# MANPHUL SINGH v. SURINDER SINGH November 11. 1974

- **Citation:** [1975] 2 S.C.R. 680
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1972-03-11
- **Bench:** H. R. Khanna, A. c. GUPTA
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/manphul-singh-v-surinder-singh-november-11-1974-6212
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Represenlat/011 of the People Act, 1951-When a [J(!rty could ask for i1~rpec1io11 of cou•t•~oi/s of ballot papers.
The respondent in his election petition challenging the election of the appellant alleged that a large number of votes were cast in favour of the appellant by
impersonating dead and absentee voters and that in some cases some persons
polled their votes twice or more than twice in favour of the returned candidate
by registering themselves as \'oters at two or more places in the constituency. The
respondent prayed for the production of the counterfoils of the ballot papers to
prove the genuineness of the signatures of the voters. Before the High Court the
appellant contended that the counterfoils should not be allowed to be produced
unless a prlma facie case for inspection was made out. When the High Court
allowed Ule inspection of two counterfolls of ballot papers to confirm the oral
evidence of the witnesses that they had impersonated two voters by signing in the
counterfoils the appellant came in appeal to this Court and the appeal was dismissed, This Court then pointed out that nothing could be clearer or moro rea•
sonable than the procedure suggested by the petitioner and accepted by the High
Court. After examining the evidence of the witne~s recorded then the High
Court found prima facle that there had been impersonation in about 310 cases
and allowed the petitioner to inspect the counterfoils of the ballot papers relat·
ing to these voters.
On appeal to this Court it was contended that the High Court did not apply
its mind to judge the quality of evidence to see ·if there had been a prima facie
case.
Dismissing the appeal,
HEID : (I) In some cases the ends of justice would make it necessary for
the Tribunal to allow a party to inspect the ballot papers and consider his objec·
lions about the imJ?roper acceptance or improper rejection of votes ten?ered ~Y
the voters at any given· election but care must be taken to see that election pcti"
tioners do not get a chance to rnak.e a roving or fishing ~nquiry in the ballot boxes.
The allegations in support of the prayer for inspection must not be vague or lnde·
finite; they mllllt be supported by material facts and prayer made must be bona
(ide one. [683F·G; 684A]
Dr. Jagjit Singls v. Gian/ Kartar Singli, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 773, Shaslii Bhusha11
v. Prof. Ba/raj Mad/wk and Ors. [1972] 2 S.C.R. 177 followed.
( ;2) On the material before the Court it ~ould not be said that the .High Court
acted arbitrarily in taking the view that it has taken. The High Court classified
the various types of impersonation and came to the view that the evidence o(
i\
c
D
E
F
these witnesses, if"unrebutted, would be sufficient to prove the allegation of im·
G
personation. This means that the High Court was satisfied that there was prima
facle case and the ma~r required further inve9tigation. [6840-E]
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 739 (NCE)
of 1974.
Auoeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated tho.
4th February 1974 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CM!
II
Misc. Petn. No. 158-E of 1973 in Election Petn. No. 45 of 1972.
R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwala and S. S. Blutt.nogar, for the appellant
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
MANPHUL v. SURJNDER (Gupta, I.)
681
Bakhtawar Singh Ch. MtJnmohan Singh, D. N. Mishra and /. B.
Dadachanji, for ~ respondents .
. The Judgment of the Oturt was delivered by .
GUPTA, J.-In this appeal by special leave the appellant questions
the propriety, of a~ order made by the High Court of Punjab and.
Hary~na at Chandigarh in the course of trial of an election petition
.allowmg the petitioner's experts to inspect the counterfoils of the·
ballot pape~s of. voters who had been found by the Court "prima facie
to have been impersonated".
The facts leading to the order under appeal are briefly as follows.
In the election held on March 11, 1972 the appellant Shri Manphul:
Singh was elected to the Haryana: Vidhan Sabha from the Jhajjar
Constituency defeating his on

## Text

MANPHUL SINGH
v.
SURINDER SINGH
November 11. 1974
[H. R. KHANNA AND A. c. GUPTA, JJ.]
Represenlat/011 of the People Act, 1951-When a [J(!rty could ask for i1~rpec1io11 of cou•t•~oi/s of ballot papers.
