Kerala High Court
Suresh.P @ Sathyamangalam Suresh vs Sureshkumar.G.S.@ Kollayil Suresh on 8 April, 2010
Author: Thomas P Joseph
Bench: Thomas P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 118 of 2010()
1. SURESH.P @ SATHYAMANGALAM SURESH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SURESHKUMAR.G.S.@ KOLLAYIL SURESH,
... Respondent
2. SULFIKAR, AGED 37 YEARS,
3. ABUDEEN RAWTHER, AGED 77 YEARS,
4. RETURNING OFFICER,
5. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER
For Petitioner :SRI.V.V.RAJA
For Respondent :SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI,SENIOR ADVOCATE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :08/04/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.
----------------------------------------
C.R.P.No.118 of 2010
---------------------------------------
Dated this 08th day of April, 2010
O R D E R
This revision petition is in challenge of judgment of learned District Judge, Kollam in A.S. (Election) 306 of 2008 confirming the order passed by the learned Munsiff, Kottarakkara in O.P. (Election) 2 of 2005 whereby election of revision petitioner from Sathyamangalam ward (ward No.10) of Chithara Grama panchayath held on 24-05-2005 was set aside and respondent No.1 was declared as duly elected. Though various grounds are set forth in the election petition while challenging the election of petitioner what is now relevant for decision in this petition is only regarding the allegation of double voting by certain voters and which according to respondent No.1 materially affected result of the election. Learned Munsiff initially allowed the petition which was challenged by the petitioner in A.S. (Election) No.205 of 2006. Learned District Judge found that there was no proper consideration of the evidence, set aside the order of learned Munsiff and remanded the case for fresh decision. That remand order was challenged by respondent No.1 in this court in C.R.P.No.606 of 2007. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the revision petition directed learned Munsiff to consider whether there C.R.P. No.118 of 2010 -: 2 :- is double voting in the light of directions issued in the order and dispose of the election petition. After remand, I am told, no further evidence was adduced by the parties. Learned Munsiff reconsidered the issue in the light of the observations or directions in the remand judgment and the order of this court in C.R.P.No.606 of 2007, held that (apart from the 14 votes already invalidated by the Returning Officer at the time of counting) 23 votes are invalid on account of double voting, counted the remaining valid votes (after excluding those 23 votes) and found that respondent No.1 has secured more votes than petitioner (returned candidate). On that finding, election of petitioner was set aside and respondent No.1 was declared as duly elected from Sathyamangalam ward (ward No.10) of Chithara Grama Panchayath. Petitioner challenged that order before learned District Judge but, in vain. Hence this revision petition. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that evidence of relevant witnesses are misread by the courts below, even factual mistake have entered into the order/judgment under challenge, the 23 invalid votes were not separately verified by the Courts below to ascertain in whose favour those votes were cast and that at any rate, there is no finding that the double voting has materially affected election of petitioner, the returned candidate. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the C.R.P. No.118 of 2010 -: 3 :- decision of the Supreme Court in I. Vikheshe Sema Vs. Hokishe Sema (1996(4) SCC 53) and of this court in Abdulla Haji Vs. Mohammed (2008(4) ILR Kerala 149). Learned Senior Advocate for respondent No.1 contend that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that there is double voting, 23 in number as found by the learned Munsiff and as confirmed by the appellate court and that since those 23 votes were eliminated from counting and the rest of the valid votes were counted even if the 23 invalid votes were not separately verified as claimed by the petitioner it is possible to find the number of invalid votes which went favour of petitioner, and respondent No.1 and hold that double voting has materially affected election of petitioner. Learned Senior Advocate points out that the decision of this court in Abdulla Haji Vs. Mohammed (supra) has no application to the facts of this case.
