http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: O. BHARATHAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: K. SUDHAKARAN AND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       06/02/1996

BENCH: VENKATASWAMI K. (J) BENCH: VENKATASWAMI K. (J) VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1140            JT 1996 (2)   384  1996 SCALE  (1)688

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T K.Venkataswami, J.      This appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People  Act 1951  (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is preferred  against the  judgment and  order  in  Election Petition No.  4 of  1991  of  the  Kerala  High  Court.  The appellant was  the elected  candidate to  Kerala legislative assembly from  No 11, Edakkad constituency. The election was held on 12th June, 1991. There were only three candidates in the field.  The appellant  was polled  54965 votes  and  the first respondent  was polled  54746 votes  and the appellant having secured  219 votes more than the first respondent was declared  as  successful  candidate.  That  declaration  was challenged by  the first  respondent by  filing an  Election Petition as mentioned above.      The election  of the  appellant was  challenged by  the first respondent  on a  single ground  at the trial on which alone evidence  was let  in and  which found favour with the High court  could be  stated by  setting out  ground (B)  as given in the Election Petition :      "B. Similarly large number of other      void votes have also been illegally      cast and  received at  the time  of      the polling which took place on the      12th  June,  1991  to  the  Edakkad      Assembly   Constituency.   In   the      voters’ list,  the  names  of  some      persons who  are one  and the  same      but whose  names have  been entered      more than  once in the voters’ list      with intentional  slight difference      in the  House No. with variation in      the description  of their names, in      their father’s/husband’s names etc.      Taking into advantage that position

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

    more than one vote has been cast in      the names  of such  persons.  Under      section 62 of the Representation of      the People  Act,  1951,  no  person      shall at  any election  vote in the      same constituency  more  than  once      and, if  he does  so vote,  all his      votes in that constituency shall be      void. The  petitioner  respectfully      submits that  persons  whose  names      and other  details are mentioned in      the list,  produced along  with  as      Annexure-B to  the  petition,  have      exercised more  than one  votes  in      the  election   aforesaid  to   the      Edakkad       No.11        Assembly      Constituency. Since  the names  and      other details  of such  persons are      far too numerous, the petitioner is      producing along with the petition a      list  containing   the  names   and      details  as   Annexure-B  to   this      petition.  The   reception  of  the      aforesaid votes  from the aforesaid      persons, was  improper and amounted      to receiving  votes improperly  and      reception of  void votes. More than      1114 votes  have been received from      the aforesaid  persons. Thus  about      1114 void  votes have been received      in the  elections  to  the  No.  11      Edakkad   Assembly    Constituency.      Those votes  have been  counted and      taken into account in declaring the      first respondent  as  elected.  The      petitioner   submits    that    the      reception of  such void  votes  has      materially affected  the results of      the elections.  The petitioner  has      reasons to  believe that votes that      have been cast in the name of those      persons  whose   names  appear   in      Annexure-B have  all gone in favour      of the  first respondent.  If those      votes  are  scrutinized,  inspected      and excluded,  undoubtedly it  will      be revealed  that the result of the      election in  so far  as it concerns      the first  respondent, the returned      candidate,  has   been   materially      affected  by    reception  of  void      votes. If  those votes are excluded      undoubtedly the petitioner would be      found to  have obtained  a majority      of the  valid votes.  But  for  the      reception  of  the  aforesaid  void      votes the  first  respondent  would      never have  been declared  elected,      and instead  the  petitioner  would      have been declared elected."      In  support   of  this   ground  the  first  respondent (Election Petitioner)  has examined as many as 322 witnesses and filed Exhibits numbering about 1293. In the light of the oral and  documentary evidence,  the learned Judge initially rendered an  interim judgment  on 10.8.1992 giving a finding