The respondent in his election petition challenging the election of the appellant alleged that a large number of votes were cast in favour of the appellant by
impersonating dead and absentee voters and that in some cases some persons
polled their votes twice or more than twice in favour of the returned candidate
by registering themselves as \'oters at two or more places in the constituency. The
respondent prayed for the production of the counterfoils of the ballot papers to
prove the genuineness of the signatures of the voters. Before the High Court the
appellant contended that the counterfoils should not be allowed to be produced
unless a prlma facie case for inspection was made out. When the High Court
allowed Ule inspection of two counterfolls of ballot papers to confirm the oral
evidence of the witnesses that they had impersonated two voters by signing in the
counterfoils the appellant came in appeal to this Court and the appeal was dismissed, This Court then pointed out that nothing could be clearer or moro rea•
sonable than the procedure suggested by the petitioner and accepted by the High
Court. After examining the evidence of the witne~s recorded then the High
Court found prima facle that there had been impersonation in about 310 cases
and allowed the petitioner to inspect the counterfoils of the ballot papers relat·
ing to these voters.
On appeal to this Court it was contended that the High Court did not apply
its mind to judge the quality of evidence to see ·if there had been a prima facie
case.
Dismissing the appeal,
HEID : (I) In some cases the ends of justice would make it necessary for
the Tribunal to allow a party to inspect the ballot papers and consider his objec·
lions about the imJ?roper acceptance or improper rejection of votes ten?ered ~Y
the voters at any given· election but care must be taken to see that election pcti"
tioners do not get a chance to rnak.e a roving or fishing ~nquiry in the ballot boxes.
The allegations in support of the prayer for inspection must not be vague or lnde·
finite; they mllllt be supported by material facts and prayer made must be bona
(ide one. [683F·G; 684A]
Dr. Jagjit Singls v. Gian/ Kartar Singli, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 773, Shaslii Bhusha11
v. Prof. Ba/raj Mad/wk and Ors. [1972] 2 S.C.R. 177 followed.
( ;2) On the material before the Court it ~ould not be said that the .High Court
acted arbitrarily in taking the view that it has taken. The High Court classified
the various types of impersonation and came to the view that the evidence o(
i\
c
D
E
F
these witnesses, if"unrebutted, would be sufficient to prove the allegation of im·
G
personation. This means that the High Court was satisfied that there was prima
facle case and the ma~r required further inve9tigation. [6840-E]
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 739 (NCE)
of 1974.
Auoeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated tho.
4th February 1974 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CM!
II
Misc. Petn. No. 158-E of 1973 in Election Petn. No. 45 of 1972.
R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwala and S. S. Blutt.nogar, for the appellant
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
MANPHUL v. SURJNDER (Gupta, I.)
681
Bakhtawar Singh Ch. MtJnmohan Singh, D. N. Mishra and /. B.
Dadachanji, for ~ respondents .
. The Judgment of the Oturt was delivered by .
GUPTA, J.-In this appeal by special leave the appellant questions
the propriety, of a~ order made by the High Court of Punjab and.
Hary~na at Chandigarh in the course of trial of an election petition
.allowmg the petitioner's experts to inspect the counterfoils of the·
ballot pape~s of. voters who had been found by the Court "prima facie
to have been impersonated".
The facts leading to the order under appeal are briefly as follows.
In the election held on March 11, 1972 the appellant Shri Manphul:
Singh was elected to the Haryana: Vidhan Sabha from the Jhajjar
Constituency defeating his only rival, Shri Surinder Singh, the res.-
pondent before us, by a m_argin of 265 votes. Shri Surinder Singh.
referred to hereinafter as the petitioner, filed an election petition
challenging the election of the returned candidate on various allegartions of which the following are material for the present purpose :
( 1 ) 28 votes were cast in favour of the returned candidate by some .persons impersonating
voters who ·
were dead.
•
·
( 2) 710 absentee voters were impersonated by persons
who polled their votes in favour of the returned
candidate.
(3) 158 g0vernment servants who were registered as
voters in the constituency but were not present in
their respective villages and did not cast their votes,
were impersonated and their votes were polled in
favour of the returned candidate.
( 4) 149 persons, registered as voters at two or more
different places in the constituency, polled their votes
twice or more than twice in favour of the returned
candidate.
