Supreme Court of India
ABDULRASAKHversusK. P. MOHAMMED & ORS.
- Citation
- 2018 INSC 220
- Decided
- 8 March 2018
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- JASTI CHELAMESWAR
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the election petition was not time‑barred, the Registry could not cure defects beyond the limitation, the minor corrections ordered by the Judge were permissible, and the sealed mobile phone evidence did not warrant dismissal.
Summary
The appellant, Abdulrasakh, was elected to the Kerala Legislative Assembly in May 2016. Two voters filed an election petition under Section 123(4) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 alleging corrupt practices, and presented the petition on 1 July 2016. The High Court Registry returned the petition for defects; it was re‑presented on 11 July 2016, after the 45‑day limitation prescribed by Section 81(1) had expired. The appellant sought summary dismissal on the ground that the petition was time‑barred and that the Registry had no authority to return the petition or allow curing of defects. The High Court rejected the application and the Supreme Court upheld that the petition was not barred, as the Registry could not cure defects beyond the limitation and the minor corrections were ordered by the Judge, not the Registry, and therefore the presentation was within time. The Court also held that the sealed mobile phone evidence complied with Section 81(3) and that any alleged non‑supply of the chip was a matter for trial, not a ground for dismissal. The appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the election petition was barred by the 45‑day limitation under Section 81(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
- Whether defects in an election petition may be cured after the limitation period has expired.
- Whether the High Court Registry has power to return an election petition for curing defects after the limitation period.
- Whether the Court can condone delay in presentation of an election petition when the original delay is not condonable under the Act.
- Whether corrections made after the limitation period relate back to the original date of presentation.
- Whether the curing of defects complies with the mandatory requirements of Sections 81, 82, 83 and 117 of the Representation of People Act and the applicable Rules.
- Whether the petition is maintainable for non‑compliance with the mandatory requirements of the Act and Rules.
- Whether the sealed mobile phone and its contents, and the alleged non‑supply of the chip, violate Section 81(3) of the Act.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 151
- Kerala High Court Ruless. Rule 210
- Representation of People Act, 1951s. 123(4), s. 81(1), s. 81(3), s. 86
Subjects
election petitionlimitation periodRepresentation of People Actcorrupt practicesprocedural defectssealed evidencemobile phonesummary dismissalKerala High Court Rules
Judgment
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 583 583
ABDULRASAKH A
v.
K. P. MOHAMMED & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.10863 of 2017)
MARCH 08, 2018 B
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.]
The Representation of People Act, 1951 – ss.81(1), 86 and
123(4) – Election petition filed against appellant by respondent nos.1
& 2 on ground of corrupt practices – Petition returned from the
C
Registry and thereafter re-presented – Appellant filed application
for summary dismissal of the election petition inter alia on grounds
that the election petition was time barred as the limitation prescribed
to file the same had expired by the time it was re-presented and also
that the Registry had no power to return the election petition on
defects being pointed out or to permit curing of any defects – D
Application dismissed by High Court – On appeal, held: Kerala
High Court Rules (r. 210) provides for scrutiny by the Judge and
not by the Registry – There was no violation of this Rule – On
re-presentation, the petition was stated to be defective and the
Registry was fully conscious that the defects pointed out by it could
E
not be permitted to be cured by Registry itself and that is why the
matter was placed before the concerned Judge as an unnumbered
election petition – On 18.7.2016, the Judge did not find merit in
some of the objections pointed by the Registry and to the extent
some minor corrections were required, which were not material, one
week’s time was granted to respondent Nos.1 & 2 to carry out the F
corrections – Needful was done within the stipulated time and it
was thereafter that notices were issued to the appellant – Thus,
whole premise of the plea of appellant that Registry permitted
corrections to be made is fallacious – Presentation of the election
petition cannot be said to be beyond time stipulated in s.81(1) –
G
Kerala High Court Rules – r.210 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 –
s.151 and Or.VI, r.16 & Or.VII, r.11 – Election Laws.
The Representation of People Act, 1951 – s.81(3) – Alleged
violation of – When not – Election petition filed against appellant
alleging corrupt practices – Mobile phone produced in sealed cover
H
583
584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 3 S.C.R.
