| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1966 SLG 5310 = 1966 SLD 5310 = 1966 PLD 608,604 |
Dacca High Court
Writ Petition No. 278 of 1965, decided on 26th July 1965.
Presented By: S. M. Murshed, C. J. and Abu Md. Abdulla, J
M. A. Muttalib for-Petitioner.
Respondents: Ex parte.
Writ Petition No. 278 of 1965, decided on 26th July 1965.
Presented By: S. M. Murshed, C. J. and Abu Md. Abdulla, J
M. A. Muttalib for-Petitioner.
Respondents: Ex parte.
ABDUL QUDDUS KHANDKER-Petitioner
VERSUS
THE ELECTION TRIBUNAL AND ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BOGRA AND OTHERS-Respondents
Law: Electoral College Act (IV of 1964)
Section: 60(2),36(1-A)
(NOTE: Wrongly 2 citations added inPLD. Both are mentioned.) Electoral College Act (IV of 1964), S. 60 (2) and Electoral College Rules, 1964, r. 36 (1-A)-Election-Finding that result of election has been "materially affected"-Condition precedent for declaring election to be void-Incumbent upon Tribunal on such finding to declare election to be void-Provision of r. 36 (1-A) mandatory-Narrow difference of two votes polled by false personation in favour of one of two candidates-Tribunal finding that result of election had been materially affected and declaring it to be void-Tribunal, held, exercised its jurisdiction properly. Abdul Aziz Kabiraj v. S. A. Choudhury Petition No. 89 of 1965 (unreported) distinguished. Electoral College Rules, 1964, r. 36(1-A)-Requirement of r. 36 (1-A)-Finding that election has been "materially affected" and not that "successful" candidate has been "adversely affected" or "actually affected". JUDGMENT MURSHED, C. J.- During the recent elections petitioner was elected to an electoral college constituted under the present Con stitution. Petitioner polled the highest number of votes and his opponent in the said election, namely, respondent No. 4, obtained two votes less than the petitioner, who was consequently declared to have been elected in the said contest. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 filed an election petition in which a number of allegations were made against petitioner. One of the allegations was that some votes were recorded by false personation. The Additional Deputy Commissioner of Bogra was con stituted into an Election Tribunal to hear such petition. He examined petitioner, but did not think it necessary to examine any other witness on his behalf. He also examined some witnesses produced by respondent No. 4 and found that one of the persons who had cast their votes in the aforesaid election was dead and that another person had been living in India during the election. He, therefore, came to a finding that, at least, two votes had been cast, in the name of absentees, by false personation. Having regard to the fact that the…