TOLA RAM Vs. DIST JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Seruna, Tehsil Sri Doongargarh in Dist. Bikaner aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16. 2. 2006 passed by the Election Tribunal i. e. the learned Dist. Judge, Bikaner allowing the election petition No. 58/2005 filed by the defeated candidate Chimna Ram.

(2.) THE said defeated candidate, petitioner before the Election Tribunal filed the aforesaid election petition against the present petitioner Tola Ram on the ground that the said person Tola Ram had been charged with an offence under Section 120b I. P. C. in case No. 58/2003 on 6. 11. 2003 along with six other co- accused persons and the said trial was pending in the Court on the date when he filed nomination for election of Sarpanch on 3. 2. 2005 and, therefore, the said respondent Tola Ram, present petitioner incurred disqualification under Section 19 (gg) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and therefore, his election deserved to be set aside.

(3.) THE first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ex. 12, document framing charge against the petitioner was not admissible in evidence as there non-compliance of the provisions of Order 13 Rule 4 C. P. C. and Rule 50, 51, 55 of the General Rules (Civil), 1986 does not impress this Court. THE said charge in the prescribed form No. 22 is in fact in pursuance of order framing charge which was passed by the learned trial Court on 6. 11. 2003, which is Annex. 5 of the writ petition. In the said order, it is clearly stated that the petitioner Tola Ram has been charged under Section 120b I. P. C. and other accused Bhagwan Ram, Mewa Ram, Om Prakash, Sahi Ram and Ram Kishan under various provisions of I. P. C. stated in that order. THE said document is a public document and therefore, the same could be admitted in evidence by the Court and Rule 51 (1) of the General Rules (Civil) of 1986 clearly stipulates that the documents which do not require proof e. g. Public documents and documents admitted by the party against whom they are produced in evidence shall be admitted in evidence and marked as exhibits in the manner prescribed in Rule 50. If the document is not admitted by a person, but is a public document, the Court is certainly entitled to admit the same in evidence without the same being proved and therefore, the learned Election Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any error in admitting the same in evidence and marking the same as Ex. 9 even it be on the date of judgment itself and consider the same in accordance with law.