I.A. Ansari, J.

1. This miscellaneous application has arisen out of an election petition which has given rise to Election Petition No. 3 of 2009. The respective cases of the parties to the election petition are, in substance, thus :

(i) The election petitioner, Smti Duter Padu, had contested the Assembly Elections, in Arunachal Pradesh, held, on 13-10-2009, from No. 30 Along West (ST) Assembly Constituency, as a nominee of the All India Trinamul Congress. The respondent, Sri Gadam Etc. was the only other candidate, who had contested the election as a nominee of Indian National Congress. In order to appreciate the result of the election, so held, the following particulars need to be borne in mind so that the present miscellaneous application can be effectively disposed of. These particulars are as under:

a. The total number of voters, in the said constituency, is 1,11,785.

b. Votes polled, including Postal Ballots, were 10,228.

c. Total number of Postal Ballots issued were 429.

d. Postal Ballots polled, in favour of respondent, i.e., the returned candidate, were 218.

e. Postal Ballots polled, in favour of the election petitioner, were 174.

f. Votes polled by the respondent, i.e., the winning candidate, were 5,113.

g. Votes polled by the election petitioner were 5,082.

h. The total number of votes rejected were 33 (All Postal Ballots)

The difference in the votes, secured by the election petitioner and the respondent, is, thus only 31 (thirty one) votes.

The election petitioner has challenged the election of the respondent on the grounds that (a) the election of the respondent is illegal, null and void 'on the ground of improper reception of void Postal Ballots, which has materially affected the result of the election under Section 100 (1)(d)(iii)of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (in short, 'RP Act') and for a declaration that the election petitioner had, in fact, received the majority of the valid votes and (b) for a declaration that the election of the respondent is illegal, null and void, on the ground of commission of corrupt practices under Section 123 (7) of the RP Act.

2. Basic complaint of the election petitioner, as discernible from the election petition, may, in brief, be set out as under :

(i) Altogether 90 Postal Ballots of No. 30 Along West (ST) Assembly Constituency were booked, on 12.10.2009, at Along Post Office, by registered post by the Returning Officer (in short, 'RO'). Records, maintained by the RO, establishes the fact that 90 (later on, transpired to be 89) registered letters, containing Postal Ballots of the No. 30 Along 'West (ST) Assembly Constituency, 'were, in fact, received, on 12.10.2009, by Along Post Office. However, Postal Records, according to the election petitioner, show that after the registered letters containing the Postal Ballots were booked by registered post at the said Post Office, as many as 69 such Postal Ballots went missing from the custody of the postal employees, namely, Dipen Deka and Jatin Dihingia. The election petitioner also claims that the postal records confirm that out of the 90 Postal Ballots, only 21 of the Postal Ballots had actually been delivered to the genuine addressees by the Postal Department and, on delivery thereof being made, the said 21 Postal Ballots were also returned back to the RO by the Postal Department, but the remaining 69 Postal Ballots went missing and could not be traced out by the Postal Department at any point of time.

(ii) It is the case of the election petitioner that these 69 Postal Ballots had actually been taken away by the supporters of the respondent after those were booked by registered post, on 12.10.2009, at the Along Post Office and, therefore, fake votes were cast by means of the said stolen Postal Ballots in favour of the respondent.

(iii) According to the election petitioner, a bundle of the said 69 Postal Ballots, all forged and spurious, were delivered, by hand, to one postal employee, namely, Smti Sukuni Sharma, outside the said Post