KAUSHILYA SAHU Vs. SAROJ YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PURSUANCE to the order issued by this Court dated 13.7.2012, the record of the Election Tribunal is produced in the sealed cover, which is perused.

(2.) THOUGH a return is filed by the respondent No. 1, but with the said return also nothing has been placed on record except the statements of witnesses recorded by the Election Tribunal. Not a single document is produced to show that at any point of time any complaint was made before the Polling Officer by the respondent No. 1 or her agent that the ballot papers were not containing the election symbol of the respondent No. 1.

(3.) ON a perusal of the entire record of the Election Tribunal, it is clear that evidence produced by the respondent No. 1 was in the cyclostyled manner as all the affidavits under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure contain the similar facts. In some places the figures are different which have been written by hand. The petitioner has cross examined some of those witnesses and has specifically put the question whether any complaint was made in writing with respect to the ambiguity of not containing the symbol of the respondent No. 1 election petitioner in the ballot paper. Answer to the said question is given that only an oral complaint was made. This shows that at no point of time, such an important aspect was not complained even when was available to the respondent No. 1 as no complaint in writing to that effect was made by the respondent No. 1. The Rule prescribes that if the objections are required to be raised, the same are required to be raised in writing and not otherwise. In view of this, the Election Tribunal fell in an error in holding that there was sufficient ground to hold that the recount of the vote is necessary.