Pelpola V. Gunawardena, R.S.S.

1948     Present: Windham J.

PELPOLA, Petitioner, and R. S. S. GUNAWARDENA, Respondent

IN THE MATTER OF THE TRIAL OP ELECTION PETITION
No. 11 OF 1947 (GAMPOLA)

 

Election Petition-Allegations of general intimidation and undue influence- Amendment of particulars-Parliamentary Elections Order in Council, 1946, Section 56.

In an election petition defects in the particulars relating to a charge may be amended if no prejudice has been caused to the respondent.

When undue influence is alleged, the electoral numbers, in the Register, of the persons who were unduly influenced should be given in the particulars.

Where, in the column setting out the persons said to have been unduly influenced, there was reference to persons whose names were set out in the corresponding particulars relating to general intimidation-

Held, that there was no objection to the names set out in those particulars relating to general intimidation being incorporated in the particulars of persons said to have been unduly influenced.

Held, further, that, so long as the individuals were mentioned by name, the petitioner was entitled to endeavour to prove that certain persons being agents of the respondent committed certain acts of undue influence against other persons named. Nor should the particulars be struck out by reason of the nature of the acts having been given in such terms as " threatening, kicking and striking, restraint, obstruction ", and not having been given so as to attribute a particular act of undue influence

to each particular person said to have committed undue influence. ORDER made pending the hearing of Election Petition, Gampola Electoral District.

E. F. N. Gratiaen, K.C., with C. S. Barr-Kumarakulasinghe, B. H. Aluwihare, and A. I. Rajasingham, for the petitioner.

U. A. Jayasundere, with Stanley de Zoysa, S. P. C. Fernando, G. T. Samarawickreme, S. E. J. Fernando, and D. Wimalaratne, for the respondent.

March 9, 1948. WINDHAM J.-

This is an application to strike out all the particulars relating to the charge of undue influence on this petition. A large number of defects or alleged defects in the particular have been argued to exist. Some of these I consider are not defects which would, in fact, prejudice the respondent. Others raise questions of more weight, and considerations of a legal nature. I will take the objections one by one.

Firstly, it is said rightly that the times of day, as distinct from the date, of each of the acts alleged have not been inserted in the first column of the particulars. The times as well as the dates were ordered to be given by the order of this Court, both in respect of the particulars of undue influence, and in respect of the particulars of general intimidation. I am 

 

satisfied, however, with Mr. Gratiaen's explanation that the omission was due to a defect in the copy of the Court's order which was in his possession. I am also satisfied that it must have been clear to the respondent that the times omitted were the same times as were given in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document