V S SASIDHARAN Vs. K KARUNAKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is a voter of the Mala Assembly constituency challenges the election of the 1st respondent to the Kerala State Assembly. The 2nd respondent was one of the candidates who filed his Domination before the Returning Officer and who withdrew later from the contest. In the petition various corrupt practices are alleged to have been committed by the 1st respondent.

(2.) The 1st respondent has filed written statement denying the allegations against him. Apart from raising various contentions in the written statement challenging the election petition 1st respondent concluded stating that the election petition is liable to be dismissed in-limine under S.86 (1) for non compliance with S.81 (3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

(3.) In Para.5(xi) of the election petition it has been averred that at the instigation of the 1st respondent a video cassette under the caption 'Malayude Purogathy' (Mala's Progress) was widely circulated in the constituency and that Shri Jose P. George, Government Pleader, Kerala High Court and Shri Thomas Thottappally, Veterinary Doctor, Poly Clinic. Valiyaparambu addressed meetings. In the above paragraph it is also stated that the video cassette has been produced in a sealed cover. In the list of documents mentioned in the election petition it is stated that video cassette was taken by "Kerala Audio and Video, Kallettumkara" and it was widely used for the election propaganda of the 1st respondent. The contention of the 1st respondent is that the copy of the video cassette was not given to him and the copy of the election petition served on him does not contain a copy of the video cassette or even a transcript of the same. According to the 1st respondent, the allegations in the election petition make it clear that the video cassette has been made an integral part of the election petition and therefore without seeing the cassette played and hearing its contents the allegation of corrupt practice made in Para.5 (xi) of the election petition will not be complete. It is also stated that the 1st respondent would not be in a position to answer the allegation properly as a copy of the video cassette has not been served on him.