JUDGMENT J.K. Tandon, J. - An election took place on 30-12-1955 for the office of Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Hansauli, district Mirzapur. There were three contestants, who were Sharda Prasad, the Petitioner here, and Shambhu Narain and Brahma, Respondents 1 and 2. Shambhu Narain Respondent No. 1 was declared elected as the number of votes polled in his favour were shown in the election return to be 9o. The votes polled by Sharda Prasad the Petitioner were 84 and those polled by Brahma, the second Respondent, were 58 only. The Petitioner's allegation is that Shambhu Narain had secured 59 votes only including 42 votes by men and 17 by women, but the election return was tampered with by the Presiding Officer who instead recorded 98 votes in his favour comprising 62 men votes and 36 women votes. Thus, according to him he had secured the largest number of votes and not Shambhu Narain Respondent. R. 19F of the UP Panchayat Raj Rules has prescribed that where at any election any polling return is in any way tampered with the election to which the return relates shall be void. In sub-R. (2) of the same Rule provision exists that, whenever the polling at any polling place shall become void under sub-R. (1), a fresh poll shall take place. 2. The Petitioner has with Annexure A produced a copy of the polling return relating to this election. It appears from this return that the figures of votes originally entered against Shambhu Narain in his Return were cancelled and fresh figures, as follows, were entered: Mard Aurat 62 36 98 Atthanwe. 3. According to the Petitioner the original figures were 42 males and 17 females the total being 59 only. But the Presiding Officer tampered with those figures and substituted the new figures. Thus, relying on R. 19F he claims that fresh-poll was necessary. 4. On these allegations he filed an election petition also before the Sub-Divisional Officer challenging the election of Shambhu Narain Singh. On behalf of Shambhu Narain the defence urged was that there was no tampering with the election return. On the contrary, what happened was that the total of men and women votes, which respectively were 62 and 36, was 98, but the Presiding Officer due to an error recorded 89 earlier. On behalf of Shambhu Narain the defence urged was that there was no tampering with the election return. On the contrary, what happened was that the total of men and women votes, which respectively were 62 and 36, was 98, but the Presiding Officer due to an error recorded 89 earlier. This mistake, however, was noticed before the candidates were asked to sign the result; consequently the Presiding Officer cancelled the earlier entry against Shambhu Narain and wrote out the figures over again correctly and also initialled them. On these allegations he disputed that there was any tampering or any necessity to follow the procedure laid down in R. 19F. 5. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer found, after the parties had had opportunity to adduce evidence before him, that there was no tampering with the election return; on the other hand, a correction had been made in it as claimed by Shambhu Narain. He also accepted the plea that Shambhu Narain secured 98 votes. He, therefore, on the findings dismissed the election petition by Sharda Pd. by his order, dated 30-5-1956. The present petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution is directed against the above order and prays that the same be quashed. 6. So far as the question of fact is concerned, the finding of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer is that the total was incorrectly entered originally against Shambhu Narain and it became necessary for the Presiding Officer to rectify it by recording the correct figure which was 98. The Sub-Divisional Officer also accepted the statement of the Presiding Officer who was examined before him that he made the correction by cancelling the earlier entry and recording the figures over again in the presence of the candidates and before their signatures were obtained on the return. The new entry was also initialled by the Presiding Officer. In effect, therefore, the Sub-Divisional Officer held that a correction had been effected in the Polling Return and that there was no tampering within the meaning of the expression used R. 19F. 7. R. 19F does require that whenever any polling return has in any way been tampered with the election to which the return relates shall be void. In effect, therefore, the Sub-Divisional Officer held that a correction had been effected in the Polling Return and that there was no tampering within the meaning of the expression used R. 19F. 7. R. 19F does require that whenever any polling return has in any way been tampered with the election to which the return relates shall be void. The question which arises is whether the alterations made in this case can be said to be tampering because if they did not amount to tampering, the subsequent procedure prescribed in this Rule regarding fresh poll or the earlier poll being void, did not arise. In this connection the findings of fact reached by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer will, no doubt, need to be kept in view. According to him the Presiding Officer effected a correction in the total and he did so in the presence of and to the knowledge of the candidates concerned and further that the figures entered by him were not proved to be incorrect. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has no doubt urged that this finding of the Sub-Divisional Officer is incorrect, but I see no substance in that contention. In any case in these proceedings we usually do not go into questions of disputed facts and accept the finings reached on them by the courts concerned. 8. The next contention by the Learned Counsel was that every alteration, irrespective of the manner in which and the purpose for which it is made, is tampering for the purposes of R. 19F. According to him whenever any alteration is made, the alteration may be most honest and even with a view to correct an error admittedly made, it will amount to tampering. I am afraid this is not the import and cannotation of the expression 'to tamper with.' Every alteration is not tampering. In order that an interference with a writing may amount to tampering with the document, the interference should be one which has been done improperly. An interference with a thing to misuse it or to pervert it or alter it with some design clandestinely is tampering. It is the circumstances and the purpose or rather the manner in which the alteration is effected which will make the alteration tampering with the real thing. In the present case no such circumstances have been proved. An interference with a thing to misuse it or to pervert it or alter it with some design clandestinely is tampering. It is the circumstances and the purpose or rather the manner in which the alteration is effected which will make the alteration tampering with the real thing. In the present case no such circumstances have been proved. On the other hand, the Sub-Divisional Officer has held that the change was effected by the Presiding Officer in order to correct an honest mistake which had been made in the total, and he did so in the presence of the parties and within their knowledge. I do not, under the circumstances, consider that this was a case of tampering, or that it was necessary to adopt the procedure laid down u/R. 19F. The order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer was, to my mind, a perfectly correct order. 9. In this view of the matter this petition should fail and is accordingly dismissed with costs.