CHAKRAPANI JAGANNATH PRASAD SHUKLA Vs. CHANDOO SAHADEO SATNAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by Chakrapani Shukla against an order of the Election Tribunal, raipur, in Election Petition No. 87 of 1957, decided on 19-12-1957. By this order the Election Tribunal has declared the election of the present appellant void for the reason that one of the contesting candidates, by name Chandoo son of Sahadev, had not withdrawn from the contest but that a notice of retirement was spuriously filed on his behalf before the Assistant Returning Officer, as a result of which his ballot box was not placed in the polling booth.

(2.) WE heard arguments in this appeal, during which it was pointed out to us that the notice of retirement prima facie appeared to be signed by one Chandoo son of sonu of Balodabazar, to compare whose signatures two documents executed by him long before the present election were exhibited. A handwriting expert was also examined on behalf of the respondents to support this conclusion.

(3.) THE facts of the case are as follows: The election was for the Bhatanara constituency of the Legislative Assembly of this State. Among the contesting candidates were Chakrapani, who was returned by an adequate majority, and the two respondents, Chandoo son of Sahadey and Surya Prasad son of Sarweshwar prasad. We are not concerned with the other candidates, who in fact are not parties before us. Before the election took place, on 22-2-1957 a notice of retirement was allegedly filed before the Assistant Returning Officer, Shri M. T. Mahajan. As a result of this, the Election Officer decided that the ballot box of Chandoo, on whose behalf the alleged notice of retirement was filed, should not be placed in the polling booth. It appears that both Chakrapani and Chandoo contested the posi-tion that Chandoo had retired from the contest. Later, however, Chakrapani took the stand that Chandoo had presented the notice of retirement in person. Chandoo attempted to prove that he was not even present at the time in Raipur but was to the interior, canvassing for votes. During the trial, two documents were exhibited purporting to be signed by one chandoo son of Sonu of Balodabazar. The signatures on each were compared by the handwriting expert with the signature on the notice of retirement. We have looked into these documents and we see a similarity in the signatures, calling for a further enquiry as to whether the signature is of Chandoo, the candidate, or chandoo son of Sonu of Balodabazar. The question which has arisen is accentuated by the fact that both sides had summoned Chandoo son of Sonu of balodabazar as a witness on their behalf but they gave him up before the Tribunal, now today both sides agree that Chandoo should be summoned as a Court witness and examined to clear the position as to whether the notice of retirement was signed by him and also if the documents which were the basis of the comparison were executed by him or not. This leads us to consider whether we have power to take additional evidence in an appeal arising under Section 116a of the representation of the People Act.