What is Birad Mal Singhvi vs Anand Purohit?

It is a landmark Supreme Court judgment important for judiciary exams.

Why is this case important for PCS-J and HJS?

It helps in understanding legal principles, ratio decidendi and judicial reasoning.

Birad Mal Singhvi vs Anand Purohit

Head Note

Supreme Court of India 19 Sep 2015

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;HELD - &amp;quot;in the scholar&amp;rsquo;s register and the secondary school&amp;nbsp;examination have no probative value, as no person&amp;nbsp;on whose information the dates of birth of the&amp;nbsp;aforesaid candidates were mentioned in the school&amp;nbsp;record was examined.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

Detailed Summary

PETITIONER: BIRAD MAL SINGHVI &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Vs. &nbsp; RESPONDENT: ANAND PUROHIT &nbsp; DATE OF JUDGMENT02/08/1988 &nbsp; BENCH: SINGH, K.N. (J) BENCH: SINGH, K.N. (J) VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) &nbsp; CITATION: &nbsp;1988 AIR 1796&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; 1988 SCR&nbsp; Supl. (2)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1 &nbsp;1988 SCC&nbsp; Supl.&nbsp; 604&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; JT 1988 (3)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 389 &nbsp;1988 SCALE&nbsp; (2)328 &nbsp; &nbsp; ACT: &nbsp;Representation&nbsp; of the People Act,&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1951-Section&nbsp; 33(5), 36(2) (b), 80, 83, 87, 93 and 116. Nomination-Scrutiny of-Returning Officer to be satisfied candidate eligible to contest&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; section-Enquiry-Summary&nbsp; in nature-No&nbsp; scope for elaborate enquiry-Candidate to&nbsp; Satisfy Returning&nbsp; Officer&nbsp; about eligibility-Election petition-Not an&nbsp; appeal&nbsp; against&nbsp; order of&nbsp; Returning&nbsp; Officer&nbsp; rejecting nomination-Fresh material can be adduced by candidate before High Court to support eligibility. &nbsp;Candidate an elector of different constituency-Proof&nbsp; of name&nbsp; in&nbsp;&nbsp; concerned&nbsp; electoral roll-Onus&nbsp; on&nbsp; candidate&nbsp; to prove-No&nbsp; duty of&nbsp; Returning&nbsp; Officer to&nbsp; refer&nbsp;&nbsp; relevant electoral roll and verify eligibility. Nomination paper-Rejection on ground candidate has not completed&nbsp;&nbsp; 25 years of age Election petition-Documents showing date of birth-Evidentiary value in proving age. Indian Evidence Act, 1872-Section 35-Entry relating to date of birth in school register--Relevant an admissible- Entry regarding age in school register--Not much evidentiary value&nbsp; 10 prove age in absence of material on which the age was recorded. HEADNOTE: Election to the State Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan for Jodhpur City Constituency, was held in the year I985. Nomination papers were filed on 8.2.1985 and the date of scrutiny was Y.2. l9S5. In all 45 candidates filed their nominations, after scrutiny and withdrawal, candidates contested the election. After polling and the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; counting of votes, the appellant was declared elected having obtained majority of votes. The respondent who was an elector in the Jodhpur city Constituency&nbsp; filed&nbsp; an election petition&nbsp; before&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; High Court&nbsp; challenging&nbsp; the appellant&#39;s election on the&nbsp; ground that&nbsp; the&nbsp; result of election was&nbsp;&nbsp; materially affected&nbsp; on account of&nbsp; improper rejection of nomination&nbsp; papers&nbsp; of&nbsp; 3 candidates,&nbsp; namely, Smt. Umrao Ben, Hukmi Chand&nbsp; and&nbsp; Suraj Prakash&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Joshi. It was pleaded that Smt. Ben was an elector in the Sardarpura Assembly Constituency the Returning Officer wrongly&nbsp; rejected&nbsp; her nomination&nbsp; paper&nbsp;&nbsp; without affording an opportunity to her to produce a copy of the electoral&nbsp; roll,&nbsp; that Hukmi Chand and Suraj&nbsp; Prakash&nbsp; Joshi both&nbsp; were&nbsp; more&nbsp; than 25 years of age on the&nbsp; date&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the nomination,&nbsp;&nbsp; yet&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; returning&nbsp; officer&nbsp; rejected&nbsp;&nbsp; their nomination papers on the ground that they were not qualified to be a candidate as they were below 25 years of age. The appellant contested the election petition.&nbsp; It was asserted that Smt. Ben had failed to file a certified copy of&nbsp; the relevant entry in the electoral roll&nbsp; of&nbsp; Sardarpura Constituency&nbsp; along&nbsp; with her nomination, that she&nbsp; further failed to produce a copy of the electoral roll at the time of&nbsp; scrutiny&nbsp; and the returning officer&nbsp; therefore&nbsp; rightly rejected her nomination paper. In respect of Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi, it was pleaded that none of the two candidates were present before the returning officer at the time&nbsp; of&nbsp; scrutiny and since the entries&nbsp; contained&nbsp; in the electoral&nbsp; roll indicated that they were below 25&nbsp; years&nbsp; of age the returning officer rightly rejected their&nbsp; nomination papers and that the rejection of the 3&nbsp; nomination&nbsp; papers was proper and the result of the election was not materially affected on account of the rejection of the name. The High Court allowed the election petition and set aside the appellant&#39;s election. It held that the nomination paper of Smt. Umrao&nbsp; Ben was validly rejected as&nbsp; she had failed to comply with section 33(5) of the Representation of Peoples Act inasmuch as she failed to produce the&nbsp; copy&nbsp; of the&nbsp; electoral&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; roll&nbsp; or a certified&nbsp; copy&nbsp; of the&nbsp; extract relating&nbsp; to&nbsp; entry of her name in the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; electoral&nbsp; roll.&nbsp; It further held that the nomination papers of Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi had been&nbsp;&nbsp; rejected improperly by&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the Returning officer as both the candidates had&nbsp; attained the qualifying age of 25 years on the date of nomination. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment the appellant preferred an appeal to this Court under section 116-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951. On the questions whether: (1) the returning office had validly&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; rejected the nomination papers of Smt.