IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 23RD MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 757 of 2007() ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20/07/2007 IN IA.1491/07 IN EOP.2/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER /IST RESPONDENT ---------------------------- SINDHU, W/O.FRANCIS THANKARAJ, AGED 31 YEARS, PALANIYAR PALAYAM P.O. KOZHINJAMPARA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. LILLY SAHAYA MERY, W/O.SANTHAKUMAR, AGED 43 YEARS, PALANIYAR PALAYAM P.O., KOZHINJAMPARA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. RENUKA SELVAN, W/O.SELVAN, AGED 37 YEARS, KOZHINJAMPARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, CHITTUR, THE RETURNING OFFICER OF THE G-58, KOZHINJAMPARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------- C.R.P.No.757 OF 2007 -------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of February, 2008 O R D E R ~~~~~~~~~ This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Munsiff, Chittur in I.A.No.1491/2007 in E.O.P.2/2005. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner had argued two points before me namely that the court below has erred in directing the signature and thumb impression to be sent to an expert for comparison and secondly it should not have ordered the comparison of signature by a private expert. Perused the order of the learned Munsiff. The dispute is with respect to the factum of double voting by two persons namely Shourimuthu and Albert Selvaraj. The court in Para 6 of the order found that these two person’s name differs in the list of ward number 2 and 3 of Kozhinjampara Grama Panchayat. It is also held that both these persons have cast their votes in both the wards. When examined they categorically asserted that they had only cast their vote in ward number 3 and they had never cast their vote in ward number 2. They have also denied their thump impression. The court also examined the evidence of the polling agent which is to C.R.P.No.757/2007 2 the effect that the same persons had personally came and voted in both the wards. The polling officials also had supported that view. So the crucial point that requires determination is whether these two persons had cast their votes in both the wards. It has to be held that in a case of this nature the question whether a person had cast their votes in two booths is a matter which is finally to be adjudicated. Before that the court has to satisfy that the names of the persons differs in two voters list and their identity is established. The court in this case was prima facie satisfied about the same. When they asserted that they have not affixed their signature or thumb impression then naturally in order to have a scientific evidence that too in an election petition the court ordered a comparison by expert. I do not find any mistake committed by the court below in ordering so. 2. So far as the next question regarding the reference to a private expert, it is argued that it should have been sent to the governmental machinery. So far as the State of Kerala is concerned the forensic laboratory is so crowded with large number of matters which is certain that even after the expiry of the term of period of office one will not be able to get a report. Further there is no taboo to appoint a private expert. Whenever C.R.P.No.757/2007 3 he submits an expert’s report it is not accepted in toto by the court, but parties are permitted to adduce evidence and only on satisfaction of the materials available the court relies upon that. As held by the courts in so many decisions, the expert’s evidence is only an opinion evidence which means that it also requires acceptability. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with the decision rendered by the court below and therefore civil revision petition is dismissed. (M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE) ps