MC 3284/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY The applicant by the present application is praying for dismissal of the Electio n Petition No.4/2011 under sub-section (1) of Section 86 of the Representation o f People Act, 1951 (in short the Act) alleging non-compliance of sub-section (3) of Section 81 of the Act. 2. Election Petition No.4/2011 has been filed by the opposite party questio ning the election of the present applicant as the Member of Assam Legislative As sembly from No.115 Legislative Assembly Constituency. According to the applicant though sub-section (3) of Section 81 of the Act requires that every election pe tition shall be accompanied by as may copies thereof as there are respondents an d every such copy is mandatorily required to be attested by the election petitio ner under his own signature to be a true copy of the election petition, the copy which has been furnished to the applicant, does not have attestation by the ele ction petitioner that the same is a true copy of the election petition filed. Ac cording to the applicant since the condition in sub-section (3) of Section 81 of the Act is mandatory, its violation entails dismissal of the election petition under sub-section (1) of Section 86 of the Act. 3. I have heard Mr. S.S. Dey, learned counsel for the applicant/returned ca ndidate and Mr. B. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party /election petitioner. 4. Referring to the contention of the applicant in the present application seeking dismissal of the election petition, the learned counsel for the applican t submits that since the election petitioner did not attest the copy furnished t o the applicant to be the true copy of the election petition as required under s ub-section (3) of Section 81 of the Act, the election petition deserves to be di smissed. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party/electio n petitioner submits that the election petitioner in every page of the copy furn ished to the applicant/returned candidate put his signature signifying that the copy is a true copy of the election petition filed, though the words true copy have not been mentioned. According to the learned counsel there is substantial compliance of sub-section (3) of Section 81 of the Act. The further contention i s that it is not being the case of the applicant/returned candidate that she has not been furnished with the exact copy of the election petition filed by the el ection petitioner, no prejudice has been caused in not mentioning the words tru e copy by the election petitioner while putting his signature in every page of the copy of the election petition furnished to the applicant/returned candidate. 6. Sub-section (3) of Section 81 of the Act provides that every election pe tition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents m entioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition. Sub-section (1) of S ection 86 of the Act provides that the High Court shall dismiss an election peti tion which does not comply with the provision of Section 81 or 82 or 117 of the Act. 7. The issue involved in the present application is whether there is compli ance of requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 81 of the Act in so far as it relates to supply of the true copy of the election petition filed by the electio n petitioner to the returned candidate. 8. An election petition is not to be thrown out at the threshold on the sli ghtest pretext of one kind or the other which may or may not have any material b earing on the factors to be strictly adhered to in such matters. It is the subst ance not the form which would matter, otherwise the returned candidate would not only be in the look out microscopically for any kind of technical lacunae or de fect to abort the endeavour of the petitioner to bring to trial the issues relat ing to corrupt practices in the election. It is also a well settled position of law that the procedures are hand-maid of justice and not designed to trim the ju stice at the threshold. 9. The requirement of such sub-section (3) of Section 81 of the Act is to p rovide the exact copy of the election petition filed by the election petitioner to the respondent in such petition. The object of serving a true copy of an elec tion petition and the affidavit filed in support of the allegation of corrupt pr actice on the respondent in the election petition is to enable the respondent to understand the charge against him so that he can effectively meet the same in t he written statement and prepare the defence. The requirement is, therefore, of substance and not of form. 10. A constitution bench of the Apex Court in T.M. Jacob Vs. C. Poulose and ors. reported in (1999)4 SCC 274 held: 40. The object of serving a true copy of an Election Petition and the affi davit filed in support of the allegations of corrupt practice on the respondent in Election Petition is to enable the respondent to understand the charge agains t him so that he can effectively meet the same in the written statement and prep are his defence. The requirement is, thus, of substance and not of form. 11. The expression true copy under sub-section (3) of Section 81 of the Ac t means a copy which is substantially the same as the original, variation if any from the original should not be vital in nature or should not be such that can possibly mislead a reasonable person in meeting the allegation and if the copy d iffers in material particulars from the original the same cannot be cured after the period of limitation. [T. Phungzathang Vs. Hangkhanlian & ors. - (2001)8 SCC 358]. 12. In Chandrakant Uttam Chodankar Vs. Dayanand Rayu Mandrakar & ors. report ed in (2005)2 SCC 188, it has been held by the Apex Court that the requirement o f attestation of the copy to be served on the respondent by the election petitio ner under his own signature to be true copies is satisfied if the copies atteste d by the election petitioner to be true copies of the election petition under hi s own signature. If the defects in attestation or the copy are not material or v ital, it would not warrant dismissal of the election petition at the preliminary stage. 13. As discussed above, in the case in hand, the copy of the election petiti on served on the returned candidate bears the signature of the election petition er in each and every page and there is no dispute that the copy which has been s erved is the exact copy of the election petition filed. Non-mentioning of the wo rds true copy would, therefore, not cause any prejudice to the returned candid ate. The provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 81 of the Act, therefore, has been substantially complied with. 14. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the application and hen ce it is dismissed.