SANJUKTA BEHERA Vs. RANGALATA DALEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 8.11.2002 passed by the Learned District Judge, Puri in Election Misc. Case No. 69 of 2002 declaring the petitioner disqualified to be a member of Puri Zilla Parishad from Zone No. 12.

(2.) ELECTION to the post of Member of Puri Zilla Parishad from Zone No. 12 was held on 23.2.2002. The appellant before this Court contested as an official candidate of Biju Janata Dal whereas the respondent No. 1 before this Court contested for the said post as an official candidate of Congress Party. The present appellant was declared elected having obtained 10,106 votes whereas the respondent No. 1 obtained 6,033 votes and stood at the second position. The respondent No. 1 thereafter presented an application under Section 32 of the Zilla Parishad Act, 1991 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') for declaration that the appellant having three living children was not qualified to contest for the said post and accordingly election of the appellant should be declared as illegal. Specific case of the respondent No. 1 is that the appellant had three children and that the three children were born on 25.11.1993, 26.10.1995 and 6.2.1998 respectively. Present appellant contested the proceeding and took stand that she has two children and both were born after 1994. Accordingly to the appellant she got married on 16.4.1994 and was blessed with two children thereafter and therefore the question of birth of a child on 25.11.1993 i.e., prior to marriage does not arise.

(3.) SHRI Sanjeet Mohanty, Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant challenged the said finding of the Learned District Judge on the ground that the appellant got married on 16.4.1994 and admittedly two children were born after 1994. Since the petitioner was not married till April, 1994, the allegation of the respondent No. 1 that she was blessed with a child on 25.11,1993, that is prior to her marriage is absolutely false and there is no evidence on record in support of such claim. Shri Mohanty also challenged the impugned order on the ground that the entry vide Ext. 1 in the Birth Register of 1993 has been made on the basis of an information sheet supposed to have submitted by one Bijay Kumar Behera in Ext. 4. Referring to Exhibits 4 and 6 Shri Mohanty submitted that the signatures of the said Bijay Kumar Behera in Ext. 4 differs from 'any admitted signatures in Exts. B and A respectively and since there is no similarity between the signatures the Learned District Judge should have taken help of a handwriting expert to find out as to whether said Bijay Kumar Behera had submitted information sheet or not. He further contended that while the Learned District Judge held that there is nothing on record to examine similarity between the signatures, he did not take help of handwriting expert and found that said Bijay Kumar Behera being brother of the present appellant avoided to sign the deposition in English and therefore the genuineness of the documents in Exts. 1 to 6 cannot be doubted. Referring to Section 35 of the Evidence Act Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in case of such dispute it was the duty of the Learned District Judge to refer the disputed signature to the handwriting expert for opinion and more so when similar signatures were not available before the Learned District Judge for comparison.