Gopalakrishnan N vs A. Sarasi on 13 February, 2009
In Gopalakrishnan v. Sarasi (2009 (2) KLT 882), it has been
pointed out that on omission of details it could be stated that
details furnished are not accurate or complete, but, it cannot be
stated the details furnished are false or fake. Non-furnishing of
the plinth area of the buildings stated in Form 2A or of some
assets, shares obtained in the name of the returned candidate
and his wife, and also, share value in an unregistered association
while furnishing Form 2A, at best, can be considered only as
C.R.P.No.733/2008 11
omissions, which, at the most, would render the information
supplied as incomplete but not render that Form a fake. So, I do
not find any ground to interfere with the decision of the learned
District Judge reversing the order passed by the learned Munsiff
declaring the election of the returned candidate void.