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

as follows:      "I find  that 269  votes  are  void      under   Section    62(4)   of   the      Representation of  the People  Act,      1951 and I have also found 39 votes      have been  cast  by  persons  whose      names  were  not  included  in  the      electoral roll.  These  votes  were      cast by impersonation under Section      62(1) of  the Act. These votes must      have been  accepted as  valid votes      by the  returning  officer  at  the      time of  counting. This  amounts to      improper  reception   of  votes  as      envisaged under  Section 100(1) (d)      (iii) of  the  Act.  As  the  first      respondent was  declared elected by      by  a  margin  of  219  votes,  the      declaration of  these votes as void      and invalid  may materially  affect      the   result    of   the   returned      candidate. These  votes have  to be      searched out  and excluded from the      total number of votes."      In order  to find  out the  candidate in  whose  favour those votes have been cast, the learned Judge overruling the objection  raised   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the appellant/elected candidate  that the suggestion to open the ballot boxes  to examine the ballot papers would violate the secrecy of  the ballot,  ordered for  opening of  the ballot boxes to examine the ballot papers for the purpose mentioned above. This  job was entrusted to the joint Registrar of the High Court  who after  verification found  out of  308 vold/ invalid votes,  (namely 269+39)  306 of such votes have been polled in favour of the appellant/elected candidate. In view of the said report given by the joint Registrar, the learned Judge found  that those  306 votes  counted in favour of the elected candidate  must be  deducted and after so doing, the Appellant/Elected candidate  was found  to have secured only 54659 which  is less  than 8/  votes secured by the Election Petitioner (first  respondent herein).  As a  consequence of this  finding  while  setting  aside  the  election  of  the appellant as  void, the  learned judge  further declared the first respondent as duly elected to the said constitutuency.      Aggrieved by the above judgment and order of the Kerala High Court,  the  present  appeal  has  been  filed  by  the appellant. Though  several arguments  concerning  procedural irregularities and  legal  infirmities  in  the  order  were pointed out,  we do not consider it necessary to go into all those points  in the  view we  propose to  take which in our opinion will be sufficient for the disposal of this case.      From the facts narrated above, it will be seen that the learned judge  has found  on the  basis of  appreciation  of evidence let  in before  him that 306 votes polled in favour of the  appellant were  either void  or invalid  and as such they should be deducted from the votes polled in his favour. For coming  to the  conclusion that  269 votes  polled  were void, the  learned  Judge  found  on  appreciation  of  oral evidence that witnesses examined on the side of the Election Petitioner (respondent  No.1) have either admitted that they have voted  two times  or they  must be deemed to have voted two times in view of the similarity of the signatures in two counter-foils alleged to be related to those witnesses.      Learned Senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant vehemently attacked the conclusion of the learned judge that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

the witnesses  have admitted  their signatures  and also the fact of  voting twice. According to the learned counsel such finding being  perverse cannot be sustained in respect of at least 65  witnesses corresponding  to 130  votes. To support his contention,  learned  counsel  as  samples  pointed  out certain portions from the evidence of the witnesses and also certain portions  from the  Judgment of  the  learned  Judge himself.      As a  sample of oral evidence, he invited our attention to the  evidence of  P.W.53 P.W. 53 in the Chief Examination has stated as follows :      "I cast my vote in Mavllayi polling      station. The polling station was in      Cherumavilayi U.P. school. (Ext.711      Marked)  Ext.   P.711   counterfoil      contronted to  the witness  and the      witness   denies   the   signature.      (Ext.P.712    marked)     Ext.P.712      counterfoil shown  to the  witness.      The  signature   in  that  also  is      denied by  the  witness.  Ext.P.391      Declaration shown  to the  witness.      Witness admits the signature. Voter      No.142  Othenanchalil   K.K.Chandri      w/o  Chandran  of  polling  station      no.69 is myself. I have still doubt      whether Ext.P. 712 is signed by me.      I am  certain  that  the  signature      found  in  Ext.P.  711  is  not  my      signature."      On the  above evidence  the conclusion  of the  learned judge is as follows :      "According to  PW53  she  had  cast      only   one    vote   No.142.    The      corresponding counterfoil is marked      as  Ext.   P  711.  When  this  was      confirmed to the witness she denied      the signature  therein. Ext.  P 712      is the counterfoil corresponding to      voter No.239. The signature in Ext.      P 711  and Ext.  P 712  are  almost      similar. There is slight variation.      But  that   does  not   affect  the      petitioner’s case, as the signature      in Ext. P 712 is exactly similar to      the signature put by the witness in      the deposition.  Therefore,  it  is      clear that voter No. 142 and 239 in      Ext.P60 is  one and the same person      and that  voter has  cast more than      one vote.  In the result. I declare      that vote  cast against counterfoil      No. 070975  (Ext.P. 711) of polling      station No.  69 and  the vote  case      against  counterfoil   No.   070258      (Ext.P.712)  and   polling  station      No.69 are void."      In another instance the learned Judge held as follows :      "The signature  of the  witness  in      the deposition  does not tally with      the signature  found in  these  two      counterfoils. On  a  comparison  of      the signature  in Ext.P  713 and  P      714 I  have little  doubt that  the      same witness  has cast  two  votes.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

