V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN versus P. J. FRANCIS AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 713 · Decided: 31-01-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

---
V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN 
A 
+ 
v. 
P.J. FRANCIS AND ANR. 
JANUARY 31, 2001 
[DR. A.S. ANAND CJ., R.C. LAHOTI AND 
B 
SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
Election Laws: 
Legislative Assembly election-Respondent declared elected-Election c 
petition filed by appellant alleging corrupt practices and non-observance of 
la11~Recount of ballot papers demanded-Making out a prima facie case-
Held, appellant failed to make out a prim a facie case for recount of votes 
[conduct of Election Rules, 1961-Rule 63(2)}. 
Appellant and Respondents I and 2 were the contesting candidates for D 
a Legislative Assembly constituency election. Respondent No. I was declared 
elected defeating the appellant by a margin of 1965 votes. The appellant filed 
·-,-
an election petition before High Court for declaring the election of the 
respondent void and declaring the appellant as elected on the ground that the 
respondent indulged in corrupt practices along with his counting agents and E 
election duty officials, improper reception of void votes and non-compliance 
of the Provisions of the Constitution and Representation of the People Act, 
1951. The High Court dismissed the election petition on the ground that the 
allegations in the petition did not disclose a cause of action warranting trial 
and re-count of ballots. In appeal, this Court remitted the case back to High F 
Court for trial on merits and affording the parties an opportunity of leading 
evidence. The High Court, after examining the witnesses and evidence, 
dismissed the election petition forming an opinion that no case for re-count 
of the ballot papers was made out by the appellant. Hence the appeal. 
The appellant contended that to make out a case for recount of ballots, G 
a 'primafacie' case was only required to be shown and not a 'good case' with 
;;;ii----
high degree of proof as held by the High Court. The appellant further 
contended that the following three facts, i.e., (i) the utilisation of 2100 excess 
ballot papers to the advantage of the respondent No. 1 by the Election 
Registration officer, who is known to have affiliation with the political party 
713 
H 
714 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS !2001] I S.C.R. 
A of respondent No. I, (ii) the number of polled ballots found to be in excess of 
-
the ballot papers issued to different polling stations and (iii) the finding of a 
+ 
number of parliamentary election ballot papers getting mixed up with 
legislative assembly ballot papers, were sufficient grounds for direction of a 
re-count of ballot papers. 
B 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I. I. The conduct of the parties in the High Court clearly 
-,.... 
suggests that the appellant himself entertained a doubt about the contents of 
the envelope containing ballot papers and apprehended that the envelope, if 
c 
opened, the contents thereof would falsify his own plea. There was no substance 
in the plea of the appellant that the envelope was not produced from a proper 
custody. On the evidence adduced, seen in the light of conduct of the appellant 
and the respondent No.I, no fault can be found with the finding arrived at by 
the High Court that neither the printing of the ballot papers in excess of the 
number of registered voters was contrary to any statutory provisions nor the 
D excess ballot papers were misused as alleged in the election petition. From 
the submission of the Election Registration officer that he was a member of 
Kerala Gazetted officers Union, which is sponsored by the political party of 
the respondent, it cannot be inferred that the Election Registration officer 
was helping respondent No. l by misusing excess ballot papers to the advantage 
.,. . 
of respondent No. I. Thus no case of any illegality or irregularity much less 
E the provisions of the Act or Rules made thereunder having been breached 
was made out.1720-G-H; 721-A-B-CI 
1.2. The court on appreciation of evidence found that the contention of 
the appellant that the figures of the votes issued and the votes found in the 
ballot box referring to a polling station as 729 and 828 respectively is factually 
F 
incorrect and therefore the plea of the appellant that the number of votes 
_II:.. 
found in that ballot box exceeded the number of votes issued at the polling 
station, therefore, falls to ground. The fact um of two votes found in excess 
each in the ballot boxes of two polling station is also immaterial. The variation 
is so marginal as not to have any material effect on the result of the 

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