RAJANKUMAR SHANKARRAO TAWARE AND ANR. versus AJIT ANANTRAO PAWAR

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 640 · Decided: 20-03-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAJANKUMAR SHANKARRAO TAWARE AND ANR. 
v. 
AJIT ANANTRAO PAWAR 
MARCH 20, 2002 
B 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
Election Laws: 
Representation of People Act, 1951-Section lOO(J)(d)(iii)-Election-
C Respondent won by huge margin-Shifting of ballot boxes without informing 
the contesting candidates-Appellants alleging the motive for shifting is for 
replacing genuine ballot papers with fake ones-Demand for inspection of 
ballot papers alleging various other irregularities-Held, on facts and in th~ 
absence of evidence, the r;ippellants have failed to establish a prima facie 
. D case for inspection of ballot papers. 
Appellants, one a voter and the other a counting agent of the defeated 
candidate, challenged the election of respondent from an assembly 
constituency before High Court alleging commission of malpractices in 
counting of votes under Section lOO(l)(d)(iii) of the Representation of the 
E People Act, 1951. The appellants alleged that after the polling, the ballot boxes, 
which were kept in a High School initially, were later shifted to a Recreation 
Hall by Returning Officer without informing the contesting candidates; that 
the Recreation Hall is adjacent to the premises controlled by the family of 
the respondent; that the shifting was done with the oblique motive for 
F replacing genuine ballot papers with fake ones; that during the counting of 
votes, it was noticed that in the majority of the ballot papers the signatures 
of the Presiding Officers in various polling booths were similar in character; 
and in some ballot papers, the signature of the Presiding Officer was missing; 
and that the Returning Officer refused to accept the complaint made by the 
appellants for scrutiny and verification of the ballot papers. The High Court 
G dismissed the election petition. 
H 
In appeal to the Court, the appellants besides raising the above 
contentions, submitted that since the ballot papers without the signature of 
the Presiding Officers were found in a booth, they may be allowed to inspect 
the ballot boxes in other polling booths to find out whether there was such 
640 
RAJANKUMAR SHANKARRAO TA WARE v. AJIT ANANTRAO PA WAR 
641 
omission by the Presiding Officers in other booths. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. The shifting of the collection centre was done for safe 
custody of the ballot boxes. In the evidence, it has come out that there was 
heavy rain, and rainwater surrounded the High School Apprehending that B 
the High School area might be flooded, the Returning Officer rightly shifted 
the collection centre. It is the responsibility of the Returning Officer to keep 
the ballot boxes in safe custody. The contention of the appellants that no notice 
was given to the contesting candidates is contrary to evidence on record. In 
absence of the evidence of defeated candidate, the contention of the appellants C 
can not be accepted. [645-G; 646-G] 
1.2. The appellants have not adduced any evidence to support the 
allegation that an attempt was made by the respondent or any member of 
his family to substitute the ballot papers in the ballot boxes. The finding of 
the High Court that it would not be possible to substitute ballot papers during D 
the period the boxes were kept at Recreation Hall and that it was a fertile 
imagination of the witnesses is correct. [646-D] 
1.3. From the report of the Returning Officer, the contention of the 
appellants that the Returning Officer refused to accept the complaint for E 
scrutiny and verification of the ballot papers is not correct. No prayer was 
made by the defeated candidate or any counting agent for recount. [647-D] 
1.4. The finding of the High Court that only some ballot papers were 
found without the signature of the Presiding Officer and that it would not 
materially affect the result of the election since the respondent won by a huge F 
margin is correct. The ballot papers were counted and the Returning Officer 
has recorded in his order that there was no objection by the counting agents. 
(647-E] 
The contention that the signature of the Presiding Officers in various G 
polling booths on the ballot papers appeared to be of similar character is not 
accepted since not a single counting agent raised any objection in writing 
before the Returning Officer. In the report of the Returning Officer, it was 
recorded that he verified the signatures and was satisfied that the objection 
raised was unfounded. In the absence of evidenc

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