    Therefore, I declare that vote cast      against  counterfoil   No.   070653      (Ext,P 713)  of polling station No.      69  and   the  vote   cast  against      counterfoil No.070309  (Ext.P  714)      of polling station No.69 are void."      While appreciating  the evidence  of P.W.69  the  Court held as follows :      "P.W. 69  admits that  he is  voter      No. 1392  in Ext.  P  53  electoral      roll. The  witness also admits that      voter No.563  in Ext.p 47 refers to      him. According  to this  witness he      had cast  vote in  polling  station      No. 53.  The two  counterfoils were      shown to  the witness and he denied      both.  In   the  cross-examination,      however, he  stated that  he has no      connection with kadampeth house and      that voter No. 1392 in Ext. P 53 is      not himself.  The signatures in the      two counterfoils  are  not  closely      similar. So  it cannot be said that      both votes  were cast  by P.W.  69.      The signature  in Ext.P.762 has got      similarity with  the  signature  of      the witness  in the  deposition, So      the  vote  against  Ext.P.761  must      have  been   cast  by   some  other      person. Therefore,  I hold that the      vote cast  against counterfoil  No.      062682  (Ext.P   761)  in   polling      station No. 61 is invalid vote."      The evidence of P.W. 146 reads as follows :      "My father’s  name is  Chathukutty.      My  house   is  Challivalappil.  My      mother’s name is Lakshmi and I am a      driver by  profession. Ext.  P  50.      Sl.No.      1192       Balakrishnan      Chathukutty  aged   30  is  myself,      Sl.No. 47 in Ext P 103 Balakrishnan      Chathukutty Nambiar  is not myself.      My  father   is   not   Chathukutty      Nambiar, (Counterfoil  Nos.  120847      and 056691  are marked as Ext.P 936      and 937).  Witness denies  both the      signatures. I  have cast  only  one      vote."      Cross-examination by Ist respondent’s counsel:      "In Ext. P.50 against Sl.no.642 the      house No,  shown is  245, it is not      my  house   number.   I   have   no      connection with  the house  by name      krishnalayam.   Sl.No.642   is   on      krishnan Nambiar.  I am a member or      Thiyya  community,   (Witness  says      that he is in possession of driving      licence and  shows the  same before      court and his name has been written      there  as   C.V.Balakrishana.   The      driving  licence  also  contains  a      photograph of the witness."      On the above evidence, the High Court found as follows:      "P.W.146 Balakrishnan  admits  that      his father’s  name  is  Chathukutty

