BANAMALI DAS versus RAJENDRA CHANDRA MARDARAJ HARICHANDAN & ORS.

Citation: [1976] 1 S.C.R. 212 · Decided: 01-08-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

212 
BANAMALI DAS 
v. 
RAJENDRA CHANDRA MARDARAJ HARICHANDAN & ORS. 
August 1, 1975 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, P. N. BHAGWATI AND R. S. SARKARIA, JJ.] 
Representation of the People Act 1951-Sections 64 (Ind 169-Conduct of 
Election Rules, 1')61-Rule 56(7)-Recount when to 
be 
ordered-Evidence 
Act-Sections 74 and 17-Proof of Public documents. 
Six candiPates contested the mid·term election to the Orissa Legislative 
Assembly from Nilgiri Constituency. The appellant was declared elected by a 
margin of 49 votes over respondent no. 1. 
Respondent No. 1 filed an Election 
Petition challengEng the election of the appellant and praying that instead of tne 
appellant he should be declared as the .successful candidate. 'fhe appellant's 
election was challenged by respondent no. 1 mainly on the ground that through 
an error the returning officer did not enter the results of the second round of 
counting on table No. 13 in Form No. 20 as prescribed by rule 56(7 J of the 
Conduct of Election Rules 19.61. 
The allegation was that the results of the 
second round of counting on table No. 14 were erroneously enter<.!d twice in 
form No. 20, once against as the second round of table No. 14 and once aga!nst 
the second round of table ~o. 1_3. During the hearing of the petition, the learned 
Judge enquired whether the parties were agreeable to a recount being taken of 
aH ballot papers. Counsel appearing for appelJant and respondents Nos. 1 and 
2 agreed to the course suggested by the learned Judge. Respondents Nos. 3 to 
5 did not appear at the trial. After the recount was taken the Depu!y Regif.trar 
submitted a detailed report which was made a part of the record of the Court. 
Section 64 of the Act provides that in ~very election where a pol.l is taken 
votes shall be counted by or under the supervision of the returning officer and 
each contesting candidate.., his election agent and counting a_~ent shall have a right 
to be present at the time of eounting Section 169 of the Act .empowers the Cen..; 
tral Govt. after consultation with the El-ection Commission to make rules for 
carrying out the ur.r?lcses of the Act. 
Rule 56 (7) of the Conduct of Election 
Rules 1961 provides that after the L:OUniing of all ballot papers contained in all 
the liaHot boxes used in a constituency has been comDleted the n~turning ctlicer 
shall make the entries in a result sheet 'in form No. 20 and announce the parti-
culars. The Elect~-011 Commission has com!)iled a hand-book for the use of the 
returning officers in order to avoid errors in counting of votes. Para 14-B in 
chapter VIII of th~ hand-book directs that the officer in charge of distribution 
of the ballot papers for counting should take out sufficient number of bundles 
from the drums so &s to make up 1000 ballot papers and distribute them to each 
table for counting at each round. After the counting of every such 1000 ballot 
paper<; is over the bundles are given back to the supervisor of the conntlng table 
with the Check :\femo duly filled in and signed bv the Assistant. 
The form of 
the check memo is at Annexure XII-A and a sample form is at Annexure XII-B 
of the handbook. The original check memo of the 13th table in which the results 
of the second round \Vas entered was not produced during the trial but a 
cert~­
fied copy thereof v.r..s admitted in eVidence. 
The appellant objected to its ad-
missibility. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : The certified C01'V of the check memo is admissible in evidence. 
Under section i 4 of the Evidence Act. documents forming acts or records of the 
act<; of public officers are public documents. By section 77. such certified. ccpies 
may be produced in proof of the contents of the documents of ·.vhich they pur-
ported to be cof)ies. The check memo is a document form£.ng records of the acts 
of a public officer and, therefore, a ·certified covy thereof given by the Collector 
in whose custody the document is kept can be admitted in eviden~e in riroof of 
the ccnten1s of the original document. [216A-Dl 
·A 
I~ 
][) 
E 
• 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
• 
F 
G 
H 
BANAMALI DAS v. RAJENDRA (Chandmchud, !.) 
213 
In form No. 20 votes secured by the various candidates in the second rcund 
oi counting on tr.ble 13 was wrongly mentioned. Whereas the apriellant had 
se1..1.ucd 21 votes only in the second round of counting on table No. 13. the final 
result sheet form No. 20 showed that he had secured 144 votes and whereas res-
pondent No. 1 had secured 86 votes he 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.