B.K.PATRA, R.N.MISRA, G.K.MISRA
KIRTAN SAHU AFTER HIM UMA SAHUANI – Appellant
Versus
THAKUR SAHU – Respondent
R. N. MISRA, J.
( 1 ) WHEN this appeal came up for disposal before a Division Bench, the admissibility of the electoral rolls prepared under the Representation of the People Act arose for consideration. A Division Bench of this Court in (1970) 36 Cut LT 1211 (Paramananda Sahu v. Babu Sahu) had taken the view that such electoral rolls were not admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Evidence Act. In three other cases the same view had also been taken. As the Division Bench in seisin of this First Appeal was of the view that the earlier Bench decision of this Court did not correctly decide the question the following point has been formulated and referred for the opinion of the Full Bench under Rule 3 of Chapter V of the Orissa High Court Rules, Volume I:
"whether the electoral roll prepared under the Representation of the people Act is inadmissible in evidence without the author thereof and the person supplying the information being examined in the case. "
( 2 ) SECTION 35 of the Evidence Act provides:
"any entry in any public or other official book, register or record, stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.