PARMATMA SINGH Vs. RAM LAKHAN SINGH YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for consideration is whether a witness (Viz. Nawal Kishore Singh, P. W. 3 in the instant case) should be allowed to give specific evidence that he was prevented by force from casting vote at the booth when his name does not appear in the election petition or in the schedule of the election petition as one of the voters, who are said to have been prevented by force from casting vote. In the election petition it has been alleged that respondent No. 1 committed corrupt practices and one of the corrupt practices said to have been committed by respondent No. 1 or his men is that the voters were prevented from casting vote. Paragraph A of Schedule VI of the election petition contains the list of eight villages whose entire voters are said to have been prevented from going to their booths and from casting vote. The village at Nawal Kishore Singh (P. W. 3), who is a resident of village Devi Asthan Chiraivatanr, is not one of those villages. Thus even the name of the village of this witness is not mentioned in paragraph A of the schedule of the election petition. Paragraph B of Schedule VI of the election petition contains names of the voters, who were prevented from casting their votes. There are nine such voters. Nawal Kishore Singh (P. W. 3) is not one of those voters. Thus there is nothing in the election petition or in its schedule to show that Nawal Kishore Singh (P. W. 3) was one of the voters who are said to have been prevented from casting vote.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the election petitioner submits that in Schedule IV of the election petition, which contains the details of the booths said to have been captured by respondent No. 1 and his men booth No. 100 where Nawal Kishore Singh (P. W. 3) had to cast vote is mentioned. The place where booth No. 100 was located is not stated in Schedule IV. What it shows is that one of booths was booth No. 100 and 836 votes were to be cast there and 700 votes were actually polled. This is the onlv information that is contained in Schedule IV regarding booth No. 100. Even if it be assumed that Nawal Kishore Singh (P. W. 3) had to cast his vote at booth No. 100, it cannot be inferred from these details given in Schedule IV that Nawal Kishore Singh (P. W- 3) had been prevented from going to booth No. 100 or had been prevented from casting his vote at booth No. 100.

(3.) Thus the question that arises for consideration is whether the election petitioner can legally be permitted to examine voters whose names are not given in the election petition as voters said to have been prevented by force from casting vote to say that they were prevented by respondent No. 1 or his men from casting vote. The learned counsel for the election petitioner submits that in the election petition names of only some of the voters, who were prevented from casting votes have been given by wav of illustration and therefore, the election petitioner can examine any number of voters in addition to the voters, whose names are mentioned in the election petition, to say that they were prevented from casting vote. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 submits that if voters not named in the election petition are also allowed to be examined on behalf of the election petitioner to say that they were prevented from casting votes, this will cause great prejudice to respondent No. 1 and he will be handicapped in his defence.