JAI RAM SINGH Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) BY order dated 4.10.2002 the trial court directed the Returning Officer to submit the ballot boxes. Thereafter an application was filed by the election petitioner that the person who has produced the ballot box be examined, the ballot boxes be opened and the ballot papers be exhibited so that the true picture comes before the Court. The petitioner, after the order was passed for opening the ballot box lodged a protest and submitted that he be given 15 days time to challenge the matter before the High Court but the learned Munsif turned down the request and ordered that the ballot box be opened and if the order passed by him on the earlier occasion is set aside by the High Court then any evidence recorded shall become infructuous. Immediately thereafter P.W. Yogendra Prasad was examined and he exhibited the ballot papers of Booth No. 120 as exhibit Nos. 9 to 9/309 and his cross -examination was thereafter deferred.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the election petitioner/respondent submitted before me that on 4.10.2002 the petitioner conceded to the recount, therefore, at this stage the petitioner can not be allowed to raise the objection. I requested the learned counsel for the respondents to read any concession or admission made by the present petitioner. Unfortunately the order dated 4.10.2002 does not support the contention of the respondent, it simply is in relation to production of the ballot boxes. When the attention of the learned counsel for the respondent was drawn to last but one paragraph qf the order dated 10.10.2002 that a protest was raised by the present petitioner 'scounsel then he submitted that the Court was not unjustified in directing opening of the boxes because the Court was prima facie satisfied on the affidavit of the election petitioner that present was a case of opening the ballot box and exhibiting the document, however, thereafter he submitted that the Court did not open the ballot box and probably marked the sealed ballot box as exhibit. When his attention was drawn to the last paragraph of the order -sheet learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there appears to be some typographical mistake in that part of the order -sheet. He says that only two ballot boxes were exhibited. For the benefit of proper appreciation and understanding I would prefer to quote the last paragraph of the order -sheet. It reads as under : -