In ·an application filed on December · 1, 1972 the petitioner suggested a prooedure to enable him to prove his case of impe"onation
and ·double voting. IL was stated . th.at he would produco genui.ll.e
voters who should be shown the ·counterfoils of tb.e ballot papers tp·
test whether the counterfoils Carried their genuine. s.i{nature8 and for
this purpose the. petitioner asked for. production of the counterfoils.
This · application was pending when the peti•ioner started examining
his witne5ses and the prayer was renewed when one Ranbir Singh,
P.W. 17, was in the witness box. The prayer was Opposed on behalf
of the returned candidafe but the High Court by its order da1M·
January · S, 1973 allowed iilspection of two counterfoils of ballot
papers to confirm the oral evidence of the witness that he had. imper_.
sonated two voters by signing their names in the couniterfoils .
.... .
6 82
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975) 2 s.c.R.
It appears that from an earlier interlocutory order passed in this
A
election dispute, the returned candidate had preferred an appeal to
this Court which was dismis~. In the Judgment in that case, reiported in AIR 1973 S.C. 2158 (Manphul SU!gh v. Surinder Singh),
this Court ol?s~rved at page 2162 of the report referring to the peti-
\ioner's aforesaid application dated December 1, 1972 :
"In the application filed in support of the petition
fo1r
production of records it is pointed out that the evidence is
to be led by the production of genui_ne voter and he is to b!:.
shown the counterfoil whether it bears his signature or not
and then whether he .in fact polled his vote or not or some-·
body else had cast his vote. It was specifically stated that
the petitioner will pray for inspection of ballot papers when
he succeeds in proving that they have not cast their votes:
and have been impersonated.
Nothing could be clearer or
more reasonable tha~ this."
Obviously, in this context. "proving" meant proving prima f acie,
or there would not have any necessity of examining the c:ounter-foils.
·
B
c
On December 17, 1973 ·the High Court allowed the prayer made
D
on behalf of the petitioner to allow two finger-print exper .s named
by the petitioner to compare the thumb impressions of some of the
witnesses with the thumb impressions on the relevant countelfoils.
On December 18, 1973 the returned candidate made an application,
registered as Civil Miscellaneous Application No,. 158-E/73, on which
the order under appeal was passed on February 4, 1974. In that
application the returned candidate contended that the
counterfoils
were secret documents and their inspection should not be allowed
unless a prima fade case for inspection was made out and thaf the
Court's order allowing inspection at that stage when there was no
primo facie case amounted to a fishing enquiry not permissible in
law; the prayer made in the application was for
revoking the permission granted to the finger-print experts cited by the petition(:r to
inspect the counterfoils of ballot papers. The application also included several other grievances which the Court found were of subStance and the order disposing of the application was to that extent in
favour of the petitioner. It is therefore not necessary to refer to these
other grievances for the present purpose.
·
In disposing of the application the High Court also proceeded on
the footing that "the person seeking inspection of the counterfoils
must pro\le a primal f acie case in support of his !j)Jegation before the
counterfoils can be made available to him". In the course of the
Judgment the High Court further observed that "the secrecy of the
ballot would be allowed to be violated only if a vrima facie case is
made out by the petitioner in support of his alle!lation".
Having
examined the evidence of the witnesses recorded till then, the High
Court found prima facie that there had been impersonation in about
310 cases and allowed the petitioner's exoerts to inspect the couriterfoils of the ballot _papers pertaining to tliese 310 voters. The High
E
F
G
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
MANPHUL v. SURINDER (Gupta, J.)
683.
Court tabulated the result of the examination of the evidence of the
witn\:Sses 1n seven lists appended to its Order marked with the letters
A, B, C ·D, E, F and G
List A contains particulars of dead voters
who are' alleged to have been impersonated. They are 5 in number.
List B includes the particulars of voters examined on oath and found·
prima facie to have been impersonated on the basis of their own testi•
mony. The number of such voters is 126. List C contains the parti·
culars of voters who appear.ed prima f acie to have been impersonated
1Upon the evidence of P.Ws. 17 and 472. They are four in number ..
List D sets out the particulars of voters who had appeared as witnesses.
for the petitioner but deposed against him, but who were found prima.
facie to have been impersonated from the deposition of other
wit;..
nesses. Such voters are 1 S in number. List E contains parti_1:ulars of
those witnesses who had been declared hostile to the petitioner but who
were found prima facie to have been impersonated from the df'.position
of other witnesses. Their number is 13. List F includes particulars of
voters not examined as witnesses but who were found prima f acie to
have been i,mpersonated from the deposition of other witnesses. The
number of such voters is 48, List G contains particulars of multiple
voting.