A – Plea of appellant that he was entitled to the chip of the mobile
phone apart from the CD of the relevant portion and that the
failure to hand over the same is violative of s.81(3) – Held: The
phone was filed and keeping the phone in a sealed cover or the
allegation of non-supply of the chip alleged to be violative of s.81(3)
is not a plea which can be accepted – At best these are all matters
B
for trial.
Election Laws – Law relating to technicalities of election
petition – Discussed.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
C HELD: 1.1 The Kerala High Court Rules (Rule 210) itself
provided for scrutiny by the Judge assigned to the case and not
by the Registry. There was no violation of this Rule. [Para 14]
[593-D]
1.2 The minor corrections permitted to be made vide order
D dated 18.7.2016 were by the Court. A mountain out of a molehill
was made without appreciating the office notings in the true
perspective. The Registry was fully conscious that the eight
defects pointed out by it could not be permitted to be cured by
the Registry itself and that is why the matter was directed to be
E placed before the concerned Judge as an unnumbered election
petition. On 18.7.2016, the Judge did not find merit in some of
the objections pointed by the Registry and to the extent some
minor corrections were required, which were not material, one
week’s time was granted to respondent Nos.1 & 2 to carry out
the corrections. The needful was done within the stipulated time
F and it was thereafter that notices were issued to the appellant.
The whole premise of the plea of the appellant is based on the
Registry permitting corrections to be made is, thus, fallacious
and, thus, the presentation of the petition cannot be said to be
beyond time stipulated in Section 81(1) of the Representation of
G People Act, 1951. [Paras 15, 16] [593-F-H; 594-A]
2. It was rightly observed that the phone was filed and
keeping the phone in a sealed cover or the allegation of
non-supply of the chip alleged to be violative of Section 81(3) of
the said Act is not a plea which can be accepted. At best these
are all matters for trial. Similarly copies of the documents were
H
ABDULRASAKH v. K.P. MOHAMMED & ORS. 585
supplied to the appellant and multiple copies of the phone or the A
chip (which is kept in a sealed cover) are not mandated to be
supplied when the material relied upon in the phone was
reproduced in CD and a transcription also provided. The defence
of the appellant cannot be said to be impaired in any manner.
[Paras 17, 19] [594-C-D, G]
B
3. The law relating to election is a technical one as it
amounts to a challenge laid to the democratic process determining
the will of the people. An eligible person whether a candidate or
a voter coming to Court, seeking to set aside any election has to,
thus, meet with the technical natures of the election petition and
the provisions prescribed under the said Act as otherwise it would C
be fatal to the election petition at the threshold itself. [Para 18]
[594-E]
Sahodrabai Rai v. Ram Singh Aharwar [1968] 3 SCR
13 – distinguished.
Mithilesh Kumar Pandey v. Baidyanath Yadav & Ors. D
(1984) 2 SCC 1 : [1984] 2 SCR 278 – relied on.
Satya Narain v. Dhuja Ram &Ors. (1974) 4 SCC 237 :
[1974] 3 SCR 20 ; M. Karunanidhi v. Dr. H.V. Hande
& Or s. (1983) 2 SCC 473 ; U.S. Sasidharan v. K.
Karunakaran & Anr. (1989) 4 SCC 482 : [1989] 3 SCR E
958 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1974] 3 SCR 20 referred to Para 10
(1983) 2 SCC 473 referred to Para 10
F
[1989] 3 SCR 958 referred to Para 10
[1984] 2 SCR 278 relied on Para 10
[1968] 3 SCR 13 distinguished Para 16
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10863
of 2017. G
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.06.2017 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in IA No. 20 of 2016 in EP No. 8 of 2016.
Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Sr. Adv., Romy Chacko, Shakti Chand J,
Varun Mudgal, Chandan Kumar M, Advs. for the Appellant.
H
586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 3 S.C.R.
