My win was not by a narrow margin: Bhupendrasinh Chudasama in HC

Chudasama told the court that there are instances in the past where people won by even one vote. Therefore, in this case, he would not term his victory margin as narrow. The BJP minister, who had submitted the list of witnesses he wished to examine on his behalf on January 16 this year, had not included himself on the list. It was in August that he expressed his wish to appear as a witness following which an application was filed and the same was granted by the court.

Chudasama submitted that his decision to depose came on the back of Jani’s evidence given in the form of his deposition, along with the legal advice he had received. “By reading the said evidence and on overall consideration, I thought it fit to depose,” Chudasama said when probed if there was any specific part of Jani’s evidence that had made him feel that he must enter the witness box. When asked why he agreed to depose months after Jani had concluded his cross-examination on April 13, Chudasama replied, “There was the Lok Sabha election, then the Assembly session and then I was busy with August 15 celebrations.”

When suggested that Chudasama’s keenness to depose came at the behest of several instances of breaches on the part of Jani during his deposition, especially lapse in counting procedure, usage of cellphone during the counting process and not announcing the result of the postal ballots, Chudasama denied saying, “I wasn’t present during the counting process, hence do not agree (with these assertions). As for the matter of cellphone, it is the said officer’s lookout.”

When Chudasama was confronted with Jani’s claim that the minister’s agent had taken objections to recount of votes, he said, “There was no written demand for recounting, so there was no question of taking objection.”

When Chudasama was informed about a rule laid down by the Election Commission which states that if the victory margin is less than the total postal ballots received, mandatory reverification process is to be undertaken, the minister refused to comment.

However, when the petitioner’s counsel Percy Kavina informed that Rathod has requested for the postal ballots to be brought on the court’s record, Chudasama said, “The counting process was undertaken in the presence of all officers – micro-observers, assistant RO, RO and the observer and the same was signed by the observer as well. Besides, the petitioner had not asked for the same (at the time).” When asked if Chudasama agrees to the fact that his election be declared void, if inconsistency is found in reception and/or rejection of the postal ballots, he said, “There is no question of declaring the election void since the entire process of counting of votes was strictly in accordance with the ECI’s instructions.”

In the May 2 order of the HC, the court had found several breaches on the part of the RO as well as of the General Observer.

The matter is expected to be heard further Thursday.