V. Dhanapalan, J.

This Application has been filed by the applicant/substituted election petitioner to substitute Document No.8, FIR, with the certified copy and, thereafter, mark the same through P.W.9.

2. According to the applicant, in paragraph 8 of the amended Election Petition, he already stated how the first respondent had indulged in bribing the electors by distribution of money and he also gave details of persons who had acted as the agents of the first respondent, the date of bribery and the name of the person (complainant) who lodged the FIR; at the time of filing of the Election Petition, xerox copies of the FIR had also been filed; the first respondent, who is the sole contesting respondent has not questioned the FIR; during his evidence as P.W.1, the marking of Document No.8 through him was objected on the ground that it was a xerox copy and, hence, he has now obtained a certified copy of the very same document. His further case is that on 04.02.2013, when the certified copy of the document, which was sought to be marked through P.W.9 by substituting the xerox copy, was objected by the first respondent, it was felt necessary that an application should be taken to substitute the xerox copy with the certified copy and, therefore, he has filed the present application.

3. First respondent/contesting respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that there is no provision in law to substitute the document with a certified copy and, at the same time, there is also delay in seeking for substitution of the document which is very fatal to the case; the substituted election petitioner cannot change the nature of the document when there is a specific provision in the Representation of the People Act for filing the Election Petition with annexure, documents and the way of attestation and verification; Document No.8 is a xerox copy and the application has been filed by the substituted petitioner to substitute Document No.8, FIR, with the certified copy of the same, which is impermissible in law.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would contend that Document No.8,FIR, being a public document, cannot be produced in original and hence the certified copy of the same can be marked as a document. In support of her contention, she would rely upon the following decisions :

(i) AIR 1961 MADRAS 92 (FB), State of Madras vs. G.Krishnan :

"35.The learned counsel for the respondent relied on R.339 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, as entitling the respondent to the grant of copies. That rule merely sates that copies of records in criminal cases must be furnished to the parties concerned on payment of proper stamp charges. That would not entitle the parties to copies of those documents which under the law could not be granted till after a particular stage is reached.

36. Our answer to the question therefore can be stated thus: (1) The statements recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C., would be public documents falling under S. 74(1)(iii) of the Indian Evidence Act. (2) The accused will be entitled to copies of the same as a person interested; (3) but his right to obtain such copies before the filing of the charge-sheet has been taken away by implication by the provisions of S. 173(4) of the Cr.P.C., and that he will be entitled to the copies of the documents only in accordance therewith. Reference answered."

(ii) AIR 1969 Supreme Court 692, R.M.Seshadri vs. C.Vasantha Pai and others : "16.The power of a civil court to summon court witnesses is contained in Order 16 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Now the representation of People Act enjoins that all the powers under the Code can be exercised and all the procedure as far as may be applicable to the trial of civil suits may be followed in the trial of election petitions. It would appear therefore that in the absence of any prohibition contained in the law, the Court has the power to summon a court witness if it thinks that the ends of justice require or that the case before it ne