ABDULRASAKH versus K. P. MOHAMMED & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 583 · Decided: 08-03-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
583
ABDULRASAKH
v.
K. P. MOHAMMED & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.10863 of  2017)
MARCH 08, 2018
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.]
The Representation of People Act, 1951 – ss.81(1), 86 and
123(4) – Election petition filed against appellant by respondent nos.1
& 2 on ground of corrupt practices – Petition returned from the
Registry and thereafter re-presented – Appellant filed application
for summary dismissal of the election petition inter alia on grounds
that the election petition was time barred  as the limitation prescribed
to file the same had expired by the time it was re-presented and also
that the Registry had no power to return the election petition on
defects being pointed out or to permit curing of any defects –
Application dismissed by High Court – On appeal, held: Kerala
High Court Rules (r. 210) provides for scrutiny by the Judge and
not by the Registry – There was no violation of this Rule – On
re-presentation, the petition was stated to be defective and the
Registry was fully conscious that the defects pointed out by it could
not be permitted to be cured by Registry itself and that is why the
matter was placed before the concerned Judge as an unnumbered
election petition – On 18.7.2016, the Judge did not find merit in
some of the objections pointed by the Registry and to the extent
some minor corrections were required, which were not material, one
week’s time was granted to respondent Nos.1 & 2 to carry out the
corrections – Needful was done within the stipulated time and it
was thereafter that notices were issued to the appellant – Thus,
whole premise of the plea of appellant that Registry permitted
corrections to be made is fallacious – Presentation of the election
petition cannot be said to be beyond time stipulated in s.81(1) –
Kerala High Court Rules – r.210 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 –
s.151 and Or.VI, r.16 & Or.VII, r.11 – Election Laws.
The Representation of People Act, 1951 – s.81(3) – Alleged
violation of – When not – Election petition filed against appellant
alleging corrupt practices – Mobile phone produced in sealed cover
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 583
583
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
584
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
– Plea of appellant that he was entitled to the chip of the mobile
phone apart from the CD of the relevant portion and that the
failure to hand over the same is violative of s.81(3) – Held: The
phone was filed and keeping the phone in a sealed cover or the
allegation of non-supply of the chip alleged to be violative of s.81(3)
is not a plea which can be accepted – At best these are all matters
for trial.
Election Laws – Law relating to technicalities of election
petition – Discussed.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Kerala High Court Rules (Rule 210) itself
provided for scrutiny by the Judge assigned to the case and not
by the Registry. There was no violation of this Rule. [Para 14]
[593-D]
1.2  The minor corrections permitted to be made vide order
dated 18.7.2016 were by the Court. A mountain out of a molehill
was made without appreciating the office notings in the true
perspective. The Registry was fully conscious that the eight
defects pointed out by it could not be permitted to be cured by
the Registry itself and that is why the matter was directed to be
placed before the concerned Judge as an unnumbered election
petition. On 18.7.2016, the Judge did not find merit in some of
the objections pointed by the Registry and to the extent some
minor corrections were required, which were not material, one
week’s time was granted to respondent Nos.1 & 2 to carry out
the corrections. The needful was done within the stipulated time
and it was thereafter that notices were issued to the appellant.
The whole premise of the plea of the appellant is based on the
Registry permitting corrections to be made is, thus, fallacious
and, thus, the presentation of the petition cannot be said to be
beyond time stipulated in Section 81(1) of the Representation of
People Act, 1951. [Paras 15, 16] [593-F-H; 594-A]
2. It was rightly observed that the phone was filed and
keeping the phone in a sealed cover or the allegation of
non-supply of the chip alleged to be violative of Section 81(3) of
the said Act is not a plea which can be accepted. At best these
are all matters for trial. Similarly copies of the documents were
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
585
supplied to the appellant and multiple copies of the phone or the
chip (which is kept in a sealed cover) are not mandated to be
supplied when t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.