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Umrao Ben, Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi, and (2) the&nbsp; respondent had proved in accordance with law that Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Joshi whose nomination papers were rejected by the Returning&nbsp; Officer&nbsp; had attained the age&nbsp; of&nbsp; 25&nbsp; years&nbsp; on January 1, 1984. PG NO 3 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Allowing the appeal, setting aside the order of the High Court and dismissing the election petition, the Court.&nbsp; HELD: l(a). &nbsp;Section 33 of the Act provides for presentation of nomination paper and it further lays down the requirements of a valid nomination. Section&nbsp; 33(5) requires&nbsp; a&nbsp; candidate who is an&nbsp; elector&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; a&nbsp; different constituency,&nbsp; to file a copy of the electoral roll&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the constituency&nbsp; as&nbsp; a certified copy of the&nbsp; relevant&nbsp; entries along with his nomination paper. If a candidate is unable to comply with these requirements at the time of filing the nomination paper he is afforded another opportunity to prove his eligibility by producing a copy of the electoral roll of the constituency of the relevant part thereof or a certified copy of the&nbsp; relevant entries&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp; roll before the returning officer at the time of scrutiny. [9A-E] &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Legislature thus provides two opportunities&nbsp; to such a candidate for proving his eligibility to contest&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the election, one at the time of filing the nomination paper and the&nbsp; other at the stage of scrutiny. If the candidates fail to&nbsp; avail of either of the two opportunities his&nbsp; nomination paper is liable to be rejected. [9E-F] &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (c)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Non-compliance with section 33(5) is fatal&nbsp; to&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the nomination&nbsp; and no other mode is prescribed by the&nbsp; Act&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; for proving&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp; eligibility of the&nbsp; candidate.&nbsp; Section&nbsp; 33(5) prescribes&nbsp; a&nbsp; particular&nbsp; mode to prove&nbsp; eligibility&nbsp; of&nbsp; a candidate to contest election and section 36(Z)(h)&nbsp; provides penal consequences.[10A] &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (d) Section 33(5) of the R.P. Act lays down a&nbsp; mandatory requirement&nbsp; for&nbsp; a&nbsp; valid nomination. The&nbsp; purpose&nbsp; is&nbsp; to satisfy the returning officer that the candidate is eligible to contest the election and if he&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; fails to satisfy the returning officer in the manner prescribed, the penalty&nbsp;&nbsp; and the&nbsp; consequences&nbsp; which are specified in&nbsp; section&nbsp; 36(2)(b) must&nbsp; follow. Section 33(5) is not directory instead it&nbsp; is mandatory in nature. [l0F] &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (e)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An elector of a different constituency is&nbsp; under&nbsp; a mandatory&nbsp; duty&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; to&nbsp; prove his&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; eligibility&nbsp; in&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp; manner prescribed by section 33(5) of the Act and if he fails to do that,&nbsp; he must suffer the consequences&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; contemplated&nbsp; by section&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 36(2)(b) of the Act. It is not open to a&nbsp; candidate who&nbsp; fails to comply with section 33(5) to put the blame&nbsp; on the&nbsp; returning officer for the rejection of&nbsp; his&nbsp; nomination paper. The returning officer is under no legal obligation to make amends for the omission of a candidate, especially when the omission relates to a mandatory requirement. [10G-11A] PG NO 4 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (F)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The&nbsp; law does not enjoin the returning&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; officer&nbsp; to send&nbsp; for the electoral roll from his office to verify&nbsp;&nbsp; the eligibility&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; a candidate. The law casts a&nbsp; duty&nbsp; on&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the candidate to satisfy the returning officer by following&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; one of&nbsp; the three modes prescribed in section 33(5) of&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Act and if he fails to do that the returning officer is bound to reject the nomination paper, he has no option in the matter. [11B ] &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (g)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The law does not require the returning&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; officer&nbsp; to send for the electoral roll of a different constituency&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; for the&nbsp; purpose&nbsp; of verifying the eligibility of&nbsp; a&nbsp; candidate. [11C] &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp; instant case, there is no&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; dispute&nbsp; that&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Smt. Umrao&nbsp; Ben failed to comply with the requirement of&nbsp; section 33(5)&nbsp; of&nbsp; the Act as she had neither filed a&nbsp; copy&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp;electoral&nbsp; roll&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; of the constituency or&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp; relevant&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; part&nbsp;thereof, or the certified copy of the relevant entries along&nbsp;with&nbsp; her nomination paper. Nor she had produced any of the&nbsp;three documents before the returning officer at the time&nbsp; of&nbsp;scrutiny.