BASANAGOUDA Vs. DRS B AMARKHED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) The appellant was declared on November 27, 1989 to have been elected as a member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly from 23 Manvi Assembly Constituency from Raichur Dist. The respondent is the nearest unsuccessful candidate who called it in question in Election Petition No. 11 of 1990 in the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. He sought to declare that the election of the appellant as void under S. 100(1)(a) (b) and (d) of the Representation of the People Act 43 of 1951 for short 'the Act'. One of the grounds alleged is corrupt practices stated in paragraphs IV(6) to (12) that the appellant had indulged in booth capturing and rigging of booths in Polling Booths Nos. 5, 6, 7, 68, 73, 74, 88, 91 to 96, 100, 102 and 103, most of which are said to be situated in Bagalwad Mandal Panchayat to which the appellant was the erstwhile Pradhan. According to the pleadings, the Modus operandi adopted was that the appellant and his supporters threatened the officials with full connivance of the police officials and that of the election agents of the petitioners, captured the booth...... Respondent No. 1 (appellant) and his supporters have prevented the voters from exercising the franchise and sent them away threatening them, thereafter seized the ballot papers from the officials and thus put the X-mark seal against the symbol of bicycle (election symbol of the appellant). They put them in the ballot boxes by doing so respondent No. 1 (Appellant) and his supporters put either thumb impression or forged signatures on the counter-foils of the ballots, and in some counter-foils no signature was put. Thus it was alleged that the appellant secured 80 to 90 per cent of the votes polled. It was also stated that the Returning Officer lodged F.I.Rs., which were registered as case Nos. 371 of 1989 and 370 of 1989 in the Court of J.M.F.C., Manvi against the appellant. It was admitted in the written statement that repolling in Booths Nos. 6 and 7 was ordered which was accordingly held on November 26, 1989. The other material allegations were denied in the written statement of the appellant. As many as 4 issues have been framed. Issue No. 2 relates to the alleged capturing and rigging of the polling booths referred to hereinbefore. The respondent filed I.A. No. 5 / 1991 under 0. XI, R. 14 read with 0. XVI, R. 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for short'the Code'read with S. 87 of the Act.

(3.) In the I.A., the respondent sought production of the following documents by the 7th respondent, Dist. Election Officer, Deputy Commissioner, Raichur: I. In respect of the following polling booths of 23-Manvi Assembly Constituency-Raichur-Booths Nos. 5, 68, 73, 74, 88, 91 to 96, 100, 102, 103 and 105, the following documents.