Allowed

Suresh P.@ Sathyamangalam Suresh v. Suresh Kumar G.S.@ Kollayil Suresh

Kerala HC3 Apr 2008CRP/606/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Civil Revision Petition challenging an election petition order, the High Court revisited the procedure for determining double voting. It held that while courts can compare signatures, the trial court must compare disputed signatures with admitted signatures available in summons and depositions rather than relying solely on expert opinion or insignificant materials.

What did the court decide?

The finding of the appellate court confirming the remand of the case to the trial court for fresh disposal was confirmed.

Suresh P.@ Sathyamangalam Suresh Vs Suresh Kumar G.S.@ Kollayil… — Election Law | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2008 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1930

¶5

CRP.No. 606 of 2007

¶6

---------------------------A.S.(ELE.) 205/2006 DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM OP(ELE.) 2/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTARAKKARA

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT

¶8

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶9

SURESH P.ALIAS SATHYAMANGALAM SURESH, AGED 45, S/O PADMANABHAN, RESIDING AT S.K.BHAVAN, KOLLAYIL POST, CHIRAVOOR MURI, CHITHARA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP (SR.)

¶11

SRI.K.HARILAL SRI.BINDU SREEKUMAR SRI.K.G.RENGANATH SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/ELECTION PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2& 3

¶13

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶14

1. SURESH KUMAR G.S. ALIAS KOLLAYIL SURESH, AGED 44, S/O GOPALA KURUP, SOCIAL WORKER RESIDING AT PUTHEN VEEDU, KOLLAYIL POST, CHIRAVOOR MURI, CHITHARA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA.

¶15

2. SULFIKKAR, AGED 35, S/O ABDULLA, DRIVER, RESIDING AT SUNIL MANZIL, KURAKKODU, KOLLAYIL POST CHIRAVOOR MURI, CHITHARA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA.

¶16

3. ABUDEEN RAWTHER, AGED 75, S/O RAWTHER PILLAI, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT SALIM MANZIL, SATHYAMANGALAM, CHITHARA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA.

¶17

R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.MARTHANDAN UNNITHAN

¶18

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

M.N.KRISHNAN, J

¶20

=====================

¶21

C.R.P.No.606 OF 2007

¶22

=====================

¶23

Dated this the 3rd day of April 2008

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

This revision petition is preferred against the judgment of the District Court, Kollam in A.S.(Ele.)No.205 of 2006. The said appeal was preferred against the order of the Munsiff's Court, Kottarakkara in O.P. (Ele.)No.2 of 2005, whereby the trial court declared that Sri.Suresh Kumar G.S is to be declared as the winner from Ward No.10 of Sathyamangalam of Chithara Grama Panchayat and set aside the election of the first respondent in the election petition. It is against that decision, the appeal was preferred and the appellate court after considering the materials held that it requires interference and therefore remanded the case to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. It is against that decision the first respondent in the election petition has come up in revision before this Court. The election was challenged on the principal ground of double voting and there was also a recrimination petition raising the contention of double voting by some persons. The appellate court, after discussing the entire matter in detail, held that the court below has seriously erred in comparing

¶26

CRP 606 2007 -:2:-

¶27

the signatures for the reason that when the admitted signatures in the summons and deposition were available, the court should have compared the disputed signatures with those admitted signatures for the purpose of deciding the case.

¶28

It is true that the court is vested with the power of comparison of signature under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. The evidence by an expert is as provided under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. Time and again the Apex Court as well as this Court has cautioned that though comparison of signatures by the Judge is permitted, being a hazardous task exercised by a person who is not an expert to resort to such a situation only be under exceptional circumstances. The courts have also cautioned that the decision in a case shall not be merely on the basis of the comparison of signature, but it must be also taken as a piece of evidence along with other materials available before the court to come to a conclusion whether the said person has put his signature in the disputed document.

¶29

So far as the election petitions are concerned, when there is a question regarding double voting there are 3 steps which have to be looked into by the court. Firstly the name of the person should figure in two voters list in two different wards. Secondly, there must be some evidence to show the identity of the persons as the same and lastly when the first two

¶30

CRP 606 2007 -:3:-

¶31

ingredients are satisfied, enter into the main stage of finding out whether those persons had exercised voting in both constituencies under the provisions of election law if proved it has to be treated as void. So, it is in the process of finding whether a person has exercised his franchise in two different wards these questions will arise for consideration. The witness is confronted with his signatures and when one is admitted and the other is disputed, then the court has to compare the signature with the available admitted signatures of the witnesses available before court. The appellate court has held that in this case the witnesses have received summons and they have also put their signatures in the deposition or in other words, there is one admitted signature in one of the counter foils another in the summons and lastly in the deposition. There is only one disputed signature. So the said disputed signature can be compared with the available signatures before court and with the aid of the materials available in the form of evidence, i.e. of the persons who are examined to prove or disprove the case of double voting, the court can arrive at a decision regarding that factum.

¶32

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends before me that

¶33

it is always desirable and proper to have the signatures compared by a person who is an expert on the subject which can be used as a guideline for

¶34

CRP 606 2007 -:4:-

¶35

arriving at a decision. Time and again, the courts have held that even the report and evidence of an expert is only a piece of evidence and the court is supposed to be an expert of expert to arrive at a decision by analysis of the materials available before it to find out the truthfulness of the case. So far as election cases are concerned, the courts are resorting to the comparison of signatures by itself because of the necessity that an election process comes once within 5 years and the delay caused in disposing of an election petition may result in a situation where the whole process become infructuous. It is with this principle in mind the Apex Court has also permitted the matter to be compared by the court. But the caution is, a decision shall not be arrived at merely on the basis of the comparison of signature but must be coupled with the materials and evidence available before court.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the court has only discussed about the evidence of about 26 persons instead of 53 persons. Each of the double voting factum has to be considered with the materials available and a definite finding is to be arrived at. So this Court need not interfere with the decision rendered by the learned District Judge. But, I make it clear that the trial court has to consider the whole matter in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court and consider the

¶37

CRP 606 2007 -:5:-

¶38

materials of double voting with respect to each and every person who is alleged to have committed the double voting and decide the matter afresh. For the said purpose if evidence is required that also can be permitted to be adduced so that the matter can be disposed of with full materials.

¶39

With these observations the finding is confirmed and C.R.P is disposed of .

¶40

M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶41

Cdp/-

Suresh P.@ Sathyamangalam Suresh v. Suresh Kumar G.S.@ Kollayil Suresh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh P.@ Sathyamangalam Suresh v. Suresh Kumar G.S.@ Kollayil Suresh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Kerala Vs Mohammed Poushiammal

Mr. Ivan Rathinam Vs Master Milan Joseph

Mohanakurup Vs Sukesan

Kerala State Electricity Board Vs Sri.Choyikandi Kelappan

Smitha Vs K.R.Babu

Rintu P.Nair & Another Vs Ramesh.S.Nair & 2 Others