Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

21. The Court also examined the Returning Officer- Ramachandara, who is Deputy Commissioner examined as CW-1. He has identified Ex.P-4 and he has stated, the affidavit filed under Form No.26 is in order and there is no defective in the affidavit. The evidence of the CW-1 and the Ex.P-4 affidavit of the respondent clearly go to show that the affidavit is in accordance with Rule 4A of the RP Act. That apart, the petitioner failed to obtain certified copy of Ex.P-4 from the office of the Returning Officer to confirm whether page No.15 is very much available or not, though it is admitted by the parties as well as CW-1 that after the scrutiny of the nomination papers and after acceptance of the nomination papers, the same were web hosted on the INTERNET for viewing the same by public. Though the petitioner has contended that Page No.15 was missing but the missing document of the Internet copy of affidavit has not been marked by the petitioner and also not confronted to CW-1. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner cannot be acceptable that the Returning Officer wrongly accepted the nomination papers as it was defective cannot be acceptable and he has failed to prove that page No.15 of the affidavit in Ex.P-4 is missing.