LexDR. SMT. SHIPRA versus SHANTI LAL KHOIWAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
DR. SMT. SHIPRA v. SHANTI LAL KHOTWAL APRIL 3, 1996 !K. RAMASWAMY, S.P. BHARUCHA AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] Election Law : A B Representation of the People Act, 1951: Sections 83( 1)(c) & proviso, C 81 and 86. Election petition-Tme copy-Fumishing of-To retwned candidate- C01i11pt practice-Copy of election petition supplied to retwned candidate together with affidavit not containing ve1ification by Notwy--Copy of election petitio11 alleging co1111pt practice required to be accompanied by affidavit D along with Fmm 25 prescribed under R. 94-A of Co11duct of Elections Rules r/w proviso to S.83( I) of R.P. Act to be "swam before a Magfrtrate of the first class or a Notwy or a Commissioner of Oaths''-Held : Requireme11t ma11- di:Jt01y and is an integral palt of election petition-In case of non-complia11ce, copy of petition cannot be treated as "tme copy" under S. 81 (3 )--Such E omission is a vital act and would mislead the retwned candidate-Therefore, filing the miginal affidavit duly ve1ified, with the election petition would not rnre the defect of no11-supply of such affidavit to the retuined candidate on ground of substantial compliance-Lapse on pwt of Regist1y of High Cowt to point out defect-Does not bar retwned candidate to raise preliminwy objection regardi11g maintainability of election petition 011 gro1111d of no11-com- F pliance of mandat01y req11ireme11t-lf cowt upholds pre/iminwy objection, election petition would result in dismissal at the ti!l"eslwl~Where election petition raises other independent issues apalt from comtpt practice, only those pwts of the petition which cu11tai11 allegations of conupt practice alone require to be st111ck off and other issues lo be t1ied and decided 011 111e1its-Co11duct G of Elections Rules, 1961, R.94-A. Words a11d Phrases : "Tme copy''-Meaning oj: The appellant challenged the respondent's election to the State Assembly on the ground that the respondent had committed corrupt H 1175 1176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS j1996J 3 S.C.R. A practices. After sen 1ice of the notice, the respondent raised preliminary objections contending that copy of the notice togt'ther with tlu: atlidavit in support of the election petition served on hin1, did not contain the veritica~ tion by the Notary; hence the election petition \Vas not n1aintainable in accordance with Section 83(1) (c) of the Representation of the People Act, B 1951. The objections found favour with the High Court, which accordingly dismissed the election petition. The question before this Court was : Whether the copy of the election petition accompanied by supporting affidavit served on the respective respondents along with Form 25 prescribed under Rule 94-A of the Con- C duct of Election Rules, 1961 without attestation part duly verified by the District Magistrate/Notary/Oath Commissioner can be said to be "true and correct copy" of the election petition as envisaged in Section 81 (3) of the Act? D Dismissing the appeal, this Court (Per Ramaswamy, J) : HELD: 1.1. Since the corrupt practices are required to be proved to the hilt, the element of vagueness would immediately vitiate the election E petition. A true copy supplied with mistakes of vital and serious nature would, therefore, entail dismissal of the election petition. Each case has to be considered on its own facts and circumstances. No general principal of universal applicatio':' could possibly be laid. (1184-E) • 1.2. A true copy is a transcript identical to or substitute to the F original but not ahsolutel)' t'Xact copy. But nobody can by any possibility, 1nisunderstand it to be not a true copy. The test is whether any variation from the original is calculated to mislead an ordinary person. When· a petitioner is enjoined to file an election petition accompanied by an af- fidavit duly sworn by the applicant duly verifying diverse allegations of G corrupt practices imputed to the returned candidate and attested by the prescribed authority it would be obvious that the statute intended that it shall be performed in the san1e manner as prescribed in Form 25 read with Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. [1183-B-D) Sarkar on Evidence (14th Edn. 1993), p.2183; Black's Law Dictionmy H (6th Edn.); Webster's Comprehensive Dictionmy (International Edn.) and ... .• DR. SMT. SHIPRAv. S.L. KHOIWAL . · .. 1177 Stroud's Judicial Dictionwy (5th Edn.) (Vol. 5), referred to. 2.1. Verification by a N
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.