Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The application was opposed by the respondent who denied the several allegations. He contended that there were a large number of invalid votes, that the returning Officer had followed Rules 50 to 57 of the Conduct of Election Rules, and before rejecting any ballot paper he took care to see that the counting agent of each party was allowed to be present, that neither the petitioner nor his agent raised any protest against such rejection, and that in the absence of any such protest, either oral or written, the petitioner shall not be permitted to raise such a plea. The returning Officer correctly and validly rejected the votes as invalid, and the allegation that the votes were rejected to the detriment of the petitioner in the manner alleged was incorrect. It was contended that as the system of marking votes was a new one and as several of the voters were illiterate, a good number of votes had to be declared invalid. There was no partiality by any member of the staff in invalidating any ballot paper, as the duty of giving reasonable opportunity for inspection of the doubtful ballot papers was cast not on them but upon the returning officer, who rejected them in accordance with the Rules.

20. P. W. 9 who was one of the counting agents for the petitioner, deposed that votes were invalidated without showing them to the counting agents, and that on their asking the officers to show the reasons, they were asked to see on board and in newspapers, and not to ask them further. He did not state that he raised any protest to the wrongful invalidation of the votes. The evidence of P. W. 10 is to the effect that the counting agents protested that the invalidated votes were fit to be counted for P. W. 1, and could not be invalidated, that on their representation the returning officer looked and validated some voles for P. W. 1 and that if the mark was not put towards P. W. 1's symbol fully, the vote was invalidated. In cross-examination he stated that he did not go to the returning officer, nor could he give the name of the counting officer to whom he complained. The evidence of this witness must be rejected as it is contrary to the evidence of the other two witnesses, P. Ws. 1 and 9. Evidently, realising the lacuna, they made him (P. W. 10) depose that he raised an objection.

21. P. W. 11 stated that if the impression of the mark put by a voter fell on the other side at the time of folding the ballot paper, the vote was being invalidated, and that number of invalid votes of the respondent were taken as valid. He further deposed that about 150 votes of the respondent were taken as valid, while 60 or 70 votes of P. W. 1 were invalidated wrongly. In cross-examination he stated that the note prepared by him on the date of counting was not brought by him, that he did not give the note to P. W. 1, that he orally told the number of votes invalidated, and that he did not complain to the returning officer, but only told P. W. 1 when he saw him in the hall. Whether He gave a petition or not, he could not say. This evidence cannot be accepted for many reasons. He evidently prepared a note at the time counting was done, which would have thrown light on the truth of the petitioner's case, but it was not exhibited. We do not believe that he does not remember whether he presented a petition or not to the returning officer. This kind of evidence is absolutely of no value. Further, even if his evidence is to be accepted, his case is that it is only 60 or 70 votes of the petitioner that were invalidated. Thus the evidence on behalf of the petitioner in this respect has not impressed us, and it must be rejected.

22. The respondent examined as R. W. 1 deposed that the candidates were sitting near the R. D. O's (returning officer's) table, and were checking the invalidated votes, that the R. D. O. was measuring with scale to know the distance between the marks put by voters on ballot papers, and that no doubtful vote was invalidated improperly. His evidence has not been shaken in cross-examination. Very curiously it was not even suggested to him that any of the counting agents of the petitioner filed a petition or at least protested against the votes af the petitioner being invalidated.