MAHENDER PRATAP versus KRISHAN PAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 339 · Decided: 22-11-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

MAHENDER PRATAP 
A 
V. 
KRISHAN PAL AND ORS 
NOVEMBER 22, 2002 
[M.B. SHAH AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
B 
Representation of the People Act, 1951: 
Ss.83 and JOO-False averments in election petition and verification 
thereof-Election petitiofl,--{]round that application for recounting of votes C 
wrongly rejected by Returning Officer-Inconsistency in averments made in 
application for recounting and election petition-Returning Officer endorsing 
on the application that it was filed after declaration of final results-Election 
petition containing averments that application was filed when 23rd round of 
counting was in progress-Elec1ion petition rejected by High Court-Held, D 
for making out a ground for recount, if intentional false averment is made in 
an election petition and the said averment is duly verified to be true as provided 
under s.83 then such election .petition could be rejected by the court- In 
election petitions for recount of votes a high standard of proof of grounds is 
required-Court allows an election petitior only on strict proof of one of the 
grounds prescribed in s.100--lt is only after the election petitioner is able to E 
demonstrate before the Court by leading satisfactory evidence that there was 
serious flaw in the counting procedure which had materially affected the 
result of election that the prayer for recount is generally allowed -
Where 
false facts are pleaded and false evidence is produced to mislead the court 
into interfering with the people's verdict of election, such misconduct has to p 
be viewed seriously and appropriate deterrent action like dismissal of the case 
with costs, prosecution for perjury or initiation for contempt proceedings 
should be taken by the court-This is a case in which despite the endorsement 
by the Returning Officer that application for recount was filed after results 
were declared, the election petitioner has tried to make out a point that it was 
filed prior to declaration of results-Petitioner's case is based on misleading G 
facts-Appeal dismissed with costs of rupees Twenty five thousand-Conduct 
of Election Rules, 1961-rr.56A and 63. 
Jee/ Mohinder Singh v. Harminder Singh Jassi, [1999) 9 SCC 386; 
Mahan/ Ram Prakash Dass v. Ramesh Chandra and Ors., [1999) 9 SCC 420 
339 
H 
340 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A and Jagat Kishore Prasad Narain Singh v. Rajendra Kumar Poddar and Ors., 
[19701 2 sec 411, referred to 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal No. 551 of 
2002. 
B 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.11.200 l of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in E.P. No. 6 of 2000. 
P.P. Rao, G. Balaji and G.K. Bansal for the Appellant. 
L. Naheshwar Rao, Ajay Chaudhary and Sanjay Bansal, Satpal Jain, 
C Randhir S. Jain, Dungainder Singh and Ms. Savita Singh for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
DHARMADHIKARI J. This is an appeal under Section 116 A of the 
Representation of People Act, 1951 [for short 'the Act'] against the judgment 
D dated 19 .11.200 l passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Election 
Petition No. 6 of 2000. 
E 
F 
G 
The appellant lost election to the Legislative Assembly seat for 
Constituency No 52, Mewala Maharajpur by a margin of 161 votes. 
The appellant filed an election petition seeking relief of recount 
of votes on the ground that serious irregularities were committed in 
counting of votes on electronic voting machines which were used in 
the above said election. 
The main grounds urged inter alia for seeking recount of votes 
are non-compliance with the provisions of rules 63 and 56A of the 
conduct of Election Rules, 1961 [hereinafter called as Rules]. It is 
pointed out from the record produced in the election petition that in 
some of the result sheets of counting, there are no signatures of 
counting supervisors and in some of them only names of counting 
agents of the candidates are mentioned but their signatures do not 
find place. It is also pointed out that in few result sheets, there are 
cuttings and over-writings. 
Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously argued 
that all these glaring illegalities committed in the course of counting of votes 
H have made out a strong case in favour of the appellant for grant of directions 
MAHENDERPRATAPv. KRISHANPAL [DHARMADHIKARJ,J.] 
341 
for recount of votes. 
A 
One of the important points urged in the election petition and pressed 
before use in this appeal is regarding the allege

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