MANPHUL SINGH versus SURINDER SINGH

Citation: [1975] 2 S.C.R. 680 · Decided: 11-11-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MANPHUL SINGH 
v. 
SURINDER SINGH 
November 11. 1974 
[H. R. KHANNA AND A. c. GUPTA, JJ.] 
Represenlat/011 of the People Act, 1951-When a [J(!rty could ask for i1~rpec-
1io11 of cou•t•~oi/s of ballot papers. 
The respondent in his election petition challenging the election of the appel-
lant alleged that a large number of votes were cast in favour of the appellant by 
impersonating dead and absentee voters and that in some cases some persons 
polled their votes twice or more than twice in favour of the returned candidate 
by registering themselves as \'oters at two or more places in the constituency. The 
respondent prayed for the production of the counterfoils of the ballot papers to 
prove the genuineness of the signatures of the voters. Before the High Court the 
appellant contended that the counterfoils should not be allowed to be produced 
unless a prlma facie case for inspection was made out. When the High Court 
allowed Ule inspection of two counterfolls of ballot papers to confirm the oral 
evidence of the witnesses that they had impersonated two voters by signing in the 
counterfoils the appellant came in appeal to this Court and the appeal was dis-
missed, This Court then pointed out that nothing could be clearer or moro rea• 
sonable than the procedure suggested by the petitioner and accepted by the High 
Court. After examining the evidence of the witne~s recorded then the High 
Court found prima facle that there had been impersonation in about 310 cases 
and allowed the petitioner to inspect the counterfoils of the ballot papers relat· 
ing to these voters. 
On appeal to this Court it was contended that the High Court did not apply 
its mind to judge the quality of evidence to see ·if there had been a prima facie 
case. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HEID : (I) In some cases the ends of justice would make it necessary for 
the Tribunal to allow a party to inspect the ballot papers and consider his objec· 
lions about the imJ?roper acceptance or improper rejection of votes ten?ered ~Y 
the voters at any given· election but care must be taken to see that election pcti" 
tioners do not get a chance to rnak.e a roving or fishing ~nquiry in the ballot boxes. 
The allegations in support of the prayer for inspection must not be vague or lnde· 
finite; they mllllt be supported by material facts and prayer made must be bona 
(ide one. [683F·G; 684A] 
Dr. Jagjit Singls v. Gian/ Kartar Singli, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 773, Shaslii Bhusha11 
v. Prof. Ba/raj Mad/wk and Ors. [1972] 2 S.C.R. 177 followed. 
( ;2) On the material before the Court it ~ould not be said that the .High Court 
acted arbitrarily in taking the view that it has taken. The High Court classified 
the various types of impersonation and came to the view that the evidence o( 
i\ 
c 
D 
E 
F 
these witnesses, if"unrebutted, would be sufficient to prove the allegation of im· 
G 
personation. This means that the High Court was satisfied that there was prima 
facle case and the ma~r required further inve9tigation. [6840-E] 
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 739 (NCE) 
of 1974. 
Auoeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated tho. 
4th February 1974 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CM! 
II 
Misc. Petn. No. 158-E of 1973 in Election Petn. No. 45 of 1972. 
R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwala and S. S. Blutt.nogar, for the appellant 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
MANPHUL v. SURJNDER (Gupta, I.) 
681 
Bakhtawar Singh Ch. MtJnmohan Singh, D. N. Mishra and /. B. 
Dadachanji, for ~ respondents . 
. The Judgment of the Oturt was delivered by . 
GUPTA, J.-In this appeal by special leave the appellant questions 
the propriety, of a~ order made by the High Court of Punjab and. 
Hary~na at Chandigarh in the course of trial of an election petition 
.allowmg the petitioner's experts to inspect the counterfoils of the· 
ballot pape~s of. voters who had been found by the Court "prima facie 
to have been impersonated". 
The facts leading to the order under appeal are briefly as follows. 
In the election held on March 11, 1972 the appellant Shri Manphul: 
Singh was elected to the Haryana: Vidhan Sabha from the Jhajjar 
Constituency defeating his only rival, Shri Surinder Singh, the res.-
pondent before us, by a m_argin of 265 votes. Shri Surinder Singh. 
referred to hereinafter as the petitioner, filed an election petition 
challenging the election of the returned candidate on various allegar-
tions of which the following are material for the present purpose : 
( 1 ) 28 vot

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