A Kapil Sibal, S. Sreekumar, Sr. Advs., E. M. S. Anam, M. S. Vishnu
Sankar, Ms. Usha Nandini V, Ms. Athira G. Nair, Sriram P., Advs. for
the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
B
The facts:
1. The democratic process of holding State elections was carried
out for the 14th Kerala Legislative Assembly on 16.5.2016 in which the
appellant contested from the Koduvally Assembly Constituency as an
C independent candidate. The results were declared on 19.5.2016 and the
appellant, having obtained the highest number of votes was declared as
elected.
2. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 who were stated to be the voters from
the same constituency filed election petitions on grounds of
D corrupt practices. The challenge to the election of the appellant was
laid under Section 123(4) of the Representation of People Act, 1951
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’) alleging that the appellant
made false allegations against respondent No.3, a candidate, knowing
the same to be false. Section 123(4) of the said Act reads as under:
“123. Corrupt practices. – The following shall be deemed to be
E
corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act: -
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
(4) The publication by a candidate or his agent or by any other
person [with the consent of a candidate or his election agent], of
F any statement of fact which is false, and which he either believes
to be false or does not believe to be true, in relation to the personal
character or conduct of any candidate or in relation to the
candidature, or withdrawal, of any candidate, being a statement
reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate’s
election.”
G
3. The election petition is stated to have been filed on 1.7.2016 in
which certain defects are stated to have been pointed out. It is the case
of the appellant that the petition was returned from the Registry and
was re-presented only on 11.7.2016 by which time the prescribed period
of limitation of 45 days to file such an election petition had expired on
H
ABDULRASAKH v. K.P. MOHAMMED & ORS. 587
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]
3.7.2016 and, thus, the election petition was time barred. It is also the A
say of the appellant that the Registry had no power to return the election
petition or permitting curing of any defects. Even on re-presentation,
the petition is stated to have been defective and was placed before the
learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court, who by the order dated
18.7.2017 granted one week’s time to respondent Nos.1 & 2 to cure the
B
defects. It is thereafter that notice was issued to all the respondents in
the election petition including the appellant herein.
4. On account of the aforesaid two grounds and more the appel-
lant moved an application for summary dismissal of the election petition
under Section 86 of the said Act read with Section 151 and Order VI
Rule 16, Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 C
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Code’). The relevant provision,
being Section 86 (1) of the said Act, reads as under:
“86. Trial of election petitions. – (1) The High Court shall
dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the
provisions of section 81 or section 82 or section 117.” D
5. The objections filed by the appellant were, however, dismissed
vide impugned judgment dated 16.6.2017, by the learned single Judge of
the Kerala High Court against which the present Special Leave Petition
has been filed.
E
Appellant’s contentions:
6. Mr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for
the appellant referred to the office notice sheets of the High Court to
canvas his case of the petition being beyond time. He referred to the
fact that while the election petition was stated to have been presented F
on 1.7.2016, it was also mentioned therein “E.P. filed: 11.07.16”. The
date of issue of summons is 9.8.2016. He also referred to the noting
where eight defects were enumerated and below that, there was an
endorsement of the counsel appearing for the original petitioner to the
effect that “defect cured” without any date and an endorsement of the
Deputy Registrar dated 7.7.2016. The conclusion, he sought to derive G
from these endorsements was the presentation and re-presentation of
the petition before the Registry, without it being placed before the Court.
7. Learned Senior Advocate referred to the provisions relating to
presentation of an election petition to a High Court contained in Chapter
H
588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 3 S.C.R.
A II of the said Act and the mandate for an election petition to meet with
the same in the context of the objections filed by the appellant. The
relevant provisions read as under:
“81. Presentation of petitions.—(1) An election petition calling
in question any election may be presented on one or more of the
B grounds specified in[sub-section (1)] of section 100 and section
101 to the [High Court] by any candidate at such election or any
elector [within forty-five days from, but not earlier than the date
of election of the returned candidate, or if there are more than
one returned candidate at the election and the dates of their election
are different, the later of those two dates].”
C
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
“[(3) Every election petition shall be accompanied by as many
copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition,
and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his
D own signature to be a true copy of the petition.]”
8. The defects pointed out by the Registry are as under:
“i. Sec 80A of the R.P. Act is not provision shown in the Election
Petition.
ii. Pages 28 and 29 are not properly tagged in 1st set.