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

    and his  mother’s name  is Lakshmi.      He also admits that he is voter No.      1192 in  Ext. P  50 electoral roll,      but he  denies  that  he  is  voter      No.47    in     one    Balakrishnan      Chathukutty Nambiar  and  according      to this  witness his  father is not      Chathukutty  Nambiar  and  that  he      belongs to Thiyya community. But it      is  pertinent   to  note   that  in      Ext.P.50 voter  No.1192 is shown as      resident of  house No.245.  In  the      original voters’  list  of  polling      station No.50,  house  No.  245  is      described as krishnalayam and voter      No. 642 is one L. Krishnan Nambiar.      P.W.146 is  not in  a  position  to      explain as to how his name happened      to be included as a resident of the      house of  krishnan Nambiar. So even      in  the  admitted  entry  there  is      voter No.  1192 in  Ext.P  50.  The      corresponding counterfoil is marked      as Ext.  P  937.  Even  though  the      witness   denies    his   signature      therein, that is to be taken as his      admitted    signature     as     it      corresponds   with   his   admitted      entry. The  signature in Ext. P 937      is  strikingly   similar   to   the      signature in Ext. P 36 counterfoil.      So, it is clear that the person who      put the  signature in  Ext.  P  937      must have put the signature in Ext.      P 936 also. Therefore, it is proved      that there  is not  only similarity      in the  name  but  there  is  close      similarity    between    the    two      signatures also.  So, I  hold  that      P.W. 146 had cast two votes. In the      result, I  declare  that  the  vote      cast against counterfoil No. 120847      (Ext.P936)   in   polling   station      No.115 and  the vote  cast  against      counterfoil No.056691  (Ext. p 937)      in polling station No.56 are void."      Likewise while  commenting on   P.W. 149 the Court held as follows :      "According to  the witness  she had      cast vote  in polling station No.91      as voter  No.683. The corresponding      counterfoil, marked  as Ext. P 942,      was  shown   to  the  witness.  She      denied the  signature therein. Ext.      P 943,  the  counterfoil  of  voter      No.1143 in  Ext, P  78 was shown to      the  witness.   She   denied   that      signature  also.   But  on  a  bare      perusal of  these two signatures it      can be  seen that  there  is  close      resemblance between  the  two.  The      similarity in  name and  the  close      resemblance of  the two  signatures      in the  counterfoils would  clearly      establish that  P.W. 149  had  cast

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

    two votes. In the signature in Ext.      P 942  and 943 the first letter ’K‘      is so  conspicuous and the style of      writing  and   the  figure  of  the      signatures  are   exactly  similar.      Under the  above  circumstances,  I      hold that  P.W. 149  had  cast  two      votes.  Therefore,  the  vote  case      against  counterfoil   No.   093440      (Ext.P  942)   in  polling  station      No.91 and  the  vote  cast  against      counterfoil No.  091398 (Ext.P 943)      in  polling   station   No.89   are      declared void."      Similar are  the cases regarding 65 witnesses at least. This is  not seriously  disputed by  the learned counsel for the first  respondent. Though the signatures are challenged, the learned  judge overruling  the objection  raised by  the learned counsel  for the  appellant herein  that unless  the disputed  signatures   are  compared   with   the   admitted signatures, the  same cannot be taken into account proceeded to compare the signatures by himself and found that they are either similar or slightly varying.      It appears  that the  learned  Judge  has  decided  the question of void and invalid votes on insufficient materials and evidence  in the  case. Majority of the witnesses denied that they  have voted  more than  once and  they  have  also denied their  signatures in  the  counterfoils.  Under  such circumstances,  the   learned  judge   could  have  summoned documents containing  admitted signatures  for comparison by an expert  and also  by comparing  them himself. Instead the learned judge  understood the  hazardous task  of  comparing hundreds  of   disputed  signatures  which  are  not  having individual characteristics  to set  aside the  election of a candidate, the appellant herein.      The learned  Judge in  the course  of the  judgment has observed as follows :      "Most  of   the  witnesses   either      denied    their    signatures    or      expressed   their    inability   to      indentify their  signatures. In the      case of  some well-educated persons      when  counterfoils  containing  the      signature were  shown to them, they      stated that they could not identify      the  signatures.  Every  reasonable      prudent person  would  be  able  to      identify his signature whenever the      signature is shown to him."      Notwithstanding the  above fact,  namely,  the  learned Judge while doubting the testimony of the witnesses, instead of confronting  them in a legal way to get the truth, jumped to his  own conclusion.  The learned  judge in the course of appreciating the scope of Section 73 of the Evidence Act and having given a finding that under Section 73 of the Evidence Act a  disputed signature  could be  compared only  with the admitted signatures,  proceeded to  compare  the  signatures found in  the counterfoils  to find  out  whether  both  the signatures were to be by the same person.      On the  peculiar facts  of this case, the learned Judge erred in  taking upon  himself the  task  of  comparing  the disputed signatures  on the  counterfoils without the aid of an expert  or the  evidence of  persons conversant  with the disputed signatures.  Therefore, the  approach made  by  the learned judge  is not  in  conformity  with  the  spirit  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

