Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Anvar P.V.
(s)
Appellant
Versus
Respondent (s)
JUDGMENT
KURIAN, J.:
1.
declared
elected
to
034
Eranad
Legislative
Assembly
candidate,
allegedly
supported
by
the
Left
xxx
xxx
xxx
2)
xxx
xxx
xxx
3)
2
Page2
Palliparamban
of the first
xxx
xxx
6)
7)
Whether
announcements
mentioned
in
paragraph 8 of the election petition were made
between 6.4.2011 and 11.4.2011, as alleged in
the above paragraph, as part of the election
propaganda of the first respondent and if so
whether the alleged announcements mentioned
in paragraph 8 will amount to commission of
corrupt practice as contemplated under section
123(4) of The Representation of the People Act?
8)
3
Page3
practice
under
section
123(4)
Representation of People Act?
9)
of
The
4
Page4
records,
5
Page5
8.
9.
10.
11.
7
Page7
(b)
(c)
(d)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(5) For the purposes of this section, (a) information shall be taken to be supplied
to a computer if it is supplied thereto in
any appropriate form and whether it is so
supplied directly or (with or without human
intervention) by means of any appropriate
equipment;
9
Page9
12.
is stated thus:
New communication systems and digital technology
have made drastic changes in the way we live. A
revolution is occurring in the way people transact
business.
10
Page10
in
accordance with
the procedure
11
Page11
(ii)
(iii) During the material part of the said period, the computer
was operating properly and that even if it was not
operating properly for some time, the break or breaks had
not affected either the record or the accuracy of its
contents; and
12
Page12
14.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
13
Page13
15.
belief.
Most
importantly,
such
certificate
must
14
Page14
under Section 65B of the Evidence Act are not complied with,
as the law now stands in India.
18.
Proof
of
electronic
record
is
special
provision
15
Page15
16
Page16
21.
held
that
irrespective
of
the
compliance
with
the
The
appellant
admittedly
has
not
produced
any
up
regarding
the
corrupt
practice
using
songs,
18
Page18
24.
Act
are
not
satisfied.
It
is
clarified
that
19
Page19
25.
4.
26.
was
got
printed
through
Haseeb
by
PW-4-
averred as follows:
4.
28.
that the order was placed by one Haseeb only to print 1,000
copies of a supplement and the order was given in the name of
PW-4 in whose name Exhibit-P1 was printed, Exhibit-X5-receipt
for payment of printing charges shows that the same was made
by Haseeb. The said Haseeb also was not examined. Still
further, the allegation was that at least 25,000 copies were
printed but it has come out in evidence that only 1,000 copies
were printed.
29.
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
(2)
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
(3)
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
30.
24
Page24
31.
25
Page25
26
Page26
27
Page27
gave them the copies. PW-4 has denied it. It is also interesting
to note that PW-9-Faizal has stated in evidence that he was
disclosing the same for the first time in court regarding the
receipt of notice from PW-4. It is also relevant to note that in
Annexure-P3-complaint filed by the chief electoral agent of the
appellant on 13.04.2011, there is no reference to the number of
copies
of
Exhibit-P1-leaflet,
days
when
the
same
were
distributed and the people who distributed the same, etc., and
most importantly, there is no allegation at all in Annexure-P3
that the said leaflet was printed by the first respondent or with
his
consent.
The
only
allegation
is
on
knowledge
and
28
Page28
32.
33.
30
Page30
31
Page31
agent other than his election agent, as per the ground under
Section 100(1)(d)(ii) of the RP Act. The definite case is only of
Section 100(1)(b) of the RP Act.
In Ram Sharan Yadav v. Thakur Muneshwar Nath
35.
of
Exhibit-P1,
even
assuming
that
the
32
Page32
Now,
we
shall
deal
with
the
last
ground
on
announcements. The attack on this ground is based on ExhibitP10-CD. We have already held that the CD is inadmissible in
evidence. Since the very foundation is shaken, there is no point
in
discussing
the
evidence
of
those
who
heard
the
announcements. Same is the fate of the speech of PW-4Palliparamban Aboobakar and PW-30-Mullan Sulaiman.
37.
the RP Act has been given up, so also the ground on publication
of flex boards.
33
Page33
39.
34
Page34
40.
....CJI.
(R. M. LODHA)
......J.
(KURIAN JOSEPH)
35
Page35
......J.
(ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)
New Delhi;
September 18, 2014.
36
Page36