E
iii. Mobile phones produced as Annexure B, C, G and L and
Compact Disks produced as Annexure H, M and O are in sealed
covers, cannot be scrutinized.
iv. Mobile phones and CD’s which are material objects are marked
F as Annexures.
v. Annexure B, C, G and L (Mobile Phones), stated as “cannot be
produced” in the verification made in copies.
vi. Page 57 which is English translation of Annexure K, produced
as Annexure K-1 is stated as English translation of Annexure H.
G
vii. No English translation of last four lines appearing at P 35
(Annexure E/5) is seen reproduced at P.39, the English translation
of Annexure E.
viii. In one of the additional copies of Election Petition Annexure
Q is produced twice.”
H
ABDULRASAKH v. K.P. MOHAMMED & ORS. 589
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]
9. Learned counsel took us through the written objections filed A
by the appellant to which no reply is stated to have been filed by
respondent Nos.1 & 2. In substance what was sought to be canvassed
before us by reference to the objections is as under:
i. The election petition is barred by time as it had to be presented
free from all defects before 3.7.2016. The defects were cured and the B
petition was re-presented on 11.7.2016.
ii. That the process of returning and re-presentation of the election
petition in the Registry is alien to the process of an election court.
iii. Production of documents in the sealed cover is impermissible
in law and is not acceptable. The failure to hand over the entire contents C
of the items produced in sealed cover is violative of Section 81(3) of the
said Act and is violative of the principles of natural justice. The appellant
was entitled to the chip of the mobile phone apart from the CD of the
relevant portion, the latter having been handed over. Such deprival would
cause prejudice to the appellant as is deprived of the opportunity to know D
the entire contents.
iv. The defects have been cured by substituting the original page
57 filed with the election petition and it is ante dated as the papers have
been signed subsequent to 1.7.2016.
v. Annexure E-1 was incomplete and not the true English E
translation of Annexure E.
10. To buttress the submissions made, learned counsel referred to
the judicial pronouncements dealing with the aspects he was seeking to
canvas. The same are dealt with as under:
F
i. Satya Narain v. Dhuja Ram &Ors.1 – it was observed that in
the absence of any provisions under the said Act and the Rules
made thereunder, the High Court Rules cannot confer upon the
Registrar or the Deputy Registrar any power to permit correction
or removal of defects in an election petition presented in the High
Court beyond the period of limitation provided under the said Act. G
2
ii. Sahodrabai Rai v. Ram Singh Aharwar - In the given facts
of the case the learned Judge trying the case ordered the
attendance of the Reader of the Deputy Registrar of the High
1
(1974) 4 SCC 237 (para 14)
2
(1968) 3 SCR 13 H
590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 3 S.C.R.
A Court, who had dealt with the election petition and he was examined
as a court witness. A similar course, the counsel contended, was
liable to be followed in the present case when there were doubts
and allegations about the presentation and re-presentation as was
apparent from the office notes.
B iii. M. Karunanidhi v. Dr. H.V. Hande & Ors.3 (para 29) – The
particular controversy related to the costing of the banners and it
was stated that the same was mentioned wrongly as there were
two election banners – one of them was a huge fancy banner or
hoarding on the left side of the road and the other on the right was
a smaller election banner. The appellant was present in the
C depiction of the two groups in both the banners. A photograph of
the fancy banner was filed but the copy of the same was not
supplied. This was held to be fatal to the petition.
To appreciate the contention of respondent Nos.1 & 2 herein, it
was stated that they were required to supply to the appellant the
D proper photograph while only a black and white photocopy had
been supplied.
iv. U.S. Sasidharan v. K. Karunakaran & Anr.4 (paras 14 &
32) – The controversy relating to non-supply of the video cassette
with the election petition was examined and the video cassette
E being an integral part of election petition, non-furnishing of the
copy was held to be fatal.
v. Mithilesh Kumar Pandey v. Baidyanath Yadav & Ors.5
(paras 11 & 15) – The Bench of three Judges of this Court
examined the controversy emanating from the allegation that the
copy supplied to the returned candidate was not really a true copy.
