Whether non mentioning of pendency of a criminal case, in which the candidate is one of the accused, would make Form 2A submitted by him along with his nomination paper, in compliance with Section 52(1A) of Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, a fake statement which is a ground for setting aside an election under Section 102(1)(ca) of Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994? This is the question to be decided in this appeal.

2. Appellant is the elected candidate of Ward No.7 of Athiyannoor Block Panchayat of Neyyattinkara Taluk held on 24/9/2005. First respondent is the election petitioner. Respondents were the other candidates. Appellant was declared the elected candidate having secured 3256 votes as against 2779 votes secured by first respondent. First respondent filed O.P(Election petition) 479/2005 before District court, Thiruvananthapuram to declare the election of the appellant void and to declare herself as the duly elected candidate. Election was sought to be declared void on the ground that the appellant was third accused in C.C.292/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Neyyattinkara and cognizance in that case was taken on the final report filed by the police after investigation in Crime 309/2004. It was contended that as the appellant suppressed the pendency of C.C.292/2005, where he figured as the third accused, there is material suppression of facts in Form 2A submitted by him and therefore there is noncompliance with the provisions of Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Rules and election of the appellant is to be declared void on that ground. She also sought to declare herself as the elected candidate. Appellant filed an objection to the election petition contending that no case was pending trial against him, when he filed his nomination paper and no false statement was submitted and therefore his election cannot be declared void.

3. No oral evidence was adduced by both the parties. Exts.A1 to A8 and Exts.X1 to X1(c) were marked on the side of first respondent. On the side of appellant Ext.B1 was marked.

4. Learned District Judge based on Ext.A8 final report filed by the police after investigation in crime 309/2004 evidenced by Ext.A7 FIR found that on 14/2/2005 a final report was submitted before the court and cognizance was taken by the Magistrate in C.C.292/2005 for the offence under Sections 141, 142, 143 and 353 of Indian Penal Code on 23/2/2005 and appellant had taken bail in that case on 6/12/2004 as stated in Ext.A8 final report and though as seen from Ext.B1, summons was received by the appellant only on 8/1/2006, Ext.X1(a) nomination paper along with Ext.X1(c) Form 2A were submitted only on 5/9/2005 and suppressing the true facts Ext.X1(c) form 2A was filed and therefore it is a fake and declared the election of appellant void under Section 102(1)(ca) of Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. Prayer of the first respondent to get herself declared as the elected candidate was rejected. Appellant, being the elected candidate, filed this appeal challenging the order.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant and first respondent were heard.

6. Learned counsel appearing for appellant argued that election could be set aside as provided under Section 102(1)(ca) of Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) only if the details furnished by the elected candidate under Section 52(1A) were fake and an incorrect statement in form 2A would not amount to a fake statement and therefore the election cannot be declared void on that ground. It was argued that when Ext.B1 copy of summons served on the appellant establish that he was served with the summons only on 8/1/2006, though Ext.A8 final report shows that cognizance was taken on 23/2/2005 when there is no evidence to prove that appellant was aware of the cognizance taken in that case before 5/9/2005, when the nomination paper along with Ext.X1(c) form 2A submitted, there was no intentional suppression of facts and therefore non mentioning of that case d