&nbsp; In&nbsp; such&nbsp; circumstances&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; returning&nbsp;&nbsp; officer&nbsp;rightly rejected Umrao Ben&#39;s nomination &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; paper. [10B] &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Sri&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Babu Ram&nbsp; v. Shrimati Prasanni &amp; Ors.,&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; [l959]&nbsp;&nbsp; SCR 1403; SCR 1403; Narbada Prasad v. Chhagan Lal &amp; Ors., [1969] 1 SCR 499; Parmar Himat singh Jugatsingh v. Patel Harmanbhai Narsibhai, [1974] SCR 453; Avadh Raj Singh v. Jugal&nbsp; Kishore Gupta,[l979]&nbsp; 1 SCR: 228 and Ranjit Singh v. Pritam Singh&nbsp; &amp; Ors., [1966]3 SCR 543, referred to. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 2(a) During the scrutiny the Returning Officer is&nbsp; under&nbsp;a&nbsp; statutory duty to satisfy himself that the candidate &nbsp;who&nbsp;may&nbsp; have&nbsp; filed nomination paper&nbsp; possesses&nbsp; the&nbsp; necessary&nbsp;constitutional&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; qualification for contesting&nbsp; the&nbsp; election. [l4F] &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Enquiry&nbsp; during scrutiny is summary&nbsp; in&nbsp; nature&nbsp; as&nbsp;there&nbsp; is no scope for any elaborate enquiry at that&nbsp; stage.Therefore it is open to a party to place fresh or additional&nbsp;material&nbsp; before the High Court to show that&nbsp; the&nbsp; Returning&nbsp;Officer&#39;s order rejecting the nomination paper was improper.&nbsp;It&nbsp; should&nbsp; be&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; borne in mind that&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; proceedings&nbsp; in&nbsp; an&nbsp;election&nbsp; petition are not in the nature of&nbsp; appeal&nbsp; against&nbsp;the&nbsp; order&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the returning officer.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; It&nbsp; is&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; an&nbsp; original&nbsp;proceeding. [15C] &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (c)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In&nbsp; the instant case, on the basis of &nbsp; the&nbsp; entries&nbsp;contained&nbsp; in the electoral roll the Returning Officer &nbsp;held&nbsp;that&nbsp; the&nbsp; two&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; candidates did&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; not&nbsp; possess&nbsp; the&nbsp; requisite&nbsp;qualification&nbsp; of&nbsp; age&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; as required by Article&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 173&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp;Constitution&nbsp;&nbsp; to&nbsp; contest&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; election.&nbsp; Accordingly&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; he&nbsp;rejected&nbsp; both the nomination papers. In the absence of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; any&nbsp;material before the returning officer, the returning officer&nbsp;was&nbsp; not wrong in taking the entries in the&nbsp; electoral&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; roll&nbsp;into&nbsp; consideration and acting on them. But his decision&nbsp; is&nbsp;not final. In an election petition it is open to an election&nbsp;petitioner to place cogent evidence before the High Court to&nbsp;show that the candidate whose nomination paper was&nbsp; rejected&nbsp;had&nbsp; in&nbsp;&nbsp; fact attained the age of 25 years on&nbsp; the&nbsp; relevant&nbsp;date. If on the basis of the material placed before the High&nbsp;Court it is proved that the candidate whose nomination paper&nbsp;had&nbsp; been rejected was qualified to contest the election&nbsp; it&nbsp;is&nbsp; open to the High Court to set aside the election.&nbsp; [14G- PG NO 5 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 3(a) To render a document admissible under section 35 of&nbsp;the&nbsp; Evidence&nbsp; Act&nbsp; three&nbsp; conditions&nbsp; must&nbsp; be &nbsp;satisfied,&nbsp;firstly, entry that is relied on must be one in a public&nbsp; or&nbsp;other&nbsp; official book, register or record, secondly, it&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; must&nbsp;be&nbsp; an entry stating a fact in issue or relevant&nbsp; fact; &nbsp;and&nbsp;thirdly, it must be made by a public servant in discharge of&nbsp;his&nbsp; official duty, or any other person in performance of&nbsp; a&nbsp;duty specially enjoined by law. [21B] &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An&nbsp; entry&nbsp; relating to date of birth&nbsp; made&nbsp; in &nbsp; the&nbsp;school register is relevant and admissible under section&nbsp; 35&nbsp;of the Act, but the entry regarding the age of 3 person in a&nbsp;school&nbsp;&nbsp; register is of not much evidentiary value&nbsp; to&nbsp; prove&nbsp;the&nbsp; age&nbsp; of the person in the absence of the material&nbsp; on&nbsp;which the age was recorded. [21C] &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (c)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Parents or near relations having special&nbsp; knowledge&nbsp;are the best persons to depose about the date of birth of&nbsp; a&nbsp;person. If&nbsp; entry regarding date of birth in&nbsp; the&nbsp; school&#39;s&nbsp;register&nbsp; is&nbsp; made on the information given&nbsp; by&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; parents&nbsp; are&nbsp;someone having special knowledge of the fact, the same would&nbsp;have probative value. [20A] &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (d)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The&nbsp; date&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; birth&nbsp; mentioned&nbsp; in&nbsp; the&nbsp; scholar&#39;s&nbsp;register has no evidentiary value unless the person who made&nbsp;the entry or who gave the date of birth is examined. [2OB] &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (e) The entry contained in the admission form or in the&nbsp;scholar&nbsp; register must be shown to be made on the&nbsp; basis&nbsp; of&nbsp;information given by the parents or a person having&nbsp; special&nbsp;knowledge&nbsp; about the date of birth of the person&nbsp; concerned.