2. I shall first refer to the question whether failure to ascertain in whose favour the 23 invalid votes were cast has affected the decision of the courts below. It is not disputed that at the time of counting (on the counting table) the Returning Officer had invalidated 14 votes and the same were excluded from counting. The votes secured by the candidates (excluding those 14 invalid votes) are as under:
C.R.P. No.118 of 2010 -: 4 :-
Booth No.1:
Petitioner - 329 Respondent No.1 - 387 Respondent No.2 - 45 Respondent No.3 - 5 Booth No.2: Petitioner - 255 Respondent No.1 - 206 Respondent No.2 - 22 Respondent No.3 - 1 Postal ballots: Petitioner - 3 Respondent No.1 - 8 Total number of votes secured by the candidates: Petitioner - 607 Respondent No.1 - 604 Respondent No.2 - 67 Respondent No.3 - 6
There is no challenge to the above votes secured by the candidates. The Returning Officer declared petitioner as elected from the ward.
3. Learned Munsiff has invalidated 23 votes on account of C.R.P. No.118 of 2010 -: 5 :- double voting (the question whether that invalidation is correct or not will be adverted to a bit later). Of the said 23 votes, two votes were declared invalid by the learned Munsiff on the recrimination petition filed by the petitioner. Now I proceed on the basis that learned Munsiff has correctly invalidated those 23 votes. Learned Munsiff has excluded those 23 votes and counted the remaining valid votes (i.e., also excluding the 14 votes which were already invalidated by the Returning Officer and excluded from counting) and thereon following are the votes secured by the candidates.
Petitioner - 587 (607 -20)
Respondent No.1 - 601 (604-3)
Respondent No.2 - 67
Respondent No.3 - 6
Even after the 23 votes invalidated by the learned Munsiff were kept out of counting, there was no difference in the votes secured by respondent Nos.2 and 3 which meant that out of the 23 votes invalidated by the learned Munsiff, no vote had gone in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3, for, their tally remained the same as before.
4. But so far as Petitioner is concerned, his votes came down to 587 from 607 while votes secured by respondent No.1 came down to 601 from 604. Therefore, it is clear that out of the 23 votes C.R.P. No.118 of 2010 -: 6 :- invalidated by the learned Munsiff, 20 had gone in favour of petitioner and 3 had gone in favour of respondent No.1. That is, less the 20 invalid votes from out of the total votes of 607 originally secured by petitioner, he got only 587 votes and less the 3 invalid votes secured by respondent No.1 from out of the 604 votes, he secured 601 votes. Therefore, even though the 23 votes invalidated by the learned Munsiff are not separately verified to ascertain to whom it was cast, there is no difficulty in finding out by the above exercise that of the 23 invalid votes, 20 had gone in favour of petitioner (the returned candidate) and 3 had gone in favour of respondent No.1.
5. Now, I shall refer to the decisions relied on by learned Counsel. The Supreme Court in I. Vikheshe Sema Vs. Hokishe Sema (supra) at page 59 stated that it is necessary to ascertain the number of void votes which has been polled in favour of the respective candidates to ascertain whether the void votes have in anyway materially affected the result of the election. This court in Abdulla Haji Vs. Mohammed (supra) stated in paragraph 9 that when election is challenged on the ground of double voting it is necessary to count the invalid votes on account of such double voting to find whether it has in anyway materially affected result of the election. Learned Judge has illustrated the situation. That was a case C.R.P. No.118 of 2010 -: 7 :- where the returned candidate secured 568 votes and the respondent who challenged the election secured 562 votes, the margin being only 6 votes. 53 votes were found invalid at the time of counting. The Election Tribunal invalidated 10 votes. Of the 10 invalidated votes only 5 could be traced. The other 5 could not be located. In such a situation, there could be no inference that either the 10 or the located 5 invalidated votes were cast in favour of the returned candidate and his election was materially affected by the double voting. It is in that situation the learned Single Judge held that counting of the invalid votes was essential and in the absence of that, order of Election Tribunal was set aside. Here, all the invalidated votes (23 in number) have been located and kept aside, other valid votes have been counted and the result was as I have shown above. Therefore the contention that because it is not ascertained by physically verifying the 23 invalid votes to whom it went the decision of the Tribunal as confirmed by the appellate Court is vitiated, cannot be accepted.
