2010 IN Election Petition No.29 of 2009 Sopan Abaji Pol ... v/s v. Mohite

Mr.P.N. Patil i/by L.S. Deshmukh for Applicant. Ms.Varsha Palav i/by V. Mohite for Respondent. ----- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 17th August, 2010 P.C. :

The Petitioner has sought to amend paragraph 12A of the Petition by furnishing better particulars of the corrupt practice described in the said paragraph. These better particulars furnished by the Petitioner are names of two persons who were the Respondents (cid:19) Polling agents and a Police Inspector who came to the site which were not incorporated in paragraph 12A in which particulars of the corrupt practice came to be given at the first instance. The Petitioner has also sought to give further particulars of the vehicle in which one of the candidates had arrived at the scene. 2 Appln-19

These amendments are made under Section 86(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (the Act). The said sub-section (5) runs thus:- (cid:28) (5) The High Court may, upon such terms as to costs and otherwise as it may deem fit, allow the particulars of any corrupt practice alleged in the petition to be amended or amplified in such manner as may in its opinion be necessary for ensuring a fair and effective trial of the petition, but shall not allow any amendment of the petition which will have the effect of introducing particulars of a corrupt practice not previously alleged in the petition. (cid:29) Hence, the Court is required to allow the amendments of the Petition if the particulars of any corrupt practice are sought to be amplified in the manner to ensure a fair and effective trial of the Petition. The names of the persons who are involved in the incident would have been even otherwise required in the evidence. Those witnesses would have otherwise had to be examined by the Petitioner and be made available for cross-examination by the Respondent. Giving of the names of the parties involved in the incident would be to amplify the particulars of the corrupt practice of the incident sought to be described in the Petition.

Hence, the amendments would be required to be granted. 3 Appln-19

It is argued on behalf of the Respondent that the Petitioner has not stated in his Application that these names were not within his knowledge or that he obtained them subsequently by due diligence on his part. The Petitioner does not state when the Petitioner came to know the names. The entire incident has been described. Only the names were not stated in the Petition. It would be a matter for evidence to elicit how and when the names were obtained when the Petitioner through his witnesses stands trial.

In view of the specific provisions of Section 86(5) of the Act, the amendments cannot be disallowed.

The Respondent shall be entitled to file an additional Written Statement, if any, within two weeks of the amendments being carried out.

The Application is disposed of accordingly.

(SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)