&nbsp;If&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; entry in the scholar&#39;s register regarding&nbsp; date&nbsp; of&nbsp;birth is made on the basis of information given by&nbsp; parents,&nbsp;the entry would have evidentiary value but if it is given by&nbsp;a&nbsp; stranger or by Someone else who had no special&nbsp; means&nbsp; of&nbsp;knowledge&nbsp; of the date of birth, such an entry will have&nbsp; no&nbsp;evidentiary value. [20C] PG NO 6 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In the instant case, nomination papers of two candidates&nbsp;Hukmi&nbsp; Chand&nbsp; and Suraj Prakash Joshi were rejected&nbsp; by&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp;Returning&nbsp; Officer on the ground that they had not&nbsp; attained&nbsp;the&nbsp; age&nbsp; of&nbsp; 25 years at the&nbsp; time&nbsp;&nbsp; of&nbsp; filing&nbsp; nomination&nbsp;papers. In the election petition copies of extract of school&nbsp;register,&nbsp; certificate and mark list of Secondary&nbsp; Education&nbsp;Board were produced. The High Court committed serious&nbsp; error&nbsp;in&nbsp; accepting&nbsp; the&nbsp; dates&nbsp; of&nbsp; birth&nbsp; as&nbsp; mentioned&nbsp; in&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp;documents.&nbsp; The High Court&#39;s entire approach in&nbsp; considering&nbsp;the question of dates of birth was misconceived. The&nbsp; burden&nbsp;to&nbsp; prove this fact in issue was on the respondent&nbsp; who&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; was&nbsp;the&nbsp; election petitioner. In fact the burden was on&nbsp; him&nbsp; to&nbsp;prove&nbsp; his case by producing Hukmi Chand and&nbsp; Suraj&nbsp; Prakash&nbsp;Joshi or their parents to prove or corroborate the dates&nbsp; of&nbsp;birth&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; as&nbsp;&nbsp; mentioned&nbsp;&nbsp; in&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; school&nbsp; register&nbsp; and&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp;certificate. No adverse inference could be drawn against the&nbsp;appellant for not examining them. [22C-G; 23C-D]&nbsp; Raja&nbsp; Janaki Nath Roy &amp; Ors. v. Jyotish Chandra&nbsp; Acharya&nbsp;Chowdhury, AIR 1941 CAL. 41; Jagan Nath v. Moti Ram &amp;&nbsp; Ors.,&nbsp;[1951]&nbsp;&nbsp; Punjab 377; Sakhi Ram &amp; Ors. v.&nbsp; Presiding&nbsp; Officer,&nbsp;Labour Court, North Bihar, Muzzafarpur &amp; Ors., [1966]&nbsp; Patna&nbsp;459;&nbsp; Ghunchi Vora Samsuddish Isabhai v. State&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; of&nbsp; Gujarat,&nbsp;[1970]&nbsp;&nbsp; Gujarat 178; Radha Kishan Tickoo) &amp; Anr. v.&nbsp; Bhushan&nbsp;Lal Tickoo&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Anr., [1970]J &amp;&nbsp; K 62; Jagdmba Prasad v.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Shri&nbsp;Jagannath&nbsp; Prasad &amp; Ors., 42 ELR 465; k. Paramalali v.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; L.M.&nbsp;Alangam&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &amp;&nbsp; Anr., 31 ELR 401; krishna Rao Maharu&nbsp; Patil&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; v.&nbsp;Onkar&nbsp; Narayan&nbsp; 14 ELR 386; Brij Mohan Singh v.&nbsp;&nbsp; Priya&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Brat&nbsp;Narain&nbsp;&nbsp; Sinha &amp; Ors.,[1965]3 SCR 861.,Ram murti v. State&nbsp; of&nbsp;U.P. Haryana, AIR 1625,referred to. JUDGMENT: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; CIVlL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 574 (NCE)&nbsp;of I987. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; From&nbsp; the&nbsp; Judgment and Order dated 18.2.&nbsp; 1987&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp;Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Elec. Petn No. 8 of 1985.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Dr.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; N.M. Ghatate, S.V. Deshpande and&nbsp; Abhishek&nbsp; Singhvi&nbsp;for he Appellant. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; G.L. Sanghi. Jitender Sharma, P. Gaur and M.K. Calla for&nbsp;the Respondent.&nbsp;The Judgment of the Court was delivered by: PG NO 7 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; SINGH,&nbsp; J.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This&nbsp; appeal&nbsp; under&nbsp; Section&nbsp; 116-A&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp;Representation&nbsp; of People Act 1951 (hereinafter referred&nbsp; to&nbsp;as&nbsp; the Act) is directed against the judgment and&nbsp; order&nbsp; of&nbsp;the&nbsp; High Court of Rajasthan dated 18.2.1987&nbsp; setting&nbsp; aside&nbsp;the&nbsp; election&nbsp; of&nbsp; the appellant to&nbsp; the&nbsp; State Legislative&nbsp;Assembly&nbsp;&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Rajasthan&nbsp;&nbsp; from&nbsp;&nbsp; Jodhpur&nbsp;&nbsp; City&nbsp;&nbsp; Assembly Constituency.&nbsp; Election to the State Legislative Assembly of&nbsp; Rajasthan&nbsp;from&nbsp; the constituency No. 183 Jodhpur City was held in&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp;year 1985; nomxination papers were filed by 8.2.1985 and the&nbsp;date&nbsp; of scrutiny was 9.2.1985. In all 45&nbsp; candidates&nbsp; filed&nbsp;their&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; nominations.&nbsp; After&nbsp; scrutiny&nbsp; and&nbsp;&nbsp; withdrawal&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; 21&nbsp;candidates&nbsp;&nbsp; contested&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp; election,&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; after&nbsp; polling&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and&nbsp;counting of votes the appellant was declared elected&nbsp; having&nbsp;obtained majority of votes. Anand Purohit, respondent who is&nbsp;an elector in the Jodhpur City Constituency No. 183 filed an&nbsp;election&nbsp; petition&nbsp; before the High&nbsp; Court&nbsp; challenging&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp;appellant&#39;s&nbsp; election,&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; on&nbsp; the ground that&nbsp; the&nbsp; result&nbsp; of&nbsp;election&nbsp; was&nbsp; materially affected on&nbsp; account&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; of&nbsp; improper&nbsp;rejection&nbsp; of nomination papers of three candidates&nbsp; namely,&nbsp;Smt.&nbsp; Umrao&nbsp; Ben, Hukmichand and Suraj Prakash Joshi.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The&nbsp;respondent&nbsp; pleaded&nbsp; that Smt. Umrao Ben was an elector&nbsp; in&nbsp;Sardarpura&nbsp; Assembly&nbsp; Constituency&nbsp; the&nbsp; returning&nbsp;&nbsp; officer&nbsp;wrongly rejected&nbsp; her nomination paper,&nbsp; without&nbsp; affording&nbsp;opportunity to her to produce a copy of the electoral&nbsp; roll.