1. Four points were taken in this petition. The first was that the respondent here had no locus stand as he was not on. the roll of voters. What happened was that his name had been on the draft roll of one ward, and when the fair roll was made his name was put twice over in two wards, Ward No. 2 and Ward No. 3, When they looked through the roll, the Chairman struck his name out of Ward No. 2 because it was in Ward No. 3; and then apparently by an oversight or slip of memory, ha struck his name out in Ward No. 3 because it was in Ward No. 2. He put it right by restoring the name to the proper ward, whichever it was, on the ground that under the rules what was done was a clerical error. It is quite unnecessary for us to say whether it is superabundantly clear that this is a clerical error. We are inclined to think it is pretty clear that it was; but all that is necessary for us to say is that it was a matter entirely within the power and jurisdiction of the learned Judge to deal with, and he has dealt with it.
2. The next point taken was that it was illegal under the Electoral Rules to add a fresh charge after the original charge had been filed. It is quite clear that the indention was that the tribunal should be guided, wherever possible, in its procedure by the provisions of the Civil P.C., and it is obvious that it would be a great hampering to the course of justice if, in a proper case with proper safeguards, the learned Judge were not allowed to entertain an amendment in accordance with the evidence. The third point was that a certain vote has been rejected by the chairman, who had done that which we have held in a former case cannot be done, gone behind the roll and enquired into the qualification of an elector whose name was on the roll. The answer to it is that that was not what he did. What he really did was to treat this voter as haying been guilty of personation and the matters about his having paid taxes and so forth are apparently merely grounds given by the learned Judge for his position, and that being so, it is, a mere finding of fact with which we cannot interfere. I am glad to be able to say that my learned brothers are quite clear that that is what the learned Judge-really did mean to say because speaking for myself, that paragraph of the judgment is to me absolutely unintelligible and I find it difficult to be sure as to what he did mean and what he did not. But it is quite clear, when that paragraph is read in conjunction with the pleadings that he only meant to decide a question of fact. That is the only possible interpretation.
3. The fourth point made by the petitioner was that the learned Judge had refused to go into certain objections of his to certain votes. The objection was put forward in this vague form in para. 13 of his written statement:
This respondent also understands and believes it to be true that in the matter of the counting of votes, some invalid votes have been improperly received and taken into account in petitioner's favour and at the same time some valid votes in this respondent's favour have been improperly rejected and not taken into account.
4. No particulars were given; no names were mentioned; and the learned Judge declined to go into it; and rightly so. because it would have involved an opening of all the ballot boxes and a roving enquiry over the whole range of votes. That was entirely within the discretion of the learned Judge and he very properly refused to exercise it in favour of the petitioner.
5. The petition is dismissed with costs.
6. The memorandum of objections is dismissed.
7. I agree.
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.
8. I agree.