. In the written statement, petitioner denied this fact and stated that no objection was taken either oral or in writing at the time of counting. The election authorities had issued only 'Swastik seal', which was authorised and valid for the purpose of election. No other seal was made available by Presiding Officer to the voters. In case wrong seal was used, election petitioner should have raised objection at the time of counting. The District Election Officer/Returning Officer and Assistant Returning Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Jahangirabad, Tehsil Anoop Shahar, district Bulandshahr were also impleaded as respondents 6 and 7. They filed their joint written statement. In para 7 of this written statement, the contents of Para 11 of election petition were denied. It was stated that the polling authorities were not issued any round seal and that the votes were rightly invalidated.
4. Issue Nos. 2 and 3, relating to juris diction of Court to hear the petition and payment of security amount, were decided in favour of election-petitioner on 22-4-2002.
Election petitioner Amrish examined him self as PW 1. He also examined Sanjai Kumar Agarwal, Kuldeep Verma and Ashwani, as PWs. 2, 3 and 4 respectively. The Returning Officer, Assistant Returning Officer or any other officers/employee, connected with the election, was neither summoned nor exam ined.
5. By impugned order dated 2-9-2002, the Additional District Judge (Court No. 4), Bulandshahr decided issue No. 4, with regard to the impleadment of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to the election petition and issue No. 1, with regard to cancellation of election on the ground taken in the election petition, in favour of petitioner and while setting aside the order and declaring petitioner Sabir elected on 25-11-2000 on the basis of election held on 23-11-2000, directed respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to re-examine 1246 votes and in case they found that there was no other legal ground other than declaring the votes, stamped by wrong seal invalid, the said votes may be accepted in favour of the candidates in whose favour they were polled and to declare the result afresh.
6. Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, submitted that there was no evidence on record of the case to establish that the round seal was issued by the authorities for stamping ballot papers, that except for oral statements of parties, there was no evidence on record in this regard and that concerned, officers were not summoned to prove the fact. The statements of witnesses have been picked up and torn out of context in recording finding that petitioner had admitted that two seals were issued. A truncated portion of evidence cannot be taken as proof of admission. The finding that 'Gol Mohar' was issued in respect of election of Sabhasad was also a finding which was not based on any evidence. In any case, recounting can only be done by the election tribunal and not by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 of the election petition and that before recounting, the election could not have been set aside. The impugned order, according to Shri Khare, is, apparently illegal and without jurisdiction.
7. Sri R.B. Singhal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 support of impugned, order, states that on the basis of statement of witnesses and written statement, there was sufficient evidence to establish the case of election petitioner that 'Gol Mohar' was supplied by Election Officer and that the votes, marked by 'Gol Mohar' on ballot paper in favour of election petitioner, were wrongly rejected. Similar seal was used in respect of the election of members of Nagar Palika Parishad, Jahangirabad and the said votes were held to be valid votes. The fact stated in the election petition pertains to the dispute about illegal exclusion of ballot papers and this fact could only be verified after the recount.
8. In Ram Autar Singh v. Ram Gopal Singh, AIR 1975 SC 2182, which considering the provisions of Rules 56(2) and 38 of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, the Supreme Court found that these rules, are mandatory and that once it is established that the electors concerned stamped votes with the instrument meant to be used exclusively by the Presiding Officer for stamping the counter-foils and backs of the ballot papers, though such ballot papers out to have been rejected, the Court had to apply its mind as to whether these facts by them selves were sufficient to attract the relevant rules. This question would further resolve itself into two issues : (i) Whether the stamping instrument was given to the electors by the Presiding Officer or any member of his staff; (ii) If so, could these ballot papers be deemed to have been marked with "the instrument supplied for the purpose". Whereas the first issue is an issue of fact, the determination of which would depend on evidence, the second issue will arise only on proof of the first, and involve the question of interpreting and applying the phrase "instrument supplied for the purpose". Rules 38 and 56(2) (a) and (b) are mandatory and strict compliance therewith is essential.
Once it is established that the fault, specified in Clause (a) or (b) of Rule 5,6(2), has been committed, there is no option left with the Returning Officer but to reject the faulty ballot paper but that can depend upon the fact whether the instrument was issued to the electors by the Presiding Officer or any member of the staff.
