Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

76. Furthremore, O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 6 in their objection have also suggested that the discrepancy of 24 votes must have happened due to possible human error on the part of Presiding Officer of Polling Booth No. 37 in preparing the Exhibit 4/G which contained details of votes polled as on the date of polling on Booth No 37. This proposition is not tenable because the details of votes for polling booth no. 37 have also been accepted by the Returning Officer (O.P. No. 9) in the VTR Exhibit- 2/A which was also prepared on the date of polling. Moreover, none of the witnesses discussed above have stated of any irregularity on polling Booth No. 37 on the date of polling. Further AW2 has also categorically stated about preparation of Exhibit 4/G by the presiding officer at polling booth no. 37 on the date of polling. Moreover, the total number of votes as per Exhibit 4/G matches completely with the another vital document of the election process ie. Voters' Register for polling Booth No. 37 (Exhibit 5/G) which contains entries of 496 voters only. All these factors suggest that Presiding Officer of polling Booth No. 37 has not erred. In such a scenario, the Presiding Officer cannot be held liable for discrepancy of 24 votes.

87. The documentary evidence invariably suggests that there has been improper reception of 24 votes. It must also be noted here that the exhibited documents which have been referred in this case are not the private documents of parties but these are document of Election Authorities and were duly brought on record. The most incredible aspect of the matter here is that number of votes recorded in the EVM at the time of Patna High Court CWJC No.3937 of 2024 dt.07-07-2025 counting is found to be 24 more than the total number of votes polled as on the date of polling. Also, these extra unaccounted 24 votes find no corroboration with the Voter's Register (Exhibit 5/G) or with Annexure XII which pertains to Votes Recorded in EVM (Part -1) (Exhibit 4/G). This increment of 24 votes by no means appears to be an outcome of an inadvertent human error, and, the possibility of error on the part of Presiding Officer of Polling Booth No. 37 has already been ruled out in the discussions held above (in para 76). Rather it is manifestly a fault on the part of Authorities responsible for conducting of free and fair election and counting of votes which has resulted in a possible undue advantage in favour of the O.P. No. 1. and a possible undue disadvantage for the Election Petitioner as these 24 votes had the potential of swinging the final outcome of the election either in favour of Election Petitioner or in favour of O.P. No. 1. In view of aforesaid discussion, it cannot be said the elections for the post Mukhiya of Bhetaura Gram Panchayat, Tankuppa Prakhand, Gaya were conducted in free and fair manner and therefore the whole process of election of Mukhiya for Bhetaura Gram Panchayat stands vitiated. And it goes without saying that the faults and serious lapses on the part of Returning Officer should not result in benefitting any of the contesting candidates. And therefore, it unerringly suggests that the Returning Officer did not act fairly and that there has been serious faults and error on part of Returning Officer in conducting the elections in a fair manner and its counting process. Also, the faults on the part of authorities responsible for conduction of free and fair elections which has had the effect of benefitting the Returned Candidate would fly in the face of fairness of election process from the standpoint of Election Petitioner who is standing at the margin of only 12 votes Patna High Court CWJC No.3937 of 2024 dt.07-07-2025 when the total number of improperly received votes are

(ii) Further, this ground taken by learned counsel for the petitioner is also devoid of merit in light of the finding of fact already recorded by the Election Tribunal in paragraph-76 and 87 of the impugned judgment and order dated 08.01.2024. Paragraph 76 and 87 are quoted herein below for needful.

"76. Furthermore, O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 6 in their objection their objection have also suggested that the discrepancy of 24 votes must have happened due to possible human error on the part of Presiding Officer of Polling Booth No. 37 in preparing the Exhibit 4/G which contained details of votes polled as on the date of polling on Booth No 37. This proposition is not tenable because the details of votes for Patna High Court CWJC No.3937 of 2024 dt.07-07-2025 polling booth no. 37 have also been accepted by the Returning Officer (O.P. No. 9) in the VTR Exhibit-2/A which was also prepared on the date of polling. Moreover, none of the witnesses discussed above have stated of any irregularity on polling Booth No. 37 on the date of polling. Further AW2 has also categorically stated about preparation of Exhibit 4/G by the presiding officer at polling booth no. 37 on the date of polling. Moreover, the total number of votes as per Exhibit 4/G matches completely with the another vital document of the election process ie. Voters' Register for polling Booth No. 37 (Exhibit 5/G) which contains entries of 496 voters only. All these factors suggest that Presiding Officer of polling Booth No. 37 has not erred. In such a scenario, the Presiding Officer cannot be held liable for discrepancy of 24 votes.

87. The documentary evidence invariably suggests that there has been improper reception of 24 votes. It must also be noted here that the exhibited documents which have been referred in this case are not the private documents of parties but these are document of Election Authorities and were duly brought on record.

The most incredible aspect of the matter here is that number of votes recorded in the EVM at the time of counting is found to be 24 more than the total number of votes polled as on the date of polling. Also, these extra unaccounted 24 votes find no corroboration with the Voter's Register (Exhibit 5/G) or with Annexure XII which pertains to Votes Recorded in EVM (Part -1) (Exhibit 4/G). This increment of 24 votes by no means appears to be an outcome of an inadvertent human error, and, the possibility of error on the part of Presiding Officer of Polling Booth No. 37 has already been ruled out in the discussions held above (in para 76). Rather it is manifestly a fault on the part of Authorities responsible for conducting of free and fair election and counting of votes which has resulted in a possible undue Patna High Court CWJC No.3937 of 2024 dt.07-07-2025 advantage in favour of the O.P. No. 1. and a possible undue disadvantage for the Election Petitioner as these 24 votes had the potential of swinging the final outcome of the election either in favour of Election Petitioner or in favour of O.P. No.