LexSUMITRA DEVI versus SHRI SHEO SHANKER PRASAD YADAV & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
920 SUMITRA DEVI v. SHRI SHEO SHANKER PRASAD YADAV & ORS. November 9, 1972 [A. N. GROVER, K. K. MATHEW AND A. K. MU!CHERJEA, JJ.J Election Petition-Appeal-This Court will not interfere with finding o; fact by High Court unless there Is grave or pulpable error-Principles for allowing inspection of ballot papers. The appellant challenges! the election of Respondent No. 1 to the Parliament at the 1971 General Election oo the ground that there were irregularities in the counting of votes. She asked for inspection of the ballot papers. The High Court disallowed the appltcation for inspection and dismissed the election petition. Jn appeal under s. 116-A oi the Representation of the People Act 1951, the appellant submitted (i) that the evidence of the witnesses examined by her proved the several illegalities committed in the counting of the ballot papers and (ii) that, in any event, the appellant's application for inspection should have been allowed. HELD : (i) The High Court had taken into consideration all the material circumstances and had appreciated the evidenc,e from the correct perspective. It has been the consistent practice of this Court not to mteriere with findings on questions of fact unless there is some grave or palpable error in the appreciation of the evidence on the basis of which the findings were arrived at. [922 E] Dr. Jagjit Singh v. Giani Kartar Singh and Others, A.LR. 1966 S.C. 773. referred to. (ii) The High Court was justified in rejecting the application for inspection. The allegations in the election petition w"re vague and the petition did not contain an adequate statement of the matrial facts. The evidence adduced by the appellant to prove the nllegations was found unreliable. No definite particulars were also given in the application for inspection as to the illegalities alleged to have been committed in the counting of the ballot papers. A recount will not be granted as a matter of right but only on the basis of evidence of good grounds for believing that there has been a mistake· in the counting. It has to be decided in each case whether a prima facie ground has been made out for ordering an inspection. [923 HJ Ram Sewak Yadav v. Bussrun Kami/ Kidwai and Others, [1964) 6 S.C.R. 238, 244, Dr. Jagjit Singh v. Giant Kartar Sing~ and Others, A.LR. [19661 S.C. 773, 783 and Jllendra Bahadur Singh v. Krishna Bebari and Othtrs .. [1970] 1 S.C.R. 8S2, applied. Bhim Stn v. Gosa/I, [1960) 22 Election Law Reports, 288. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : C.A. No. 1015 of 1972. Appeal under s. 116-A of the R.P. Act 1951, from the judg- tnent and order dated March 8, 1972 of the Patna High Court in Election Petition No. 2 of 1971. D. V. Patel and U. P. Singh for the appellant, J. P. ·Goyal, S)!Qma Prasad Mukherjee and R. A. Gupta, for respondent No. 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MATHEW, J. This is an appeal under s. 116-A. of the Represen-· fation of the People Act, 1951, from a judgment of the High G R A B c D E F G H SUMITRA DEVI v. s. s. PRASAD (Mathew, J.) 921 Court of Patna, by which the High Court dismissed the petition oi the appellant for setting aside the election of Respondent No. 1 as a Member of Parliament from 31-Khagaria Parliamentary Constituency, in the election held in March, 1971, and to declare the appellant as the duly elected member from the aforesaid constituency. According to the elec~ion programme, the nominations were to be filed from January 27, 1971 to February 3, 1971; they were to be scrutinized on February 4, 1971 ; poll; if necessary was to be taken on March 5, 1971; the ballot papers were to be counted on March 10, 1971 and the result of the election was to be dec· lared on March 11, 1971. It was in pursuance to this programme that the appella11t ·and Respondent No. I., along ·with 10 other candidates, filed their nomination papers. Two of the candidates subsequently withdrew and the contest was among the remaining candidates. The poll was held on March 5, 1971. The counting of the ballot papers took place on March I 0, 1971. The res- pcndent No. 1 obtained 73,594 votes and the appellant, 73,046. So, Respondent No. I was declared elected by the Returning Officer. The appellant challenged the election of respondent No. 1 in her petition on the following allegations : There was no proper lighting arrangement in the segments where the votes were counted and ther
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.