1994 PLP 446 (SCMR)

(3) Whether Mr. Ambati Biahanaiah and his close relative trespassed into Polling Station No.104 and rigged the votes by stamping on. ballot papers in favour of the first respondent? (4) Whether Mr. Ambati Brahmanaiah and his relatives have impersonated 22 dead persons and 241 voters residing in far‑off places by affixing their thumb impressions on the conterfoils of the ballot papers? (5) Whether the sixth respondent has improperly rejected ten postal ballot-papers on the ground that they were not put into two separate covers? (6) Whether the sixth respondent has counted as many as 500 ballot papers which did not contain the signatures of the Presiding Officers? (7) Whether the sixth respondent has declared the results without giving time for the petitioner to demand for recount in writing? (8) Whether the percentage of votes polled in Polling Stations Nos. 59, 104 and 112 is more than 90% ? (9) If so, whether the sixth respondent is under an obligation to keep aside the ballot papers and the ballot pager accounts of the said polling stations? (10) Whether the result of the election has been materially affected by improper reception of 500 invalid votes in favour of the first respondent, improper rejection of 100 ballot papers and 10 postal ballot paper polled in favour of the fifth respondent and by improper reception of 263 ballot papers in favour of the first respondent pertaining to Polling Station No. 104?

3. The appellant‑petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and further examined P.W. 4 to P.W.10 before the High Court in support of his allegations. He also produced documentary evidence. The High Court discussed in detail the evidence of the witnesses produced by the parties. On appreciation of the evidence the High. Court decided Issues 1 to 4 against the respondent/ petitioner.

4. Issues 5 to 7 and 10 concern the irregularities allegedly committed during the counting of the votes. The High Court came to the conclusion that neither the contesting candidates nor any of their counting agents made any complaint before the Returning Officer during the course of the counting or thereafter. No objection of any kind was raised by any candidate regarding the counting. In the election petition various allegations were made with the sole object of making a fishing enquiry. The High Court, believing the testimony of the Returning Officer and other official witnesses came to the conclusion that no illegality or irregularity was committed in the counting of the votes.

5. On Issue No. 8 the High Court came to the conclusion that the votes polled at Polling Stations No. 59,104 and 112 were more than 90% but the said polling did not materially affect the result of the election.

6. On Issue No.9 the High Court held that the Returning Officer was under no obligation to keep aside the ballot papers/ballot papers account of e the polling stations since more than 90% polling was only in four polling stations.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Krishanmurty Iyer, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has taken us through the judgment of the High Court and other relevant material on the record. He has not been able to point out any infirmity in the appreciation of evidence by the High Court. We agree with the reasoning and the conclusions reached by the High Court in dismissing the election petition. We therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs. M.BA./436/FC. Appeal dismissed.