What is required under Section 102 of the Panchayat Raj Act is that the invalid votes must have materially affected the result of the election which is proved on the basis of the manner of counting adopted by the Tribunal and which I have stated above.
6. Then the next question is whether finding of the courts C.R.P. No.118 of 2010 -: 8 :- below that 23 votes were invalid on account of double voting is justified on the evidence on record (There is no dispute regarding the two votes (out of those 23) invalidated on the recrimination petition filed by the petitioner). So far as allegation of double voting by Pws.5, 7, 8, 11, 15 to 21, 23, 25 and 28 is concerned, there is sufficient evidence on record to show that there was double voting. The oral evidence and the documents show that they have voted in 2 booths of Chithara Grama panchayath. Trial court has referred to the evidence of these witnesses and the relevant counter foils of the ballot papers signed by these witnesses in both the wards and found after comparison of the signatures that these witnesses have engaged in double voting. Thus there is clear evidence of double voting by those witnesses.
7. Then the allegation regarding double voting is by PWs.6, 9, 13, 14, 22, 24 and 27. So far as PW.6 is concerned he admitted his identity in the voters list in ward No.10 (booth No.2 of Sathyamanagalam ward) and ward No.12 (booth No.2) of Chithara. He admitted that he is a voter in both the booths but denied double voting. Ext.X25(i) is the counter foil of ballot paper of booth No.2, ward No.10 (Sathyamangalam). Ext.X8(a) is Do- in relation to ward No.12, booth No.2 of Chithara. The witness stated that his wife C.R.P. No.118 of 2010 -: 9 :- signed on the counter foil of his ballot paper (Ext.X25(i)) since his right thumb was injured and denied his signature in Ext.X8(a). Trial court in paragraph 23 of the judgment observed that on a comparison of Ext.X8(a) with the signature in his deposition and summons the admitted signature tallied with the disputed signature in Ext.X8(a) and accordingly, he was found to have engaged in double voting. Learned Munsiff however wrongly stated that the witness had admitted that his wife had signed Ext.X8(a) and proceeded on that basis. That certainly is wrong since PW6 has not admitted signature in Ext.X8(a) either by himself or by his wife on his behalf. Even if that wrong statement is excluded there is the finding of learned Munsiff that on comparison of the admitted signature of PW6 with the disputed signature in Ext.X8(a) and Ext.X25(a), the signatures tallied.
8. The next is PW9. The alleged double voting is attempted to be proved by Ext.X25(p) and X22(b). The counter foils allegedly signed by the witness are concerning ward No.10 (booth No.2, Sathyamanagalam) and ward No.8 (booth No.2, Chithara). PW9 has admitted his identity in the voters list in both the booths. She admitted that she signed Ext.X25(p) but denied the signature in Ext.X22(b). She also denied double voting. Trial court in paragraph C.R.P. No.118 of 2010 -: 10 :- 36 of its order stated that so far as Ext.X25(p) is concerned, the witness had initially denied her signature. That observation of learned Munsiff is wrong since there is no initial denial of signature in Ext.X25(p). PW9 admitted that. She denied the signature in Ext.X22
(b). Learned Munsiff compared the disputed signature in Ext.X25(p) and Ext.X22(b) with the admitted signature in summons and deposition and stated that it is clear that denial of signature is not genuine and that she has voted in two booths. Here also, even excluding the wrong statement that the witness initially denied signature in Ext.X25(p), learned Munsiff has entered a finding on comparison of the disputed signature in Ext.X22(b) with her admitted signature and held that the disputed signature was subscribed by PW9 and thus there was double voting.