&nbsp;He further pleaded that Hukmichand, and Suraj Prakash&nbsp; Joshi&nbsp;both&nbsp; were&nbsp; more than 25 years of age on the date&nbsp; of&nbsp; their&nbsp;nomination, &nbsp;&nbsp;yet&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; returning&nbsp; officer&nbsp; rejected&nbsp;&nbsp; their&nbsp;nomination papers on the ground that they were not qualified&nbsp;to&nbsp; be a candidate as they were below 25 years of&nbsp; age.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The&nbsp;appellant contested the election petition.&nbsp; He asserted that&nbsp;Umrao&nbsp; Ben&nbsp; had&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; failed&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; to file a&nbsp; certified&nbsp; copy&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp;relevant&nbsp;&nbsp; entry&nbsp; in&nbsp; the&nbsp; electoral&nbsp; roll&nbsp;&nbsp; of &nbsp; Sardarpura&nbsp;constituency&nbsp; along with her nomination, she further&nbsp; failed&nbsp;to&nbsp; produce&nbsp; copy&nbsp; of&nbsp; the electoral roll&nbsp; at&nbsp; the&nbsp; time&nbsp; of&nbsp;scrutiny&nbsp;&nbsp; and&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; therefore&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; returning&nbsp; officer&nbsp;&nbsp; rightly&nbsp;rejected&nbsp; her&nbsp; nomination paper. As regards&nbsp; Hukmichand&nbsp; and&nbsp;Suraj Prakash Joshi, the appellant pleaded that none of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp;two&nbsp; candidates dates&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; was&nbsp; present&nbsp; before&nbsp; the&nbsp; returning&nbsp;officer&nbsp;&nbsp; at&nbsp; the&nbsp; time c,f scrutiny and&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; since&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp; entries&nbsp;contained&nbsp; in&nbsp; the electoral roll indicated that&nbsp; they&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; were&nbsp;below 25 years of age the returning officer rightly rejected&nbsp;their nomination paper. The appellant further asserted&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; that&nbsp;the rejection of the three nomination papers was proper&nbsp; and&nbsp;the&nbsp; result of the election was not materially&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; affected&nbsp; on&nbsp;account of the rejection of the aforesaid three&nbsp; nomination&nbsp;papers.&nbsp; The&nbsp; High Court held that the nomination&nbsp; paper&nbsp; of&nbsp;Smt.&nbsp; Umrao&nbsp; Ben was validly rejected as she had&nbsp; failed&nbsp; to&nbsp;comply&nbsp; with&nbsp; Section 33(5) of the Act inasmuch as&nbsp; she&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; had failed&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; to&nbsp; produce&nbsp; a&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; copy of the&nbsp; electoral&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; roll&nbsp; or&nbsp; a certified copy of the relevant&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; extract relating to entry of her&nbsp; name in the electoral roll in Sardarpura&nbsp; constituency. The&nbsp; High&nbsp; Court&nbsp; further held&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; that&nbsp; nomination&nbsp; papers&nbsp; of Hukmichand&nbsp; and&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Suraj&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Prakash Joshi&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; had&nbsp; been&nbsp;&nbsp; rejected improperly&nbsp; by the returning officer as both the&nbsp; candidates had&nbsp; attained the qualifying age of 25 years on the date&nbsp; of nomination.&nbsp; On these findings the High Court set aside&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the appellant&#39;s&nbsp; election&nbsp; by&nbsp; its&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; judgment&nbsp; and&nbsp; order&nbsp;&nbsp; dated 18.2.1987. Aggrieved by the said judgment the appellant&nbsp;&nbsp; has preferred this appeal under Section 116 of the Act. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; PG NO 8 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; controversy&nbsp; in the present appeal relates&nbsp; to&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the validity&nbsp; of the orders of the returning&nbsp; officer&nbsp; rejecting the nomination paper of Smt. Umrao Ben, Hukmichand and Suraj Prakash Joshi. We would first examine the validity&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the order&nbsp; of the returning officer rejecting Smt.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Umrao&nbsp; Ben&#39;s nomination&nbsp; paper,&nbsp; which was questioned by&nbsp; the&nbsp; Respondent before&nbsp;&nbsp; us.&nbsp; There is no dispute that Umrao Ben was&nbsp; not&nbsp; an elector&nbsp; in the Jodhpur City Assembly Constituency No.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 183. She&nbsp; was an lector in Sardarpura Assembly&nbsp; Constituency.&nbsp; In her&nbsp; nomination paper&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; she had given&nbsp; the&nbsp; details&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the relevant entry contained in the electoral roll of Sardarpura Assembly&nbsp; Constituency, but her nomination&nbsp; paper&nbsp; was&nbsp; not accompanied by a certified copy of the relevant entry in the electoral&nbsp; roll&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; of&nbsp; Sardarpura&nbsp;&nbsp; constituency&nbsp; nor&nbsp; she&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; had produced&nbsp; a copy of the electoral roll or the relevant&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; part thereof before&nbsp; the&nbsp; returning&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; officer&nbsp; at&nbsp; the&nbsp; time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; of scrutiny.&nbsp; Therefore&nbsp; the&nbsp; returning&nbsp; officer&nbsp; rejected&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; her nomination&nbsp; paper.