Section 73  of the  Evidence Act. Though the rulings of this Court in  State vs. Pali Ram (AIR 1979 SC 14) and Fakhruddin vs. State  of Madhya  Pradesh (AIR 1967 SC 326) were brought to his  notice, the  learned judge  proceeded to compare the disputed signatures  by himself and decided the issue. While doing so, the learned judge observed as follows :      "So all  these witnesses are in the      habit of occasionally putting their      signature. Strangely enough most of      the witnesses  either denied  their      signature   or    expressed   their      inability   to    identify    their      signature. Even in the case of some      well-educated     persons      when      counterfoils     containing     the      signatures were shown to them, they      stated that they could not identify      the  signatures.  Every  reasonable      prudent person  would  be  able  to      identify his signature whenever the      signature is  shown to  him. It  is      clear that  these witnesses  denied      their  signatures   or  failed   to      identify  the   signature  with   a      definite purpose  that at least one      signature should  not be  taken  as      the admitted  signature  so  as  to      make a  comparison with  the denied      signature. It is also possible that      the witnesses  who  had  cast  more      than one  vote pretended  that they      could  not   identify  any  of  the      signatures  to  make  believe  that      they had  not cast  more  than  one      vote. The  denial of the signatures      and the  failure of these witnesses      to identify their own signatures is      to be  viewed in  the background of      similarity of  the signatures found      in the various counterfoils."      Again the learned Judge observed as follows :      "It is  true that  under Section 73      of  the  Evidence  Act  a  disputed      signature could  be  compared  only      with  the   admitted  signature  or      signature     proved     to     the      satisfaction of  the court  to have      been  written   or  made   by  that      person. Reliance  was placed on the      decision reported  in State  (Delhi      Admn.) vs.  Pali Ram  (AIR 1979  SC      14) and  contended that  it is  not      advisable that  a judge should take      up  the   task  of   comparing  the      admitted   handwriting   with   the      disputed one  to find  out  whether      the two  agree with  each other and      the prudent course is to obtain the      opinion  and   assistance   of   an      expert. This  opinion was expressed      by the  Supreme Court in a criminal      case while considering the question      whether the  accused had  committed      the   offence    of   forgery   and      chearing. In  Fakhruddin vs.  State

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

    of  Madhya  Pradesh  (AIR  1967  SC      1326), the  Supreme Court  observed      that comparison  of the handwriting      by  the   court  with   the   other      documents   not    challenged    as      fabricated, upon its own initiative      and  without  the  guidance  of  an      expert     is     hazardous     and      inconclusive.  These   observations      were  made   in   the   facts   and      circumstances of such case. But, in      the instant case, comparison of the      signature found  in the counterfoil      are made  to ascertain whether both      signatures were  put  by  the  same      person."      ***********************************      "In  the   instant  case,   several      witnesses who  are alleged  to have      exercised their franchise more than      once admitted that their names have      been  included   in  the  electoral      roll. They would say that they cast      only one vote. In cases where their      names are entered more than once in      the electoral  roll these witnesses      admitted one  entry and  denied the      other.       The        counterfoil      corresponding to the admitted entry      in the  electoral roll must contain      the signature  of the  voter.  Even      though this signature has also been      denied by  the  witness  or  rather      failed  to  be  identified  by  the      witness, it  can safely be taken as      the  admitted   signature  of   the      witness. That  signature  could  be      very   well   compared   with   the      signature appearing in the disputed      counterfoil."      ***********************************      "So the  standard of  strict  proof      can  be   insisted  only   in   the      election   petition   wherein   the      election is  sought to be set aside      on the  ground of corrupt practice.      In the  instant case it can only be      said that  standard of proof should      be of  high nature,  as an election      petition is  not liable  to be  set      aside  on   vague   or   inaccurate      evidence, and the court must uphold      an  election   when  two  different      views are reasonably possible, from      the evidence adduced in the case."      ***********************************      "As already  pointed out  by me the      close similarity  in the  signature      in  the   counterfoils  is  also  a      strong proof to show that the entry      related to  the same  person. It is      also important to note that most of      the    witnesses    denied    their      signatures     in      both     the      counterfoils.   They    could   not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