F
In the said context the principles were laid down in para 15 as
under:
“15. On a careful consideration and scrutiny of the law on the
subject, the following principles are well established:
(1) that where the copy of the election petition served on the
G
returned candidate contains only clerical or typographical mistakes
which are of no consequence, the petition cannot be dismissed
straightway under Section 86 of the Act,
3
(1983) 2 SCC 473
4
(1989) 4 SCC 482
H 5
(1984) 2 SCC 1
ABDULRASAKH v. K.P. MOHAMMED & ORS. 591
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]
(2) A true copy means a copy which is wholly and substantially A
the same as the original and where there are insignificant or minimal
mistakes, the court may not take notice thereof,
(3) where the copy contains important omissions or discrepancies
of a vital nature, which are likely to cause prejudice to the defence
of the returned candidate, it cannot be said that there has been a B
substantial compliance of the provisions of Section 81(3) of the
Act,
(4) Prima facie, the statute uses the words “true copy” and the
concept of substantial compliance cannot be extended too far to
include serious or vital mistakes which shed the character of a C
true copy so that the copy furnished to the returned candidate
cannot be said to be a true copy within the meaning of Section
81(3) of the Act, and
(5) As Section 81(3) is meant to protect and safeguard the
sacrosanct electoral process so as to not disturb the verdict of the D
voters, there is no room forgiving a liberal or broad interpretation
to the provisions of the said section.”
In the aforesaid context, it was stated that the translations supplied
by respondent Nos.1 & 2 did not make sense and the access to
the original chip is necessary as the allegation against the appellant E
is of connivance in making of false allegations against one of the
candidates.
Respondent Nos.1 & 2’s contentions:
11. On the other hand, Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the first two respondents (Original petitioners in the High F
Court) at the threshold itself stated that he has no quibble with all the
legal propositions advanced by the learned senior counsel for the
appellant or with the judicial pronouncements referred to aforesaid,
however, what was sought to be canvassed was an incorrect
representation of what has actually transpired. In this behalf learned
G
senior counsel, once again, drew our attention to the notings to contend
that the mention of “E.P. filed: 11.07.16” is obviously a mistake as
undisputedly the election petition was presented on 1.7.2016. The
endorsement of the Deputy Registrar shows that the scrutiny took place
on 5.7.2016. The eight defects noticed aforesaid were mentioned on
H
592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 3 S.C.R.
A 7.7.2016 whereupon the petition was placed before the learned Judge
on 18.7.2016 as an unnumbered election petition. The learned Judge
opined that the defects noted by the office are not material defects for
rejecting the petition in limine under the said Act (the parameters have
been set out in Mithilesh Kumar Pandey6). It is also noted that the
question whether CD have to be marked as material objects or exhibits
B
could be considered at the time of trial and since the mobile phone cannot
be produced along with each copy, copies of contents in the phone which
the petitioner wants to rely upon have been produced along with the
copy of the election petition. Sufficiency of this could be considered
later after appearance of the parties. One week’s time was granted to
C cure the minor defects as prayed. Thereafter the defects were cured
within the time specified and the endorsement made by the counsel for
respondent Nos.1 & 2.
12. We have also examined the impugned judgment passed on
16.6.2017, which is a detailed one with supporting case law. Sixteen
D issues were framed out of which the appellant claimed preliminary hearing
in respect of issue Nos.1 to 7. The preliminary issues are reproduced as
under:
“1. Whether the election petition is barred by limitation?
2. Can the defects in the election petition be permitted to be cured
E after the period of limitation prescribed under Section 81 of the
Representation of People Act?
3. Can the election petition be returned to the petitioner for curing
defects after the period of limitation prescribed under Section 81
of the Representation of People Act?
F
4. Is there power in this Court to permit representation delay to
be condoned when the original delay in presenting election petition
itself is not permissible to be condoned and when there is no
provision for any delay condonation?
5. Whether the defects cured and corrections made in the
G
election petition after the period of limitation will relate back to
the date of its presentation?
6. Whether defects cured and corrections made in the election
petition after presentation are permissible and in compliance with
6
supra
H
ABDULRASAKH v. K.P. MOHAMMED & ORS. 593
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]
the mandatory requirements as provided in Sections 81 & 83 of A
the Representation of People Act and Rules framed thereunder?