9. In the present case, the Election Tribunal has relied upon a letter issued by the Deputy Commissioner, State Election Commission, Uttar Pradesh (Panchayat and Local Bodies), 23-C Gokhale Marg, Lucknow dated 17th Nov., 2000, in which, while referring to earlier letter dated 8th August, 2000, it was directed that the Triveni Rubber Seal' be damaged and that only 'arrow-cross rubber seal' be used for the purpose of local bodies general election 2000. The tribunal thereafter proceeded to examine this fact whether round seal was issued and used in the election. He has relied upon the admission of petitioner Sabir and has taken into account of portion of his statement, to be treated as admission, in favour of allegations made by election petitioner. The fact stated by him that the election petitioner had not objected to the ballot papers bearing wrong seal in all the four rounds of counting and it is wrong to state that both seals were made available at all polling booths and further the fact that round seal was used in the election and this fact has come to his notice at the time of counting, have been taken out on context. The tribunal appears to have used the portion of his statement to be taken as admission of the issue and use of wrong seal by electors on the polling date.
10. It has been held by Supreme Court in Boramma v. Krishna Gowda, (2002) 1 All Rent Cas 126, that while appreciating the evidence, the Court has to see how the answer fits in with the rest of the evidence and probabilities of the case. The sentences cannot be picked out without their reference in which they have been used in the cross-examination to draw inference against him. Even if a part of statement is treated as an admission, Sections 17 and 31 of Evidence Act (1 of 1872) make it clear that an admission is not conclusive proof of the matter admitted. An admission merely suggests an inference to the Court on some fact or facts in issue and before the Court draws any inference against a party making an admission, it becomes its duty to scrutinise the evidence as a whole. It should examine the deposition as a whole on the point issue and not base its judgment on truncated or extracted portion of an alleged admissipn. In Bharat Singh v. Mst. Bhagirathi, AIR 1966 SC 405, it was held that admissions have to be clear if they are to be used against a person making them. In Ajodhya Prasad Bhargava v. Bhawani Shanker Bhargava, AIR 1957 All 1 (FB), this Court has taken the view that an admission should be clear, certain, definite and not ambiguous, vague or confused. The same view was followed in Ram Naresh v. Board of Revenue, U.P., at Allahabad, 1986 All LJ 157.
11. 1 do not find anything in the statements of PWs 2, 3 and 4 to form an opinion that round seal was made available by the Election Officer to the electors for the purposes of casting their votes. The Election Officer/Assistant Election Officer or any other employee of the election office was not summoned to prove this fact. The Tribunal has also wrongly placed the burden of proof that round seal was not issued for the purpose of election on petitioner. The fact that the same seal was used for casting ballot in favour of Sabhasad could not be a ground to record a finding that the round seal was also issued for the purpose of election of Chairman. The case of Misiryar Khan v. Acharya Dharam Dutt Vaidya, 1979 All LJ 1, has incorrectly been applied to the facts of the case. In the said case, the High Court was satisfied that stamping instrument was actually issued by the election office and thus the ballot papers, stamped with such instrument, can be treated to be valid. In the present case, the evidence on record do not justify the said inference.
12. Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, has rightly submitted that the Election Tribunal has put the cart before the horse. The tribunal, even if there was sufficient pleading or material to order recount, could not firstly cancel the declaration of result in favour of petitioner, and thereafter order for recount to be made by respondent Nos. 5 and 6. According to him, in case the order of recount is valid, the tribunal could have proceeded with recount and allowed, the election petition only if the result of recount went in favour of election-petitioner. He has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Khilari v. IV Additional District Judge, Sonbhadra, AIR 1992 All 136, in which it was held that the recount of votes cannot be delegated to any subordinate authority and this exercise'must be made by the Prescribed Authority/Election Tribunal.
13. The condition imperative for recount of votes in an election petition, have been settled in a number of decisions, in Beli Ram Bhalaik v. Jai Behari Lal Kachi , AIR 1975 SC 283 the Supreme Court cautioned that since an order for a recount touches upon the secrecy of ballot. It should not be made lightly or as a matter of course. Although no cast iron rule of universal application can be or has been laid down, yet, from a bead roll of the decisions of this Court, two broad guidelines are discernible, that the Court would be justified in ordering recount or permitting inspection of the ballot papers only where (i) all the material facts on which the allegations of irregularity, or illegality in counting are founded, are pleaded adequately In the election petition, and (ii) the Court/Tribunal trying the petition is prima facie satisfied that the making of such as order is imperatively necessary to decide the dispute and to do complete and effectual justice between the parties. In Suresh Prasad Yadav v. Jai Prakash Mishra, AIR 1975 SC 376, Chanda Singh v. Ch. Shiv Ram, AIR 1975 SC 403, Manphul Singh v. Surinder Singh, AIR 1975 SC 502, same principles were upheld. These principles were reiterated in Bhabhi v. Sheo Govind, AIR 1975 SC 2117, as follows :
"(1) That it is important to maintain the secrecy of the ballot which is sacrosanct and should not be allowed to be violated on frivolous, vague and indefinite allegations;
(2) That before inspection is allowed, the allegations made against the elected candidate must be supported by adequate statements of material facts :
(3) That the Court must be prima facie satisfied on the materials produced before the Court regarding the truth of the allegations made for a recount;
(4) That the Court must come to the conclusion that in order to grant prayer for inspection it is necessary and imperative to do full justice between the parties :
(5) That the discretion conferred on the Court should not be exercised in such a way so as to enable the applicant to indulge in a roving inquiry with a view to fish materials for declaring the election to be void and (6) That on the special facts of the given case sample inspection may be ordered to lend further assurance to the prima facie satisfaction of the Court regarding the truth of the allegations made for a recount, and not for the purpose of fishing out materials."
14. In S. Raghubir Singh Gill v. S. Gurucharan Singh Tohra, 1980 Supp SCC 53 : (AIR 1980 SC 1362, para 31), it was held as under :
'True, re-count cannot be ordered just for the asking. A petition for re-count cannot be ordered after inspection of ballot papers must contain an adequate statement on material facts on which the petitioner relies in support of his case and secondly the Tribunal must be prima facie satisfied that in order to decide the dispute and to do complete Justice between the parties an inspection of the ballot papers is necessary. The discretion conferred in this behalf should not be exercised is such a way so as to enable the applicant to indulge in a roving inquiry with a view to fishing out materials for declaring the election void."
15. In M. R. Gopalakrishanan v. Thachady Prabhakaran (1995 Supp. (2) SCC 101 : (1995 AIR SCW 156), it was held that the demand of defeated candidate for recount of votes has to be considered keeping in view that secrecy of the ballot is sacrosanct in a democracy, and, therefore, unless the election petitioner is able not only to plead and disclose the material facts but also substantiate the same by means of evidence of reliable character that there existed a prima facie case for re-count, no Tribunal or Court would be justified in directing a re-count.
16. In Vadivelu v. Sundaram (2000)8 SCC 355 : (AIR 2000 SC 3230) same principle was reiterated with emphasis in paragraph 16 quoted as below :
"The result of the analysis of the above cases would show this Court has consistently taken the view that re-count of votes could be ordered vary rarely and on specific allegation in the pleadings in the election petition that illegality/irregularity was committed while counting. The petitioner who seeks recount should allege and prove that there was improper acceptance of invalid votes or improper rejection of valid votes. If only the Court is satisfied about the truthfulness of the above allegation, it can order recount of votes. Secrecy of ballot has always been considered sacrosanct in a democratic process of election and it cannot be disturbed lightly by bare allegations of illegality or irregularity in counting. But it is proved that purity of elections has been tornished and it has materially affected the result of the election, where by the defeated candidate is seriously prejudiced, the Court can resort to re-count of votes under such circumstances to do justice between the parties."
17. In V. S. Achuthanandan v. P. J. Francics (2001) 3 SCC 81 : (AIR 2001 SC 837), Supreme Court went to the extent of holding that once a re-count is validly ordered and the statistics revealed by the re-count are available to be used for deciding election dispute, the facts revealed by re-count cannot be relied upon by the election petitioner to support the prayer and sustain the order for re-count If the pleadings and material available on record anterior to actual re-count did not justify grant of the prayer for inspection and re-count.
18. For the aforesaid reasons, I find that the Election Tribunal has grossly erred in law in recording finding that round seal was issued by the election office and was rightly used for stamping ballot papers and further that ballot papers could not have been rejected on this ground. The tribunal has further erred in law in firstly setting aside the result of election, and thereafter directing recount to be made by the Returning Officer/Assistant Returning Officer.
19. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 2-9-2002 passed by additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Bulandshahr, in Election Petition No. 14 of 2000, between Amrish Sabir & others, is set aside. The Election Tribunal respondent No. 1, is directed to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law, and in the light of observations made in this judgment.