Haji K.M. Abdul Kasim And Ors. vs P.M.N. Mohammed Dawood And Ors. on 21 September, 1962
Learned Senior Advocate points out
that the decision of this court in Abdulla Haji Vs. Mohammed
(supra) has no application to the facts of this case.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.25 seconds)Section 73 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
I. Vikheshe Sema vs Hokishe Sema on 1 May, 1996
5. Now, I shall refer to the decisions relied on by learned
Counsel. The Supreme Court in I. Vikheshe Sema Vs. Hokishe
Sema (supra) at page 59 stated that it is necessary to ascertain the
number of void votes which has been polled in favour of the
respective candidates to ascertain whether the void votes have in
anyway materially affected the result of the election.
A. Neelalohithadasan Nadar vs George Mascrene on 11 April, 1994
14. It is mainly based on comparison of the signatures made
by learned Munsiff that the issue regarding double voting is
answered. Section 73 of the Evidence Act enables the court to
C.R.P. No.118 of 2010
-: 14 :-
compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature though,
decisions on the point say that such comparison shall not by itself be
the sole basis for a decision. So far as election law is concerned, the
rigour of section 73 has been diluted to some extent for the reason
that it involved public interest and the process of getting the disputed
signatures examined by the experts might consume time which
by itself may defeat the very purpose of election law. Courts have
held that it is within the power of Election Tribunal to compare
the disputed signature with the admitted signature and arrive at
proper conclusions. The Supreme Court in Neelalohithadasan
Nadar Vs. George Mascrene (1994(1) KLT 887) has stated these
aspects in paragraph 15. It is stated,
"The High Court finally recorded its satisfaction or
otherwise in the case of signature resulting in double voting
and impersonation, and signature and thumb impression not
tallying at all. No meaningful argument on facts in regard
thereto was addressed before us except to the approach of
employing S.73 of the Evidence Act. It was urged that the
High Court should not have become an expert. We,
however, are of the view that when larger public interest is
served by expeditious disposal of an Election Petition, then
C.R.P. No.118 of 2010
-: 15 :-
the course adopted by the High Court, as suggested from
the afore-extraction, is in conformity therewith.
State (Delhi Administration) vs Pali Ram on 26 September, 1978
Although
courts should be slow in resorting to this method, we do not
find it faulted, more so when the Courts resort to exercise of
such power is approved in two other cases of this court in
State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Pali Ram (1979 (1)
SCR 931) and Murari Lal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
(1980(2) SCR 249). As a sequator the finding recorded
by the High Court on Issue No,.1 is perfectly sound."
Thus, comparison of the disputed signature with the admitted
signatures is permissible and that is what the learned Munsiff has
done.
1