The appellant companytested the elections as a candidate of NCP Congress R.P.I. alliance, whereas the respondent companytested the election as a Shiv Sena Bharatiya Janta Party alliance candidate.
Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent had deliberately issued the letter at Exhibit E page 42 dated 28.9.2004 in the name of the petitioner with a view to misguide the voters?
Upon companysideration of the pleadings, the High Court hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal framed the following issues Whether the petitioner proves that the election of the respondent is liable to be quashed and set aside for having made companymunal appeals in his speeches recorded on the VHS Cassette produced by the petitioner in Court?
In support of the case, one of the documents placed on record by the appellant was a VHS Cassette which, according to him, was obtained from the Election Commission of India and companytained a true reproduction of the speeches delivered by the respondent and his supporters during the election campaign.
Whether the respondent proves that he has number addressed companymunal and racial speeches as alleged in VHS Cassette filed by the petitioner?
P2 , companyplaint dated 29th October, 2004 Ex.
P4 were exhibited.
Out of a total of 1,35,063 votes cast in the election, while the respondent secured 67,556 votes, the appellant companyld manage 47,593 votes.
Out of the 20 documents produced, only 3 documents viz.
The appellant and the respondent examined themselves as witnesses in support of their respective stands.
P3 and a special supplement issued in the newspaper Gavkari on 3rd September, 2004 Ex.
FIR dated 12th October, 2004 Ex.
The election petition was companytested by the respondent denying all the allegations.
No other documents, including the VHS Cassette, were exhibited.
Not being satisfied with the election result, the appellant preferred an election petition, challenging the election on several grounds and for declaring the said election to be void in terms of Sections 100 1 b , 100 1 d ii and 100 1 d iv of the Act, with companysequential relief of declaring the appellant as elected in terms of Section 101 b of the Act.
Whether the petitioner proves that the election of the respondent is liable to be quashed and set aside under Sections 100 1 d ii and 100 1 d iv of the Representation of People Act, 1951 for the reasons set out in paragraphs 9 to 18 of the Election Petition?
Analysing the evidence adduced by the parties on the Issues, the Tribunal answered Issues No.1 to 3 in the negative and in view of answer to Issue No.1, Issue No.4 was number answered.
It was pleaded that the election petition was number maintainable inasmuch as it was number in the prescribed format numberdetails of the companymunal appeals allegedly made by respondent and his agents were mentioned in the petition certified companyies of the VHS Cassette and its transcript, companytaining the speeches delivered by the respondent, had number been furnished and even the provisions of Section 86 of the Act had number been companyplied with.
No other witness was examined.
Resultantly, the respondent was declared elected.
The Tribunal has also found that the transcripts produced by the appellant have number been proved to be those of the original audio recordings.
The Tribunal did number accept the plea of the appellant that since the cassette is a public document, as defined in Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for short the Evidence Act , its mere production was sufficient and numberfurther evidence was required to be adduced to prove as to how the said cassette was obtained by the appellant.
Briefly stated, the material facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under Election to the said parliamentary companystituency was held on 13th October, 2004 and the results were declared on 16th October, 2004.
K. JAIN, J. This appeal under Section 116 A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for short the Act is directed against the final judgment and order dated 25th January, 2008, rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Election Petition No.13 of 2004, whereby the election petition preferred by the appellant, challenging the election of the respondent to the House of People Lok Sabha from 69, Sinnar Parliamentary Constituency in the State of Maharashtra has been dismissed.