&nbsp; The High Court held that&nbsp; the&nbsp; returning officer&nbsp;&nbsp; had rightly rejected the nomination paper of&nbsp; Umrao Ben&nbsp; and there was no question of improper rejection of&nbsp;&nbsp; her nomination&nbsp; paper. Sri G.L. Sanghi, learned counsel for&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the respondent&nbsp; challenged the correctness of the&nbsp; High&nbsp; Court&#39;s findings on this question. He urged that since the Returning Officer&nbsp; who was holding the scrutiny of&nbsp; nomination&nbsp; papers relating&nbsp; to the Jodhpur Assembly constituency was also&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the returning&nbsp; officer&nbsp; of Sardarpura&nbsp; Assembly&nbsp; constituency,he should have verified the entry of Umrao Ben&#39;s name from the electoral&nbsp; roll&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; of Sardarpura Assembly Constituency&nbsp; which must&nbsp; have been with him. He urged that Umrao Ben&#39;s&nbsp; request to&nbsp; verify entries relating to her name from&nbsp; the&nbsp; electoral roll of Sardarpura Assembly constituency was ignored by&nbsp; the returning&nbsp; officer,&nbsp; and&nbsp; further her request for&nbsp; grant&nbsp; of time&nbsp; to produce electoral roll was also rejected. He&nbsp; urged that object of Section 35 of the Act was merely to ascertain as&nbsp; to&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; whether&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; a&nbsp; candidate&nbsp; whose&nbsp; nomination&nbsp; paper&nbsp; was scrutinised&nbsp; was an elector or not and since&nbsp; the&nbsp; electoral roll&nbsp; of Sardarpura Assembly Constituency was&nbsp; already&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; with the&nbsp; returning&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; officer he could have verified&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the &nbsp;entries from that electoral roll. The returning officer had acted in an&nbsp; unreasonable&nbsp; manner&nbsp; in&nbsp; refusing to&nbsp; do&nbsp; that&nbsp; and&nbsp; in rejecting&nbsp; her nomination paper. We find no merit&nbsp; in&nbsp; these submissions. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; PG NO 9 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Section&nbsp; 33&nbsp; of the Act provides&nbsp; for&nbsp; presentation&nbsp; of nomination&nbsp; paper and it further lays down the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; requirements of a valid nomination. Sub-section (5) of the Section 33&nbsp; is as under: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &quot;where&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; candidate&nbsp; is an&nbsp; elector&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; a&nbsp; different constituency&nbsp;&nbsp; a&nbsp; copy&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp; electoral&nbsp; roll&nbsp;&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; that constituency or of the relevant part thereof or a&nbsp; certified copy&nbsp; of the relevant entries in such roll shall, unless&nbsp; it has been filed along with the nomination paper, be&nbsp; produced before the returning officer at the time of scrutiny.&quot; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; above&nbsp;&nbsp; provision&nbsp; requires a candidate&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; who&nbsp; is&nbsp; an elector&nbsp; of a different constituency, to file a copy of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the electoral roll of constituency&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; a relevant part of that roll or a certified copy of the relevant&nbsp; entries along with&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; his nomination paper. These documents are necessary to show that the candidate is an elector of a different constituency&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and he&nbsp; is eligible to contest the election. If a&nbsp; candidate&nbsp; is unable&nbsp;&nbsp; to&nbsp; comply with these requirements at&nbsp; the&nbsp; time&nbsp; of filing&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp; nomination&nbsp; paper&nbsp;&nbsp; he&nbsp; is&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; afforded&nbsp;&nbsp; another opportunity to prove his eligibility by producing a copy&nbsp; of the electoral roll of the constituency or the relevant&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; part thereof or a certified copy of the relevant entries of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the roll&nbsp; before the returning officer at the time of&nbsp; scrutiny. The&nbsp; Legislature&nbsp; provides&nbsp; two&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; opportunities&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; to&nbsp; such&nbsp;&nbsp; a candidate&nbsp; for&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; proving his&nbsp; eligibility&nbsp; to&nbsp; contest&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the election one at the stage of filing the nomination paper and the&nbsp; other at the stage of scrutiny. If the candidate&nbsp; fails of&nbsp; avail&nbsp; either of the two&nbsp; opportunities&nbsp; his&nbsp; nomination paper&nbsp; is&nbsp; liable&nbsp; to be rejected. Section&nbsp; 36&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp; Act provides&nbsp; that on the date of scrutiny of nomination&nbsp; papers the&nbsp; returning officer shall examine the&nbsp; nomination&nbsp; papers and&nbsp; shall&nbsp; decide all objections which may he made&nbsp; to&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; any nomination&nbsp; and he may either on objection or&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; on&nbsp; his&nbsp;&nbsp; own motion, after holding such summary inquiry. if any,&nbsp; reject any nomination on the grounds specified in clauses (a),&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (b) and&nbsp; (c) of sub-section (2). Section 36(2)(b)&nbsp; provides&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; for the&nbsp; rejection&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; of the nomination paper on&nbsp; the&nbsp; candidate&#39;s failure&nbsp;&nbsp; to comply with any of the provisions of Section&nbsp; 33 or&nbsp; Section 34 of the Act. Section 33(5.) read with&nbsp; Section 36(2)(b)&nbsp; makes&nbsp; it apparent that if a candidate who&nbsp; is&nbsp; an elector&nbsp; of&nbsp; a&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; different constituency fails&nbsp; to&nbsp; prove&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; his eligibility in the manner prescribed by Section 33(5) of the Act,&nbsp; his nomination paper is liable to be rejected for&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the non compliance of Section 33(5) of the Act. These provisions are plain which admit of no other interpretation. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; PG NO 10 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Non-compliance&nbsp; with&nbsp; Section&nbsp; 33(5)&nbsp; is&nbsp; fatal&nbsp; to&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the nomination&nbsp; and no other mode is prescribed by the&nbsp; Act&nbsp;&nbsp; for proving the&nbsp; eligibility of the&nbsp; candidate.