High Court of KeralaOP(C)/29/2015disposed of

Ratan Kumar v. Malinga Maniyani

2015-04-08Honourable Mr.Justice P.Bhavadasan5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2015/18TH CHAITHRA, 1937 OP(C).No. 29 of 2015 (O) ------------------------- OP 15/2010 of PRL.MUNSIFF, KASARAGOD PETITIONER(S):

----------------------- RATAN KUMAR, S/O.JANARDHANA NAYAK, PANDY IN ADOOR VILLAGE, KASARGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD - 671 121.

BY ADVS.SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SRI.P.RAHUL RESPONDENT(S):

-----------------------

1. MALINGA MANIYANI, S/O.NARAYANA MANIYANI, AVANDOOR, ADOOR VILLAGE, P.O.PANDY, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD -671 121.

2. DAYANANDA, S/O.THYAMPANNA NAIK, PANDY, ADOOR VILLAGE, P.O.PANDY, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD 672 121. R1 BY ADV. SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-042015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

OP(C).No. 29 of 2015 (O) ---------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF O.P NO.15/2010 FILED BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KASARAGOD EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KASARAGOD IN O.P 15/2010 EXT.P-3: TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION GIVEN BY PW1 IN O.P 15/2010 EXT.P-4: TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION GIVEN BY PW2 IN O.P 15/2010 EXT.P-5: TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION GIVEN BY PW3 IN O.P 15/2010 EXT.P-6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KASARGOD IN O.P 15/2010 EXT.P-7: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN OP(CIVIL) NO.2239/2013 EXT.P-8: TRUE COPY OF IA NO.2390/2014 IN OP NO.15/2010 - PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KASARAGOD.

EXT.P-9: TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER IN IA NO.2390/2014 IN OP NO.15/2010 - PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KASARGOD EXT.P-10: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KASARAGOD IN IA NO.2390/2014 IN O.P NO.15/2010 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ---------------------------------------

P. BHAVADASAN, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.(C). No. 29 of 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of April, 2015.

JUDGMENT

While disposing of the earlier challenge as per Ext.P6, this Court in Ext.P7 order observed as follows: "9. It is well settled that trial of election petition is similar to criminal trial. It does not depend upon preponderance of probabilities. Proof required is of much higher standard and if that standard is to be applied in the case on hand, merely because voters' list contain the names of P.Ws.1 to 3, it does not lead to an inference that it must be the same person especially when the person concerned has either pleaded ignorance about the signature or has denied his signature in one of the ballot papers.

Of course, the court can compare signatures and come to the conclusion that they are identical even when it is denied or ignorance is pleaded. But that exercise has to be necessarily adopted. If, on the other hand, signature does not help the court, the court is not precluded from looking into other items of evidence to

O.P.(C).29/2015.

come to the conclusion that there has been double voting."

2. After remand, it is stated that three more witnesses were examined. Again the same prayer for sending the signature for expert opinion was preferred by the petitioner. That petition was dismissed by the court below holding that it is belated and that the comparison of the signature is unnecessary.

3. In this petition, reference is made to the observation in the remand order made by this Court which is extracted above. Learned counsel pointed out that the court below was bound to compare the signature and only if that comparison does not help, then the court can resort to other items of evidence.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has no objection to the above proposal and according to the learned counsel that is all what this Court had stated in the remand order.

O.P.(C).29/2015.

This Original Petition is disposed of directing the court below to undertake the exercise under Section 73 of the Evidence Act and make an attempt to compare the signature. Thereafter, it can take note of other items of evidence available on record. The parties will appear before the court below on 21.5.2015.

P. BHAVADASAN, sb.

JUDGE