TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1954 (5) TMI 37
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Chand 1768 3. They were arrayed in the election petition as respondents Nos. 1 to 5 respectively. The first respondent having secured the highest number of votes was declared duly elected. Three electors filed a petition under section 81 of the Representation of the People Act (Act XLIII of 1951) praying that the election of the returned candidate be declared void and that respondent No. 2 be declared to have been duly elected; in the alternative, that the election be declared wholly void. The election was sought to be set aside on the grounds, inter alia, that the nomination of respondent No. 4 was improperly accepted by the Election Officer and that the result of the election was thereby materially affected. The Tribunal found that respondent No. 4, whose name was entered on the electoral roll of Gahmar Constituency Ghazipur (South East) 'personated' (meaning, passed himself off as) Dudh Nath Kahar and used the entries of his electoral roll of Baruin Constituency Ghazipur (South West), that the Returning Officer had improperly accepted his nomination, and that the result of the election was thereby materially affected. Allegations of major and minor corrupt practices an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isions of sections 33 and 36 that this is not a case of improper acceptance of the nomination paper, because prima facie the nomination paper was valid and an objection having been raised but not pressed or substantiated, the Returning Officer had no option but to accept it. There was, as he says, nothing improper in the action of the Returning Officer. On the contrary, it may, according to him, be more appropriately described as a case of an acceptance of an improper nomination paper by the Returning Officer, inasmuch as the nomination paper contained an inherent defect which was not discernible ex facie and could be disclosed only upon an enquiry and upon the taking of evidence as to the identity which was not then forthcoming. Such a case, it is argued, is not covered by section 100(1)(c) but by section 100(2)(c) in which case the election of the returned candidate is alone to be declared void, whereas in the former case the election is wholly void. We do not propose to express any opinion upon this aspect of the matter, as in our view the appeal can be disposed of on the second question. 5. Section 33 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, deals with the presentation o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is as follows :- "No election shall be declared invalid by reason of a non-compliance with the rules contained in the first schedule to this Act, or any mistake in the use of the forms in the second schedule to this Act, if it appears to the Tribunal having cognizance of the question that the election was conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the body of this Act, and that such non-compliance or mistake did not affect the result of the election." 7. This section indicates that an election is not to be declared invalid if it appears to the Tribunal that non-compliance with statutory rules or any mistake in the use of such forms did not affect the result of the election. This throws the onus on the person who seeks to uphold the election. The language of section 100(1)(c), however, clearly places a burden upon the objector to substantiate the objection that the result of the election has been materially affected. On the contrary under the English Act the burden is placed upon the respondent to show the negative, viz., that the result of the decision has not been affected. This view was expressed in Rai Bahadur Surendra Narayan Sinha v. Amulyadhone Roy....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petitioner must prove by affirmative evidence, though it is difficult, that the result had been materially affected. 11. The learned counsel for the respondents concedes that the burden of proving that the improper acceptance of a nomination has materially affected the result of the election lies upon the petitioner but he argues that the question can arise in one of three ways : (1) where the candidate whose nomination was improperly accepted had secured less votes than the difference between the returned candidate and the candidate securing the next highest number of votes, (2) where the person referred to above secured more votes, and (3) where the person whose nomination has been improperly accepted is the returned candidate himself. 12. It is agreed that in the first case the result of the election is not materially affected because if all the wasted votes are added to the votes of the candidate securing the highest votes, it will make no difference to the result and the returned candidate will retain the seat. In the other two cases it is contended that the result is materially affected. So far as the third case is concerned it may be readily conceded that such would....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lity the same or different." 14. In both the cases the margin of votes between the successful candidates and the next highest candidate was less than the number of votes secured by the candidate whose nomination was improperly accepted. They held that the result was materially affected. We are unable to accept the soundness of this view. It seems to us that where the margin of votes is greater than the votes secured by the candidate whose nomination paper had been improperly accepted, the result is not only materially not affected but not affected at all; but where it is not possible to anticipate the result as in the above mentioned cases, we think that the petitioner must discharge the burden of proving that fact and on his failure to do so, the election must be allowed to stand. 15. The Tribunal in the present case rightly took the view that they were not impressed with the oral evidence about the probable fate of votes wasted on Dudh Nath Singh, but they went on to observe : "Considering that Dudh Nath respondent No. 4 received more votes than the margin of votes by which respondent No. 1 was returned we are constrained to hold that there was reasonable possibilit....