Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

30. The election petitioner filed the first list of witnesses on 21.9.1990. At serial No3, the election petitioner summoned "Circle Inspector of Police Gulbarga" :

l."to produce all the original documents pertaining to Muslim League candidate permission granted to Sri Mahamad Ahmed, IUML, Gulbarga bearing permission No.35-89, 54-89 and 70-89 and to give evidence in the matter.

2. to produce the oral complaint registered by the on 24.11.1989 at Roza Police Station".

Again, at serial No.(i) in the further prayer in the same application, the petitioner summoned Shri Prakash Kore Ex. C.I.T.B. Gnlbarga H.No.5-589, Chote Roza, near Police Station, Gulbarga, "to produce the original tape recorded speech of Sh. Qamarul Islam". It was in an additional list of witnesses filed on 22.10.1990, that the election petitioner summoned, at serial No.l, Mr. Azizullah, Editor, Publisher & Printer of Bahamani News' with the documents mentioned against his name. At serial No.6 of the additional list dated 22.10.1990, the petitioner also summoned "Basavaraj Ingini C.P.I. Harnabad, Distt. Bidar to produce all the original documents pertaining to Muslim League candidate - permission granted to public meetings and loud-speaker permission throughout the election period and produce the recorded speech of Sri Quamarut Islam in public meeting held at various places and give the evidence". The learned trial judge allowed the summoning of witnesses as contained in the lists dated 21.9.1990 and 22.10.1990 in a totally mechanical manner. The election petitioner was not called upon to explain as to why the name of the editor Shri Azizullah did not figure in the first list of witnesses or why a departure was made in the second list by summoning Shri Basavaraj Ingini with the tape recorded speech of the appellant, when he was not asked to produce any such tape recorded speech in the first list where he had been summoned at serial no.3 and instead it was Mr. Kore, summoned at s.no. (i) in the further prayer in the first list of witnesses who had been directed to produce the tape recorded speech of the appellant. In an election petition the filing of the list of witnesses, with a brief of the relevance of their evidence is not only intended to put the opposite party on notice about the evidence sought to be summoned but also to bind the party to the production of the relevant evidence as detailed in the list. The list of witnesses has a lot of sanctity and importance but in this case, no consideration appears to have been given by the learned trial judge to this aspect and without examining the two lists, orders came to be made to summon the witnesses in a mechanical manner. The procedure adopted by the learned trial judge was not the proper procedure to be followed while trying an election petition. The list of witnesses are required to be carefully scrutinised before issuance of summons. That apparently was not done in the present case.

44. Since, neither the general diary of the police station nor any other material had been produced by the witness we found it necessary, after perusing his evidence, to summon Shri Ingini, as a court witness alongwith some record which we considered necessary to do justice between the parties.

45. Appearing as a court witness in this court, Shri Basavaraj Ingini, PWI, stated that he was maintaining the general diary of the circle (police) station and that he also attended meetings conducted during the last elections of various candidates since maintenance of law and order was a part of his duty. He went on to add that on 15.11.1989, he attended the meeting at about 8 a.m. at Jalanabad, addressed by the appellant while on 16.11.1989, he attended the meeting of the returned candidate held at Roza market, where the appellant and some others addressed the meetings and that he tape recorded the speech. of the appellant and other speakers. The witness was then confronted with the general diary (which had been summoned by us) dated 16.11.1989 and 17.11.1989 pertaining to the meet-ings held on 15.11.1989 and 16.11.1989 at Roza Market and Jalanabad and he admitted that he did not make any entry in the general diary regarding the tape recording of the speeches of the appellant and others on either of these dates. He deposed that he had made the tape recordings under oral instructions given to him by the Superintendent of Police, Gulbarga, but conceded that there was no entry in the daily diary with regard to any such oral instructions having been given to him. He went on to add that he had, after tape recording the speeches, informed the Superintendent of Police orally that he had tape recorded the speeches. When asked as to why he had kept the tape recorded cassettes with him and not deposited the same in the police station, since in his earlier deposition at the trial, he had deposed that he had tape recorded the speeches as "routine police work", the witness answered that since "they were not required for official purpose" he kept the same with himself. He was then asked that if they were not required for official purpose "why did you keep the recorded speech with you"? The witness answered that "it was done casually". The following questions and answers of the witness, as recorded in this Court, are of significance, to appreciate the credibility of the ace evidence led by the election petitioner regarding the cassette, Ex.P7.

47. We have carefully perused the relevant pleadings, the deposition of Shri Ingini at the trial, the testimony of the election petitioner and the deposition of Shri Ingini as a court witness. It appears rather strange to us that on oral orders of the Superintendent of Police, Shri Basavaraj Ingini, PW1, Circle Inspector should have used his own tape recorder and tape recorded the speeches at various meetings of different candidates on his personal cassettes and thereafter on his transfer from Gulbarga police station taken all those cassettes with him and kept then in his own safe custody in an almirah, though the same were not required for any "official purpose". Sh. Ingini has been unable to explain either before the trial judge or before us as to why he was 'preserving' all those cassettes and for whose benefit. There are not only many loose ends in his evidence but certain glairing features which cast serious doubts on the credibility of this witness and the election petitioner regarding the recording of the speeches of the appellant in cassette, Ex.P7, In his statement made at the trial, Sh. Ingini categorically stated that the recorded tape were kept by him in his "personal custody" and that nobody else including his wife had any access to the same, but appearing as a court witness, he conceded that his wife and children also had access to those cassettes but went on to add that they were to listen only to the music cassettes. According to Shri Ingini, he knew Shri Kanta, the election petitioner intimately for the past more than 10/12 years, as they belong to the same village and that they had been visiting each other. The election petitioner, appearing as PW6 at the trial, however, categorically stated "/ do not know PWI Basavaraj Ingini at all". According to Shri Ingini, he did not inform Shri Kanta or anyone else, except the S.P. orally that he had tape-recorded the speeches and that he did not inform anyone that he was having the recorded cassettes in his possession and that after recording the cassette, he had not replayed it even to hear it. The election petitioner - respondent No.l, at the trial when questioned as to how he came to know about the tape-recorded cassette which had been summoned by him from the witness, answered:

"......I do not know PWI Basavaraj Ingini. As per the information that police will generally make Tape record-ing of the speeches, I came to know the recording.

Question: Who gave the information regarding the Tape recording?

Answer: I came to know by general information.

I cannot say which person on which date and at what time informed me about this tape recording. I was aware about the general information of recording the speeches of Tape recording at the time of my filing of Election Petition. I did not take any efforts to get at that cassette. I did not make any mention in my Election Petition in respect of this tape recording. It is not correct to suggest that even though I was aware of the existence of a tape, I did not mention in my Petition" deliberately.