NIRANJAN LAL GUPTA Vs. GURMEET SINGH BAWEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IA No. 18992/2011 (u/O 39 R.1&2 CPC)

(2.) The suit has been contested and the application opposed by defendants No. 3 to 5, though Written Statement is yet to be filed by them.

(3.) The dispute between the parties is with respect to 08 postal ballots for the post of President and 08 postal ballots for the post of Vice President (North Zone). The ballot box containing all the ballot papers was opened in the Court on 2nd December, 2011 in presence of the parties after they had seen the paper seals on it and satisfied themselves that there was no tampering with the box or the lock put on it. Ballot papers in question were taken out and were examined in the Court. It appears to me that on 07 out of 08 ballot papers for the post of President, initially, the tick mark was put against the name of plaintiff No.1 but later on that tick mark was erased and another tick mark against the name of defendant No.4 was put. It also appears that on all the disputed ballot papers for the post of Vice President (North Zone) the voter had initially put tick mark against the name of plaintiff No.2 but later on that tick mark was erased and another tick mark was put against the name of defendant No.5. There can be two possibilities with respect to erasing of the tick marks initially put on these ballot papers and putting of other tick mark on them. The first possibility and which I feel is more likely is that someone who had access to the envelopes in which these ballot papers were sent by the voters, erased the marks which were initially put on them and put another mark against the name of defendant No.4 on the ballot papers for the post of President and against the name of defendant No.5 for the post of Vice-President (North Zone). To my mind, it is unlikely to be a mere coincidence that at least 08 voters who are casting votes from different places would conduct themselves in an identical manner by erasing the tick mark initially put by them and putting another mark against the name of the other candidate. Prima facie it appears to me that these ballot papers have been tempered with after they were dispatched by the voters. This obviously would have been done in connivance with the winning candidates, they being the only beneficiary of the tempering. The next question, which comes up for consideration is as to whether, at this stage, the Court should direct counting of the ballot papers in favour of the plaintiff or should direct re-election, on account of this tempering.