Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri Modugala Venugopala Reddy vs Jayadev Galla on 20 October, 2023
Author: R.Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R.Raghunandan Rao
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
I.A. No.2 of 2023
In
E.P.No.2 of 2019
ORDER:
Heard Sri V.R.N. Prasanth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel for Sri M. Balaji, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent No.1.
2. The election petitioner had examined himself as P.W.1. In the course of the examination, he has marked certain Form-17(c) part-I, Form 17(C) part-II and Form 20 as exhibits in the petition. These were marked subject to the objection raised by the learned senior counsel for respondent No.1. The election petitioner was also cross examined and the evidence of the election petitioner has been closed.
3. The present application has now been filed to summon the District Election Officer/District Collector, Guntur to appear before this Court and to produce the entire Form-C part-I and part-II and Form-20 of all the seven assembly constituencies forming part of the Guntur parliamentary constituency. This application is filed on the ground that certain doubts have been raised, in the cross 2 examination of PW1, in relation to the above forms on the ground that the said forms relate to the elections to the Legislative Assembly Constituencies, and not to the Guntur Parliamentary Constituency. The election petitioner contends that it is just and necessary to summon the said documents to obviate any ground of doubt/confusion on the same and to examine the same for comprehensive adjudication of the matter.
4. Sri V.R.N.Prasanth, learned counsel appearing for the election petitioner submits that, though this application was filed is an application under Order XVI, Rule 1, it could also be treated as an application under Order XVI Rule 14 of C.P.C and that the Election Officer should be summoned as a Court witness. Sri V.R.N.Prasanth relying upon the judgments in Basanagouda vs. Dr. S.B. Amarkhed and Others1, Shaik Mohammed Umar Saheb vs. Kaleskar Hasham Karimsab and Others2, Pratap Singh vs. Rajinder Singh and Another3, R.M. Seshadri vs. G.Vasanta Pai4, National Insurance Co. Ltd & Others vs. M/s.Suru Sea Foods5 and 1 (1992) 2 SCC 612 2 (1969)1 SCC 741 3 (1975) 1 SCC 535 4 MANU/SC/0529/1968::40 E.L.R.303 5 2005(1) A.P.L.J.71(HC) 3 Pradeep Manoj Farms Pvt.Ltd & Others vs. Duggirala Vidya Sagar Rao and Ors6., would contend that this Court has ample power to summon the District Election Officer as a Court witness and to examine him along with the documents produced by him. He submits that Form-17(c) part-I, Form 17(C) part-II and Form 20 are necessary to show that the discrepancies in these forms are sufficient to demonstrate widespread manipulations in the casting of ballots by the voters and that the said manipulations vitiate the entire election process. In such circumstances, he contends that, following the aforesaid judgments, it is just and necessary for this Court to summon the said documents.
5. Sri. B. Adinarayana Rao, the learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.1 contends that the present application is not maintainable; the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mange Ram vs. Brij Mohan and Others7 had held that the assistance of the Court for summoning a witness can be obtained only where the said witness has already been included in the list of witnesses which is to be filed at the time of filing of the case; the 6 MANU/TL/0391/2023 7 (1983) 4 SCC 36 4 election petitioner having marked a few of the documents (subject to objection) is now seeking to expand the scope of the election petition by calling upon this Court to conduct a roving enquiry by summoning all the forms for the entire election; there can be no complaint with the contention that this Court has ample power to summon witnesses or documents; the said power would have to be exercised in accordance with the principles laid down in the case of Basanagouda vs. Dr. S.B. Amarkhed and Others, the said discrepancies would not extend to helping out the petitioner to make out his case and overcome the dues raised in the cross examination; the petitioner being barred from seeking assistance of this Court to summon the District Election Officer as he was not shown in the list of witnesses, cannot seek to summon him as a court witness under Order 16 Rule 14 and finally this Court in its order in I.A.No.1 of 2023 had recorded the fact that the pleadings in the election petition did not set out the actual number of votes in relation to the polling booths or voting machines in polling booths from which 17(c) forms had been placed before this Court and marked by P.W.1 and consequently no case is made out for summoning the said documents. 5
6. In reply, Sri V.R.N.Prasnath would submit that though the prayer is for summoning all the 17(c) forms and 20 forms, he is restricting his prayer to the said forms whose copies have been marked as exhibits in the election petition.
7. There is no doubt that this Court has ample power to summon witnesses or documents as Court witnesses and to mark documents through such court witnesses. However, the said power has to be exercised only where the circumstances or conditions require the exercise of such power.
8. In the present case, the election petitioner had marked certain form 17 (c) part-I, Form 17 (c) part-II and Form 20 to demonstrate that there were discrepancies in the number of votes polled in the polling booths as opposed to the number of votes counted on the day of counting. The petitioner now contends that some doubts have been raised on account of the cross examination of the petitioner and these doubts pertain to the question of whether the forms marked by the election petition relate to the elections to the Guntur Parliamentary Constituency or to the simultaneous elections held in the assembly segments constituting such 6 Parliamentary Constituency. On that basis, this application has been filed to summon the originals from the District Election Officer.
9. The pleadings in the application show that the assistance of this Court is sought to obviate doubts raised in such cross examination. The power under Order XVI Rule 4 of C.P.C cannot be invoked to help the petitioner to get over any doubts that may have been raised in the course of the cross examination of the witnesses. That power is to be used where the Court is of the opinion that it has summon witnesses or documents for a better understanding of this case and for a comprehensive disposal of the dispute before the Court.
10. As this Court does not find any such reason or ground made out by the petitioner, this application is dismissed.
11. Hence, this application is dismissed.
___________________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO Date : .10.2023 RJS 7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO I.A. No.2 of 2023 In E.P.No.2 of 2019 Date : .10.2023 RJS 8