SAINGURA Vs. F SAPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed the elec-tion petition alleging that the first respondent is guilty of corrupt practice within the mean-ing of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The first respondent appeared on receipt of notice and filed written statement. However, he took several adjournments for filing the written statement, which compelled this Court to fix the case for ex parte hearing. Ultimately, the first respon-dent filed the written statement with a petition for setting aside the ex parte order and to accept the written statement. After hearing the parties, this Court set aside the ex parte order of hearing and accepted the written statement.

(2.) Thereafter, issues were framed and the case was posted for hearing. Meanwhile, the first respondent raised some preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the election petition and this Court rejected the preliminary objections by order dated 3-9-90. Against that order, the first respondent moved the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court admitted the petition and stayed fur-ther proceedings. By order dated 22-8-91 the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal with a direction to rectify the defects. This Court, thereafter, fixed 6-1-91 for trial of the cases at Aizwal, Mizoram.

(3.) In the meantime on 16-11-91 the elec-tion petitioner filed an application praying for issuance of summons to produce certain documents. In this petition, he inter alia, stated that his case was conducted by a counsel practicing and residing in New Delhi. Due to long and hazardous distance between Aizawl and New Delhi and other difficulties, he could not meet his counsel. Having faced with such difficulties, the election petitioner engaged another set of counsel practicing at Gauhati to conduct the case. These newly engaged counsel appeared on 19-9-91. Thereafter, on scrutiny of the records it was found that there had been omissions to call for the original manuscript of the documents described in the Schedule to the petition due to oversight and inadvertence. The petitioner further stated that all the documents except the documents mentioned in serial Nos. 11, 12 and 13 were already annexed to the election petition and copies thereof were furnished to the respondents. Besides, these documents listed in the Scheduled were required to be produced by the persons who were cited as witnesses on behalf of the election petitioner in the list of witness already filed. The docu-ments listed and mentioned in Schedule were in power and possession of the persons men-tioned in Column