Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

75. Based on the rival contentions and with the assistance of the contesting parties, this Court framed the following issues:

i) Whether the petitioner proves that 360 Postal Ballot Papers which were casted in favour of the respondent No. 1 needs to be rejected?
60
ii) Whether 301 Postal Ballot Papers which were casted in favour of the petitioner have been improperly rejected?
iii) Whether the petitioner proves that irregularities in Form 17C Part-I and Form 17C Part-II in respect of Poling Station No. 153, 196 and 208, wherein the Electronic Voting Machines (EVM) used on the counting day were never counted, which has materially affected the result of the Election?

106. He admits that in the year 2004, elections were conducted by using Electronic Voting Machine instead of physical ballot papers. He admits that electronic voting mechanism comprises viz., control unit, ballot unit and VVPAT and in all 215 polling stations electronic voting took place. He admits that every polling unit possesses a Unique Identification Number which is mentioned in Part I of Form 17C. Witness attention was drawn to Ex.P.22 and questioned that it is in respect of polling station No.153 an entry is made in Part I of Form 17C and similarly the entries made in Exs.P.23 and 24. Witness admitted the same.

113. The main submission on behalf of the petitioner is as under:

I. The main ground in the Election Petition by Election Petitioner is that, the votes recorded in Electronic Voting Machines (EVM) at Polling Station(s) No(s) 153, 196 and 208 have not been counted at all.
II. EVM contains three units namely Control Unit, Ballot Unit & VVPAT Unit and same is clearly and categorically stated in paragraph No. 24 of the Election Petition, which is admitted by the PW2 as well in his examination.