Election courts may compare signatures directly under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, serving the larger public interest in ensuring electoral integrity.

JUDGMENT

The original petition is filed challenging Ext.P3 order dated 13.03.2023 passed in Ele.O.P.No.1/2021 (in short, ‘election petition’) by the Court of the Munsiff, Kanjirappally. The petitioner is the 1st respondent and the respondents are the petitioner and the 2nd respondent before the court below.

2. The relevant background facts leading to the impugned order are:

(i) The petitioner is the returned candidate in the elections held on 10.12.2020 to Ward No.IV of Manjappally Constituency of Kanjirappally Grama Panchayat.

(ii) The petitioner was duly declared elected on 16.12.2020 after having secured 610 votes. The 1st respondent secured 607 votes and the 2nd respondent secured 150 votes.

(iii) The 1st respondent has challenged the election of the petitioner on the ground that there was improper reception of void votes, because six electors had cast their votes in two constituencies in flagrant violation of Section 102 (1)(d)(iii) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (in short, ‘Act’). The petitioner has opposed the election petition through Ext.P2 written statement.

(iv) The court below formulated five issues and parties went to the trial.

(v) The 1st respondent examined PWs.1 to 19 and marked Exts.A1 to A11, X1 to X72 and C1 to C13. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent did not let in evidence.

(vi) The court below, after hearing both sides, on an erroneous appreciation of the pleadings and materials on record, by the impugned Ext.P3 order, has rendered a finding on issue No.(i) holding that PWs.10 to 13 and 17 have cast their votes twice.

(vii) Ext.P3 order is ex-facie erroneous and wrong. Hence, the original petition.

3. Heard, Sri.S.Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Mohan Jacob George, the learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.

4. Sri.S.Sreekumar vehemently impeached the impugned order principally on the ground that the court below has on its own volition, with naked eyes, indulged in the exercise of comparing the signatures of PWs.10 to 13 and 17 in the Voters Registers and other materials in the two constituencies under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act . He placed strong emphasis on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court inState (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram [1979 KHC 525] to drive home the point that it is not advisable for a Judge to take up the task of comparison. Instead, the prudent and advisable course is to seek the opinion and assistance of an expert. He also placed reliance on the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court inBharathan v. Sudhakaran [1996 KHC 97]and Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan [2012 KHC 4540] and the decisions of a Division Bench of this Court inChandrasekharan Nair v. M/s. Olympic Credit Corporation, Kottayam and another [2014 (1) KHC 710] and Antony K.O. and another v. M.K.Krishnankutty Menoki and others [2017 (1) KHC 479] to buttress the legal position on Section 73 of the . It was his submission that the findings in the impugned order that PWs.10 to 13 and 17 have cast their votes twice is erroneous. Likewise, the court below has pre-judged the election petition, which has caused prejudice to the petitioner,. Hence, the impugned order is to be set aside.

5. Sri.Mohan Jacob George assiduously countered the above submissions and defended the impugned order. He contended that the learned Munsiff was perfectly justified in rendering a finding on issue No.(i) that PWs.10 to 13 and 17 have cast their votes twice, which is the proper course to be followed by Courts, because of the profusion of precedential authority, especially the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Neelalohithadasan Nadar v. George Mascrene [1994 KHC 186]. He also drew the attention of this Court to the decisions of this Court inSauda Beevi K.S. v. Subaida Pareeth and others [2012 (4) KHC 802] and Anitha v. Beena [2004 KHC 748] to reinforce the impugned order.

6. The point is, is there any error in Ext.P3 order warranting interference by