Civil Revision No.1494 of 2007 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1494 of 2007 Date of Decision: March 26, 2008 Liyakat ...Petitioner VERSUS Kanhiya Lal and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Satish Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Petitioner has impugned the order passed by Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ferozepur Jhirka, whereby the election of the petitioner has been set-aside and respondent Kanhiya Lal is declared elected as a Sarpanch. This order has been passed after re-counting of the votes. The petitioner has raised objection on the Civil Revision No.1494 of 2007 : 2 : re-counting as held on the ground that the summoned record was not found sealed, when it was opened for re-counting. This application was opposed vehemently and it was pointed out that the record had been kept properly in the custody of DDPO and it was opened in the presence of parties and the votes too were counted in the presence of the parties. It is accordingly pleaded that the objection is raised only to delay the decision. The Civil Judge has noticed that the record summoned from DDPO office was opened in the presence of both the parties. The entire record was contained in a plastic bag which was found tightly stitched. After opening this bag, the parcels were taken out. On envelope No.1 two seals were found intact, whereas on envelope No.2 all seals were found broken, whereas envelope No.3 was tied with the rope and not sealed. The claim of the respondent was that he had secured 151 votes while the petitioner had got only 31 votes. Claim further is that the result was accordingly announced and respondent No.1 was declared elected. Later on, however, the result card was issued showing the respondent had secured only 30 votes. Re-counting was ordered on the premise that the certificate issued by the Polling Officer clearly shows that respondent No.1 was declared elected, whereas the signatures on the result card issued later appeared to be fake. On re-count, respondent No.1 was found to have secured 149 votes. Three votes were found counted in favour of respondent No.1 but had been thumb marked, which were found to be wrongly cast, while one vote was cast in favour of the petitioner, which was Civil Revision No.1494 of 2007 : 3 : counted in favour of respondent No.1. Petitioner, however, was found to have secured only 30 votes. The trial court, thus, observed that the allegations made by respondent No.1 were correct and proved and he had rightly been declared as an elected Sarpanch. The result card was later on, however, tampered with and issued under fake signatures. The tampering, as alleged, which is advanced as a main ground to challenge the re-counting of votes, would not come to the rescue of the petitioner as the entire record was found sealed in a bag which was fully secured. In this background, the trial court has rightly observed that the breaking of seals noticed on three of the envelopes taken out from the bag would not make any material difference or would not prove the allegation of tampering. I do not find any valid or justifiable reason to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the trial court. Dismissed. March 26, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE