Quashed

Ranglal Rai v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC17 Aug 2017CWJC/9362/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an election case order admitting certified copies as exhibits while originals were available. The Court held that marking copies as exhibits violates Section 65 unless originals are unavailable, and quashed the impugned order to that extent.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 22.05.2017 passed by Munsif 1st, Chapra in Election Case No. 4 of 2016 quashed to extent it relates to Exhibits 1, 2 and 3.

Ranglal Rai Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Election Law | Patna HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9362 of 2017

¶3

=========================================================== Ranglal Rai, Son of Nathuni Rai, Resident of Village and P.O. Agauthar Nanda, P.S. Isuapur, District- Saran at Chapra, presently Mukhia of Gram Panchayat Raj, Agauthar Sunder, Block- Isuapur, District- Saran at Chapra.

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra.

¶7

The District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra, District- Saran at Chapra.

¶8

Alok Kumar Pandey, Son of Late Anil Kumar Pandey, Resident of Village and P.O. Agauthar Nanda, P.S. Isuapur, District- Saran at Chapra.

¶9

.... .... Respondent/s

¶10

=========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, AC to GP 6 For the Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Suresh Pd. Singh No. 1, Advocate ===========================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT

¶12

Date: 17-08-2017

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and respondent no. 3, who has suo motu appeared.

¶14

The petitioner has moved the Court for the following

¶15

reliefs:

¶16

“(I) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing the order dated 22.05.2017 passed by the learned Munsif 1^st , Chapra in Election 4 of 2016, whereby and where under he has been pleased to take into exhibit all documents filed by the Respondent no. 3 along with

¶17

Patna High Court CWJC No.9362 of 2017 dt.17-08-2017

¶18

2 / 4

¶19

his application dated 24.04.2017 though they were not the public document and their original is already there in the custody of District Magistratecum- District Election Officer, Saran at Chapra.

¶20

(II) For a declaration that in view of the provisions contained under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the learned Munsif was not justified to exhibit the attested copies of the documents which are not even the public documents without there being any evidence before him that the original has been lost.

¶21

(III) For issuance of any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for which the writ petitioner would be found entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶22

The contention of the petitioner is that in Election Case No. 4 of 2016, which was filed by the respondent no. 3, certified copies of certain documents have been marked as Exhibit, despite objection by the petitioner that it was not in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, since the originals were available and could very well have been called for.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the law requires that any secondary evidence, including certified copy can be taken as evidence and marked as Exhibit only when certain conditions precedent are fulfilled; one being that the original is

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.9362 of 2017 dt.17-08-2017

¶25

3 / 4

¶26

either destroyed or not available or immovable. It was submitted that in the present case, the original nomination papers were there and the certified copies of the same, which was filed by the respondent no. 3, were sought to be made Exhibits and the same was objected to by the petitioner, with a prayer to the Court concerned that the original be called for, the same has been rejected, which is impermissible.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 submitted that the certified copy is also the official copy of the original and once the same is already there, it would only be wastage of time of the Court to call for the original.

¶28

Having considered the rival contentions, the Court finds that the marking of Exhibit of the certified copies of the nomination papers cannot be sustained. The law, as has rightly been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, requires that when the original evidence/document is available, the same has to be called for before the Court and then only it can be marked as Exhibit. In the present case, certified copies of the nomination papers, that too filed by the respondent no. 3 along with the plaint of the election case, could not have been marked as Exhibit without there being a finding that the same could not be called for due to any reason.

¶29

Patna High Court CWJC No.9362 of 2017 dt.17-08-2017

¶30

4 / 4

¶31

Accordingly, the order dated 22.05.2017 passed by the Munsif 1^st , Chapra in Election Case No. 4 of 2016 stands quashed only to the extent it relates to Exhibits 1, 2 and 3, which are part of the nomination papers. The said documents which had been marked as Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 shall now no more be Exhibit in the said case. However, the same can be made Exhibits in accordance with the requirements of law. If prayer is made for making them Exhibits, the same shall be considered in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by the present order.

¶32

Before parting, the Court would only observe that in election matters any petition challenging the same has to be considered expeditiously and the Court concerned shall be conscious of this aspect.

¶33

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

¶34

Anjani/-

¶35

AFR/NAFR U

Ranglal Rai v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranglal Rai v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

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

Jamila Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Vinita Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Briksha Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Nagina Rai Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Bhola Nath @ Bhola Nath Gupta Vs The Biharsharif Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Kumari Kumkum Ray Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.