9. PW13 is another witness who is said to have engaged in double voting. Documents attempted to be proved are Ext.X25(m) and Ext.X6(g) being the counter foils of the ballot papers allegedly issued to the witness from ward No.10 (booth No.2, Sathyamanagalam) and ward No.12 (booth No.1, Chithara), respectively. The signature in Ext.X25(m) is denied though she stated that the said signature appears to be resembling her signature. But she denied the signature in Ext.X6(g). Learned Munsiff stated that C.R.P. No.118 of 2010 -: 11 :- the witness admitted her signature in Ext.X6(g) but denied the signature in Ext.X25(m) while it is vice versa. So far as PW13 is concerned, I find that learned Munsiff has not ventured for a comparison of the disputed signature with the admitted signature and hence learned Munsiff was not right in holding that PW13 has engaged in double voting.
10. Next is PW14. The relevant documents are Ext.X25(a) and Ext.X6(a), counter foils relating to the ballot papers allegedly issued to the witness in ward No.10 (booth No.2, Sathyamangalam) and ward No.12 (booth No.1, Chithara.) The witness has denied the signature in Ext.X25(a) though he stated that it looked like his signature but, he admitted his signature in Ext.X6(a). He has also denied his identity in the voters list in ward No.10 of booth No.2. Trial court observed that since PW14 admitted exercise of his franchise in Sathyamangalam ward (Ext.X25(a)) it is not necessary to venture for a comparison of the admitted and disputed signatures. This finding of learned Munsiff is certainly not correct since the witness denied the signature in Ext.X25(a) and hence a comparison was required. Since no comparison has been made, finding of learned Munsiff that PW14 has engaged in double voting cannot be accepted.
11. Now it is PW22. Ext.X25(r) and X12(b) are the documents C.R.P. No.118 of 2010 -: 12 :- sought to be proved against him, being counter foils of ballot papers in two wards. The witness denied the signature in Ext.X12(b) and so far as signature in Ext.X25(r) is concerned, he stated that the signature appears to be like his. He admitted his identity in the voters list in both the wards and stated that he voted in booth No.2 of ward No.10 (Sathyamangalam). Trial court in paragraph 40 of the order observed that PW22 has admitted that he is serial No.164 in Ext.X3. Learned counsel points out that it is not revealed that the voters list was shown to the witness. Assuming so, learned Munsiff has compared the disputed signature in Ext.X12(b) and X25(r) with the admitted signature in the summons and deposition and stated that admitted and disputed signatures are such that the it cannot be imitated and that disputed signature in Ext.X25(r) and Ext.X12(b) are that of PW22.
12. Next is PW24. He has denied his identity in the voters list in ward No.10 (booth No.1, Sathyamangalam) but he admitted that he exercised vote in that booth though he denied the signature in Ext.X2
(d) relating to that booth. He admitted his signature in Ext.X22(d) regarding ward No.8 (booth No.2), Chithara. Though he denied the signature in Ext.X2(d), since the witness admitted that he exercised his vote in ward No.10 (booth No.1, Sathyamangalam) and admitted C.R.P. No.118 of 2010 -: 13 :- his signature in Ext.X22(d) relating to ward No.8 (booth No.2), there is little difficulty in holding that he has voted twice.
13. What remained is alleged double voting by PW27. Ext.X25(s) and Ext.X8(f) are the documents pressed into service. They are the counter foils of ballot papers allegedly issued to the witness from ward No.10 (booth No.2, Sathyamangalam) and ward No.12 (booth No.2) of Chithara. The witness admitted that he voted in ward No.10 (booth No.2, Sathyamangalam). He admitted his signature in Ext.X25(s) but so far as the signature in Ext.X8(f) relating to ward No.12 (booth No.2) is concerned he has denied that. Learned Munsiff stated that PW27 admitted his signature in Ext.X8(f) but denied his signature in Ext.X25(s). This is actually a mistake of fact as it is vice versa. But, that does not in anyway affect the conclusion arrived at by the learned Munsiff since learned Munsiff has compared the disputed signature in Ext.X8(f) with the admitted signature in summons and deposition. First appellate court however has not referred to the evidence of PW27 and the alleged double voting by him.