    identify their own signature and it      is also  clear that  many of  these      witnesses changed  their signatures      and put different signatures in the      deposition.  In   some  cases   the      witnesses  were   asked   to   give      specimen   signatures   and   these      specimen signatures  were taken  in      open court  and they  are marked as      exhibits in  the case. The specimen      signatures in  many  cases  do  not      tally with  the signatures found in      the counterfoil  of the  voter, who      admittedly cast  his vote  as voter      against a particular serial number.      With  this  broad  outline  in  the      evidence I  propose to consider the      evidence  of   each   witness   who      allegedly  cast   vote  more   than      once."      It is on the basis of such conclusion the learned Judge arrived at the finding that 269 votes were void as one voter has voted  twice. As  pointed out  earlier at  least in  the cases of  65 such witnesses (that means 130 votes) where the signatures are  not admitted  the findings  of  the  learned judge cannot  be supported for the reasons given earlier. It those 130 votes which were declared void and found polled in favour of the appellant herein are taken into account in his favour, certainly  the  appellant  must  be  found  to  have secured more votes than the first respondent herein.      The learned  Judge in  our view was not right either in brushing aside the principles laid down by this Court in AIR 1979 SC  14 (supra) on the ground that it was not a criminal case  or   taking  upon   himself  the   hazardous  task  of adjudicating upon  the genuineness  and authenticity  of the signatures in  question even  without the  assistance  of  a skilled and  trained person  whose services  could have been easily availed  of. Annulling the verdict of popular will is as much  a serious matter of grave concern to the society as enforcement of  laws pertaining to criminal offences, if not more. Though  it is  the province  of the  expert to  act as judge or  jury after a scientific comparison of the disputed signatures   with    admitted   signatures,    the   caution administered by this Court is to the course to be adopted in such situations could not have been ignored unmindful of the serious repercussions  arising out  of the  decision  to  be ultimately rendered.  To quote  it has been held in AIR 1979 SC 14 (supra) ;      "The  matter  can  be  viewed  from      another angle  also. Although there      is no  legal bar to the Judge using      his  own   eyes  to   compare   the      disputed writing  with the admitted      writing, even  without the  aid  of      the  evidence  of  any  handwriting      expert,  the  Judge  should,  as  a      matter  of  prudence  and  caution,      hesitate to  base his  finding with      regard  to   the  identify   of   a      handwriting which  forms the sheet-      anchor  of   the  prosecution  case      against  a  person  accused  of  an      offence, solely  on comparison made      by himself.  It is  therefore,  not      advisable that  a judge should take

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

    upon himself  the task of comparing      the  admitted   writing  with   the      disputed one  to find  out  whether      the two  agree with each other: and      the prudent course is to obtain the      opinion  and   assistance   of   an      expert."      The necessity for adhering to the said sound advise and guidance is  all the more necessary in a case where hundreds of signatures  are disputed and the striking dissimilarities noticed by  the Court  at the  time of trial of the Election Petition.      The learned  counsel appearing for the first respondent was not able to convince us that the learned Judge was right in comparing  the signatures  himself at  any  rate  in  the peculiar facts  and circumstances  of the case and rendering the  findings  against  the  appellant  herein.  As  we  are satisfied on  the peculiar  facts of this case also that the learned Judge  was not  right in  deciding hundreds  of  the disputed signatures by comparing the counterfoils by himself to declare  the votes  as void,  we need  not go  into other arguments advanced before us.      As we  find that  at least 130 votes are validly polled in favour  of the  appellant for  the reasons  given earlier then he  must be held to have secured 43 votes more then the first respondent herein.      In the  result, we  hold that the learned Judge was not right in declaring the election of the appellant as void and declaring the first respondent as duly elected. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the Election petition is dismissed with costs throughout.