PRITHVI SINGH AZAD Vs. AJAIB SINGH SINDHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred from the order of the learned Election Tribunal, ambala, D/- 14-5-1964, dismissing the election petition filed by Shri Prithvi Singh azad questioning the election of Shri Ajaib Singh the successful candidate to the punjab Legislative Assembly from the Morinda constituency. The polling in question took place on 24-2-1962 and the result of the election was declaration on 26-2-1962. On the counting Ajaib Singh secured 19,592 votes and Pirthvi Singh 19,320. There were also two other contesting candidates but were are not concerned with them in the present proceedings.

(2.) THE election of the Ajaib Singh was challenged on a number of grounds, including improper acceptance of his votes and also improper rejection of the petitioners appellant's votes; wrong inclusion of the petitioners appellants ballot appears in those of the respondent and also wrong exclusion of the former's ballot papers from his count. In addition, allegations of corrupt practice of undue influence have been made: in the present appeal, at this stage, however, so far as this charge goes, we are only concerned with the quest whether the publication of four posters, Exhibits P. 1, P. 5, P. 11 and P. 12 fall within the mischief of S. 123

(3.) OF the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act), and vitiate the impugned election. (3) A request was also made to the Tribunal for a recount of the votes which was allowed and after inspection of the ballot boxes and recount, it was discovered that several hundred ballot papers were missing from the ballot boxes. That they were so found missing when inspected in the Tribunal is common ground and has not been disputed by the parties before us. The controversy in this Court on this point has, however been confined within a narrow compass. The appellant has emphatically stressed that the fact of missing ballot papers on the existing material on the record must be held to be imputable or traceable to the misconduct of the officers deputed to count the votes polled at the election; support for this submission has been sought from the conclusion of the learned tribunal that no pilfering of ballot papers was shown to have occurred during the inspection of the ballot boxes in pursuance of its order and also from the contention that the ballot boxes after they were sealed by the election officers are shown to have been kept in property and safer official custody where there was no reasonably chance of being tampered with. Emphasis has been laid on behalf of the appellant that he had during the counting process ventilated his grievance in regard to the impartial and honest counting of the ballot papers and had indeed also claimed a recount which was erroneously disallowed by the Returning Officer.