LAWS(ALL)-2013-3-110

UDAIBHAN SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

Decided On March 07, 2013
UDAIBHAN SINGH Appellant
V/S
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Alok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ratnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 2.

(2.) The submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the ground taken by the Election Tribunal rejecting the applications is untenable in law. According to Sri Alok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner the Election Tribunal misconstrued the reasoning given by the Counting Supervisors. According to the contents of the applications, once there were allegations that after preparation of the result sheets the same have been tempered with, that can be best testified by Counting Supervisors who have prepared the result sheets and it was not the case where the petitioner was summoning the Counting Supervisors to establish that the result sheets as they exist and had been filed by the election petitioner, respondent No. 2 were correct or not. Further reliance has been placed upon judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nayini Narasimiha Reddy v. Dr. K. Laxman and others, 2006 AIR(SC) 2050 for the purpose that it is not for the Election Tribunal to judge as to what the witness could depose if summoned but the Court must exercise caution before summoning the witness.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that the only effort of the petitioner is to delay the conclusion of the election petition so that the term may expire and election petition may lose its efficacy. Having considered the submissions, I find that the election Tribunal erred in rejecting the applications of the petitioner for summoning the Counting Supervisors proceeding on wrong premise. The reason given for summoning the witnesses was misconstrued as it had nothing to do with the genuineness of the issuance of the certified copies from the original but it related to genuineness of the original documents, which could be best testified by the Counting Supervisors who had prepared the result sheets.