14. It is mainly based on comparison of the signatures made by learned Munsiff that the issue regarding double voting is answered. Section 73 of the Evidence Act enables the court to C.R.P. No.118 of 2010 -: 14 :- compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature though, decisions on the point say that such comparison shall not by itself be the sole basis for a decision. So far as election law is concerned, the rigour of section 73 has been diluted to some extent for the reason that it involved public interest and the process of getting the disputed signatures examined by the experts might consume time which by itself may defeat the very purpose of election law. Courts have held that it is within the power of Election Tribunal to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature and arrive at proper conclusions. The Supreme Court in Neelalohithadasan Nadar Vs. George Mascrene (1994(1) KLT 887) has stated these aspects in paragraph 15. It is stated, "The High Court finally recorded its satisfaction or otherwise in the case of signature resulting in double voting and impersonation, and signature and thumb impression not tallying at all. No meaningful argument on facts in regard thereto was addressed before us except to the approach of employing S.73 of the Evidence Act. It was urged that the High Court should not have become an expert. We, however, are of the view that when larger public interest is served by expeditious disposal of an Election Petition, then C.R.P. No.118 of 2010 -: 15 :- the course adopted by the High Court, as suggested from the afore-extraction, is in conformity therewith. Although courts should be slow in resorting to this method, we do not find it faulted, more so when the Courts resort to exercise of such power is approved in two other cases of this court in State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Pali Ram (1979 (1) SCR 931) and Murari Lal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1980(2) SCR 249). As a sequator the finding recorded by the High Court on Issue No,.1 is perfectly sound." Thus, comparison of the disputed signature with the admitted signatures is permissible and that is what the learned Munsiff has done.
15. So far as evaluation of the evidence by the learned District Judge is concerned I am constrained to say that evidence was not considered at depth as is expected of a Court of appeal which is the last fact finding court. Even factual mistakes committed by the learned Munsiff went unnoticed by the learned District Judge. But that is not fatal as, I stated that the factual mistake has not affected the conclusion reached by the learned Munsiff and the learned District Judge also concurred with the decision of the learned Munsiff.
16. I do not find anything illegal in the learned Munsiff C.R.P. No.118 of 2010 -: 16 :- comparing the admitted and disputed signatures and arriving at conclusions. But, so far as witness Nos.13 and 14 are concerned, I stated that there was no comparison at all and hence learned Munsiff was not justified in holding that PWs.13 and 14 engaged in double voting.
17. Now the question is whether double voting has materially affected result of the election. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that neither of the courts below have referred to the question whether the double voting has "materially affected" the result of the election. May be, those words are not literally used. What is required is not the literal use of the expression but, to find whether the invalid votes have in any way materially affected the result of the election. Courts below have found in favour of that and accordingly set aside the election of revision petitioner and declared respondent No.1 as duly elected. But of the 23 votes invalidated by the learned Munsiff, invalidation of votes of Pws.13 and 14 cannot stand which meant that invalidation made by the learned Munsiff can be only in respect of 21 votes (out of the 23 votes invalidated by the learned Munsiff). Even if those two votes are also added to the votes secured by the petitioner, it would only take his tally to 589 while respondent No.1 gets 601 votes. Even if the votes C.R.P. No.118 of 2010 -: 17 :- of Pws.6,9,13,14,22,24 and 27 (7 votes) invalidated by the learned Munsiff are also added to the votes secured by petitioner, his tally would only be 594 votes (587 +7) while respondent No.1 continues to have 601 votes. Thus even if the votes of Pws.6,9,13,14,22,24 and 27 are added to the votes secured by petitioner, his election cannot be sustained and respondent No.1 who still secured more votes than petitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4 has to be declared as elected. Thus the double voting has materially affected the result of election in favour of Petitioner as rightly found by the Courts below. I do not find reason to interfere with the decision of the first appellate court confirming the order of the Election Tribunal.
Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
(THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-