G ANITHA Vs. BEENA KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE candidate who was returned from Ward No. 21 of palkulangara Division of Corporation of Kollam in the election held on 25. 9. 2000 is the revision petitioner. Her election was set aside by the election Tribunal-the Munsiff, Kollam whose order was confirmed in appeal by the District Court, Kollam.

(2.) THE contest was a direct one between the revision petitioner, a candidate sponsored by the Left Democratic Front and the first respondent, a U. D. F. candidate. THE election was conducted with the aid of electronic voting machine. At the conclusion of the election, going by the statistics given by the officials, the revision petitioner secured 1465 votes and the first respondent secured 1469 votes. Out of the total postal ballots which were counted, the revision petitioner secured 9 votes more while the first respondent got only 5 votes. Final tabulation resulted in a tie, each candidate securing 1474 votes. THE second respondent-Returning Officer resolved the issue by draw of lots which favoured the revision petitioner.

(3.) THE learned Munsiff framed as many as 20 issues for trial. Oral evidence on the side of the election petitioner consisted of testimonies of P. ws. 1 to 17 and documents-Exts. A1 to A3 while on the side of the revision petitioner, the same consisted of D. Ws. 1 to 12 and Exts. X1 to x29. On an initial consideration of the matter, the learned Munsiff found that out of the total number of votes cast, 10 votes were void, 8 votes by personation and 2 votes including the vote of Chandra Babu (Serial. No. 1076)by double voting. Noticing that these void votes had materially affected the result of the election, the learned Munsiff ordered decoding of these votes for the purpose of eliminating the void votes. Recoding was not done in respect of the vote of Serial No. 1076, Chandra Babu which was subject matter of the recrimination petition on the reason that recrimination petitioner (revision petitioner) did not take steps to bring the electronic voting machine used in that polling station. Finally when the 9 votes were decoded, it was found that 4 votes were cast in favour of the election petitioner and 5 in favour of the revision petitioner. Consequently, the 4 votes were deducted from the account of the election petitioner and 5 from the account, of the election petitioner and 5 from the account of the revision petitioner. On the tabulation prepared by the Returning Officer, the result was that the election petitioner secured 1470 valid votes as against 1469 valid votes secured by the revision petitioner. Accordingly, the Munsiff declared the election petitioner as elected after setting aside the election of the revision petitioner.