This list includes two categories : (a) those who polled
twice in the constituency, and (b) those who polled once in the cons-.
tituency and again in another constituency.
Category (a) contains,
17 and category (b) contains 46 such cases.
The legal position as regards inspection of ballot papers or their· .
counterfoils now seems to be well established. In nr. fagjit Singh v ..
,Ciani Kartar Singh, (AlR 1966 S.C. 773), this Court observed:
"An application made for the inspection of ballot boxes
must give material facts which would enable the Tribunai
to consider whether in the interest of justice, the ballot
boxes should be inspected or not.
In dealing with this
question, the importance of the secrecy of the ballot papers
cannot be ignored. . . . . . It may be that in some cases, the
ends of justice would make it necessary for the Tribunal to
allow a party to inspect the ballot boxes and consider his
objections about the improper acceptance or improper reiection of votes tendered· by vo!ers at any given election but in
considering the _require!11ents of justice, care must be taken
to see that election petitioners do not get a chance to make
a r~:>Ving .or fishing enquiry in the ballot boxes so as fo justify
their claim that the returned . candidate's election is void.
We do not propose to lay down any hard and fast rule in
this matter; indeed; to attempt to lay down such a rule would
be inexpedient and unreasonable."
The J?rinciple ~tated in Dr. J agjit Singh' s case (supra) was reaffirmed
by this Court m Sashi Bhusan v.
Prof. Balra; Madhok and Ors
[1972] 2 S.C.R. 177. It was observed in Sashi Bhusa11's case.:
'·
.
"Facts na turatly differ from case to case.
Therefore it
1s • dangerous to lay down any rigid test in the matter of
ordering an inspection. It is no doubt true that a Judge
684
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 2 s.c.R.
while deciding the question of inspection of the ballot paper_s
must bear in mind the importanee of the secrecy of the ballot papers. The allegations in support of a prayer for inspect1on must not be vague or indefinite; they must be supported by material facts and prayer made must be a bona
fide one. If these condition's are satisfied, the Court will be
justified in permitting inspection of ballot papers.
Secrecy
of ballot is . important; but doing .justiee is
undoubtedly
more important ...... "
'That in proceeding to consider the evidence, the High Court was
:aware of the correct legal position is clear from its Judgment. We
have quoted above the observation of this Court in the earlier appeal
.arising out of the same election petition that "nothing could be clearer
or more reasonable" than. the procedure suggested by the petitioner
and accepted by the High Court, Mr. Garg appearing for the appellant made a grievance that the High Court did not apply its mind to
judge the quality of the evidence in order to find out whether really
there was a prima facie case and depended on the volume" of the
evidence adduced in making the impugned order. We do not think
.that the criticism is justified. The High Court classified the various
.types of 4npersonation alleged into seven categories mentioning all
relevant particulars including the names of witnesses on whose evidence the allegation in each ca,tegory was based.
The High Court
·was of the view that the eviden~ of these witnesses, if unrebut!txl,
would be sufficif!ll,t to prove. the allegation of impersonation.
This
means the High Court was satisfied that there was a {ll"ime facie case
and the mattc:r required further investigation; on the material before
us we cannot say that the High Court acted arbitrarily in taking this
view.
Mr. Garg also contended that there was no ma•erial to support the allegation of multiple voting. This is what the learned Judge
·of the High Court says on this aspect of the case : "I have been
taken through various parts of the electoral roll by learned counsel
for the petitioner who contends that each one of such persons is
shown to be registered at two places in the constituency or in different
constituencies by reason of the fact that his or her description as wdl
as the description of his or her family members or some of them giv1m
·in the two places is the same. . . . . . It is common ground between
the. parties that the votes of such voters have been polled at both the
places. In respect of tltese 63 persons therefore the petitiOT1er must
be held to ·have adduced ,vrima facie evidence in support of his allegatio~s. Their particulars are soecified in List G appended to 1his ordor."
ThlS extract from the Judment of the High Court proves that Mr
Garg's contention is without substance.
·
For the reasons stated above this appeal fails and is dismissed wifo
costs.
A
c
D
E
F
G
P.B.R.
Appeal dismis.red.
H