7. Whether the election petition is maintainable for
non-compliance of mandatory requirements as provided in Sections
81, 82, 83 & 117 of the Representation of People Act and Rules
framed thereunder and other requirements of law?” B
13. The learned single Judge then on examination of the record
opined that the Registry, after presentation of the petition on 1.7.2016
had not returned the petition to the first two respondents but was posted
before the Bench as per the correct practice, which passed the order
dealing with the objections. On curing of the minor defects, notice was C
issued to the appellant.
14. The Kerala High Court Rules (Rule 210) itself provided for
scrutiny by the Judge assigned to the case and not by the Registry.
There was no violation of this Rule. The defects were also cured only
after 18.7.2016. The contents of the conversation recorded in the
mobile phone have been produced as annexures and CDs and the D
mobile phones were themselves produced. The question of admissibility
of evidence would, thus, have to be examined at the stage of trial.
Similarly the photocopy of a photograph could only be a copy taken from
mobile phone and at this stage it could not be said that it did not truly
represent the contents of what was recorded in the mobile phone, which E
was again a matter of evidence.
Conclusion:
15. We have examined the submissions of the learned counsel for
the parties and do not find any merit in the appeal. The minor
corrections permitted to be made vide order dated 18.7.2016 are by the F
Court. A mountain out of a molehill has been made without appreciating
the office notings in the true perspective. The Registry was fully
conscious that the eight defects pointed out by it could not be permitted
to be cured by the Registry itself and that is why the matter was
directed to be placed before the concerned Judge as an unnumbered
G
election petition. On 18.7.2016, the learned Judge did not find merit in
some of the objections pointed by the Registry and to the extent some
minor corrections were required, which were not material, one week’s
time was granted to respondent Nos.1 & 2 to carry out the corrections.
The needful was done within the stipulated time and it is thereafter that
notices were issued to the appellant. H
594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 3 S.C.R.
A 16. The whole premise of the plea of the appellant is based on the
Registry permitting corrections to be made is, thus, fallacious and, thus,
the presentation of the petition cannot be said to be beyond time stipulated
in Section 81(1) of the said Act. There was, in fact, really no occasion
in these facts for the Court to examine the Registry officer as was done
in the case of Sahodrabai Rai7.
B
17. The issue of supply of copies has also been appropriately
dealt with as copies of a transcript and the CD were supplied as also the
translation thereof. This is not the stage to verify as to whether the
translation correctly reflects what was said. In any case it would be a
doubtful proposition whether it was mandated that a translation should
C also be filed that being possibly a part of the requirement of the High
Court Rules since the record had to be in English. It has rightly been
observed that the phone has been filed and keeping the phone in a sealed
cover or the allegation of non-supply of the chip alleged to be violative of
Section 81(3) of the said Act is not a plea which can be accepted. At
D best these are all matters for trial.
18. We are conscious of the fact that the law relating to election
is a technical one as it amounts to a challenge laid to the democratic
process determining the will of the people. An eligible person whether a
candidate or a voter coming to Court, seeking to set aside any election
E has to, thus, meet with the technical natures of the election petition and
the provisions prescribed under the said Act as otherwise it would be
fatal to the election petition at the threshold itself. It is in these
circumstances that the principles have been succinctly set out in Mithilesh
Kumar Pandey8. The observations in that case provide for clerical and
typographical errors to be corrected. Thus, issues like mentioning of the
F correct number of annexures or tagging with the file, etc. would all fall
within the said Section.
19. Similarly copies of the documents have been supplied to the
appellant and multiple copies of the phone or the chip (which is kept in a
sealed cover) are not mandated to be supplied when the material relied
G upon in the phone has been reproduced in CD and a transcription also
provided. The defence of the appellant cannot be said to be impaired in
any manner.
7
supra
8
supra
H
ABDULRASAKH v. K.P. MOHAMMED & ORS. 595
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]
20. We are, thus, of the unequivocal view that the pleas advanced A
on behalf of the appellant are meritless and deserve to be rejected.
21. The appeal is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear
their own costs.
B
Divya Pandey Appeal dismissed.
C
D
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "election petition"Sign in to search