Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15) Mr. S.K. Gupta appearing for the election petitioner on his part would submit that the burden of proof to be discharged by the election petitioner on the issue of ineligibility of the defendant was to be of the standard of preponderance of probability and not of the standard of beyond reasonable doubt as would be required in case of an election petition based on corrupt practice. It has been submitted that the admission form of the Government Secondary School, Village Tidoki Badi and the entry in the scholar register qua Krishna Singh's date of birth were duly proved by the Headmaster of the said school and the said documents were relevant documents with reference to Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as also Section 114(e) thereof. He submitted that the defendant had not been able to rebut the presumption in law with regard to the documents procured from public authority where they were kept in the ordinary course of business and more importantly documents ante litem motam i.e. which has come into existence at an earlier point of time when there was no conceivable possibility of the said document being used in subsequent litigation. It has been submitted that the burden of proof to establish that the nomination of a candidate otherwise ineligible under the governing election statute was adequately discharged by the election petitioner with reference to the overall facts and circumstances of the case wherefrom a reasonable probability can be seen and inference drawn about the ineligibility alleged. He submitted that the court must not lay down an impossible standard of proof such that the object of the legislation is defeated. It has been submitted that the question with regard to the ineligibility of the defendant was a question of fact before the Election Tribunal and the Election Tribunal has not committed any perversity or misdirection in law in coming to the conclusion on the evidence before it that the defendant was disqualified in the facts of the case with reference to Section 19(l) of the Act of 1994.