&nbsp; Section&nbsp; 35(5) prescribes&nbsp; a&nbsp; particular&nbsp; made to prove&nbsp; eligibility&nbsp; of&nbsp; a candidate to contest election and Section 36(2)(b)&nbsp; provides penal consequences. Therefore Section 35(5) is mandatory&nbsp; in nature. There is no dispute that Umrao Ben failed to&nbsp; comply with the requirement of Section 33(5) of the Act as she&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; had neither&nbsp; &nbsp; filed&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; a&nbsp; copy&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp; electoral&nbsp; roll&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the constituency or the relevant part thereof, or the&nbsp; certified copy&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp; relevant entries along&nbsp; with&nbsp; her&nbsp; nomination paper.&nbsp;&nbsp; Nor&nbsp; she&nbsp; had produced any of&nbsp; the&nbsp; three&nbsp; documents before the returning officer at the time of scrutiny. In the circumstances&nbsp; the returning officer rightly rejected&nbsp; Umrao Ben&#39;s nomination paper. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Shri&nbsp; G.L.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Sanghi,&nbsp; learned counsel&nbsp; then&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; urged&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; that Section 33(5) of the Act was directory and it+was open to&nbsp; a candidate&nbsp; to prove his eligibility, by any other&nbsp; mode.&nbsp; He urged&nbsp; that Umrao Ben&#39;s request to the returning officer&nbsp; to verify&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; her&nbsp; entry&nbsp; from the electoral&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; roll&nbsp; of&nbsp; Sardarpura Assembly&nbsp; Constituency which was in his custody (as&nbsp; he&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; was the&nbsp; returning officer of Sardarpura&nbsp; Assembly&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Constituency also)&nbsp; was&nbsp; ignored&nbsp; and he refused to&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; grant&nbsp; her&nbsp; time&nbsp; to produce&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the necessary documents. In the&nbsp; election&nbsp; petition there&nbsp; was&nbsp; no pleading that Umrao Ben had&nbsp; made&nbsp; any&nbsp; such request or that the returning officer had refused to&nbsp; grant her&nbsp; time.&nbsp; The High Court has on appreciation&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; of&nbsp; evidence held that no request for time was made by Smt. Umrao Ben and no request for verifying the entry relating to her from&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the electoral roll of Sardarpura assembly Constituency was made. But even assuming&nbsp; that the returning officer had refused to verify&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the relevant entries relating to Umrao Ben from&nbsp;&nbsp; the electoral&nbsp; roll of Sardarpura Assembly Constituency, he&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; had acted in accordance with law. No exception could be taken to his conduct. Section 33(5) of the Act lays down a&nbsp; mandatory requirement&nbsp; for a valid nomination. The purpose of&nbsp; Section 33(5) of the Act is to satisfy the&nbsp; returning officer&nbsp; that the candidate is eligible to contest the election and if&nbsp; he fails&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; to&nbsp; satisfy&nbsp; the returning&nbsp; officer&nbsp; in&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp; manner prescribed&nbsp; by Section 33(5) of the Act, the&nbsp; penalty&nbsp; and the&nbsp; consequences&nbsp; which are specified in&nbsp; Section&nbsp; 36(2)(b) must&nbsp; follow. Section 33(5) is not directory instead&nbsp; it&nbsp; is mandatory&nbsp; in nature. An elector of a different constituency is&nbsp; under a&nbsp; mandatory duty to prove his eligibility in&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the manner prescribed&nbsp; by Section 33(5) of the Act&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and&nbsp; if&nbsp; he fails&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; to&nbsp; do&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; that,&nbsp; he&nbsp; must&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; suffer&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; consequences contemplated by Section 36(2)(b) of the Act. It is not&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; open to a candidate who fails to comply with Section 33(5) of the Act&nbsp; to&nbsp;&nbsp; put&nbsp; the blame on the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; returning&nbsp; officer&nbsp; for&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the rejecting&nbsp; his&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; nomination paper. The&nbsp; retuning officer&nbsp; is under no legal obligation to make amends for the omission of a&nbsp; candidate, &nbsp;especially&nbsp; when the omission&nbsp; relates&nbsp; to&nbsp; a mandatory&nbsp; requirements. Apart from this legal aspect,&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; even on facts, the Returning Officer, in his testimony before the High Court, had stated that the electoral roll of Sardarpura Assembly&nbsp; Constituency was not with him at the time&nbsp; he&nbsp;&nbsp; had taken&nbsp; up the scrutiny of nomination paper of&nbsp; Jodhpur&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; City Constituency. The law does not enjoin the returning&nbsp; officer to send for the electoral roll from his office to verify the eligibility&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; a candidate. The law casts a&nbsp; duty&nbsp; on&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the candidate to satisfy the returning officer by following&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; one of&nbsp; the three modes prescribed in Section 33(5) of&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Act and if he fails to do that the returning officer is bound to reject the nomination paper, he has no option in the matter. The&nbsp; law does not require the returning officer to send&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; for the&nbsp; electoral&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; roll&nbsp; of a different&nbsp; constituency&nbsp; for&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the purpose of verifying the eligibility of a candidate. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; PG NO 11 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In Sri Babu Ram v. Shrimati Prasanni &amp; Ors., [1959]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; SCR 1403&nbsp; this&nbsp; Court&nbsp; interpreted&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Section&nbsp; 33(5)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and&nbsp; Section 36(2)(b) and observed as under: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &quot;Section&nbsp; 33(5)&nbsp; requires the candidate&nbsp; to&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; supply&nbsp;&nbsp; the prescribed&nbsp; copy and Section 36(2)(b) provides that&nbsp; on&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; his failure&nbsp;&nbsp; to comply with the said requirement his&nbsp; nomination paper&nbsp; is liable to de rejected. In other words. this&nbsp; is&nbsp; a case where the statute requires the candidate to produce the prescribed&nbsp; evidence and provides a penalty for his&nbsp; failure to&nbsp; do so. In such a case it is difficult to appreciate&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the relevance&nbsp; or validity of the argument that the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; requirement of Section 33(5) is not mandatory but is directory,&nbsp; because the&nbsp; statute&nbsp; itself has made it clear that the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; failure&nbsp; to comply&nbsp; with the said requirement leads to the rejection&nbsp; of the&nbsp; nomination paper.&nbsp; Whenever&nbsp; the&nbsp; statute&nbsp; requires&nbsp; a particular&nbsp; act to be done in a particular manner&nbsp; and&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; also lays&nbsp; down that failure to comply with the said&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; requirement leads&nbsp; to&nbsp; a specific consequence it would be&nbsp; difficult&nbsp; to accept the argument that the failure to comply with the said requirement should lead to any other consequences. &quot; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; PG NO 12 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Repelling&nbsp; the argument that failure to comply with&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the requirement of Section 33(5) was not a defect of substantial nature and the returning officer could be satisfied by other modes that the candidate&#39;s name was entered as an elector in another constituency, the Court held that the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; satisfaction of&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp; returning&nbsp; officer&nbsp; was&nbsp; required&nbsp; to&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; be&nbsp; made&nbsp; in accordance with the statutory requirement and if a candidate failed to comply with that requirement the returning officer could not be satisfied by any other mode. The Court&nbsp; further held&nbsp; that&nbsp; the failure to comply with&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp; requirement&nbsp; of Section 33(5) was a defect of substantial nature which could not&nbsp; be&nbsp; ignored under Section 36(4) of the&nbsp; Act.&nbsp; The&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; view taken&nbsp; in Sri Babu Ram&#39;s case (supra) has been&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; followed&nbsp; in Narbada&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Prasad&nbsp; v. Chaggan Lal &amp; Ors., [I969]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1&nbsp; SCR&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 499; Parmar Himat singh Jugatsingh v. Patel Harmanbhai Narsibhai, [1974].&nbsp; 3&nbsp; SCR&nbsp;&nbsp; 453 and Avadh Raj Singh&nbsp; v.&nbsp; Jugal&nbsp; Kishore Gupta, [l979] 4 SCC 328. Learned counsel for the&nbsp; respondent sought&nbsp;&nbsp; support from a Constitution Bench decision&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; this Court in Ranjit Singh v. Pritam Singh &amp; Ors.[1966] 3 SCR 543 for his submission that failure to comply with section 33(5) Was not a defect of substantial character. We have carefully gone&nbsp; through&nbsp; the&nbsp; decision but we&nbsp; do&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; not&nbsp; find&nbsp; anything therein&nbsp; to support the respondent&#39;s contention&nbsp;&nbsp; instead&nbsp; it supports&nbsp; the&nbsp; view&nbsp; taken&nbsp; by us. In&nbsp; Ranjit&nbsp; Singh&#39;s&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; case (supra)&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; a&nbsp; candidate&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; who&nbsp; was&nbsp; not&nbsp; an&nbsp; elector&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the constituency&nbsp; had filed three nomination Papers. Along&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; with one&nbsp; of&nbsp; his&nbsp; nomination paper he had filed a&nbsp; copy&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the electoral roll of the constituency when his name was entered as an elector, with a view to comply with the requirement of Section&nbsp; 33(5) of the Act. He had not filed&nbsp; similar&nbsp; copies along with other two nomination papers. The nomination paper with&nbsp; which the candidate had filed a copy of the&nbsp; electoral roll was rejected on the ground of some technical defect But the&nbsp; other two nominations were rejected on the ground&nbsp; that copy&nbsp; of the electoral roll was not filed along&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; with&nbsp; them. This Court held that the returning officer was wrong in&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; not looking at the copy of the electoral roll filed with one&nbsp; of the nomination papers. The Court further held Section&nbsp; 33(5) did&nbsp; not&nbsp; require&nbsp; that&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; a copy&nbsp; must&nbsp; be&nbsp; filed&nbsp; with&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; each nomination paper or that any copy should be filed at all&nbsp; as it&nbsp; was open to a candidate to produce the copy&nbsp;&nbsp; before&nbsp; the returning&nbsp; officer at the time of scrutiny. The&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Court&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; held that&nbsp; the&nbsp; purpose&nbsp; of filing the copy is&nbsp; ensure&nbsp; that&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the returning&nbsp; officer was able to check&nbsp; whether the&nbsp; candidate concerned&nbsp; was qualified or not and that purpose&nbsp;&nbsp; would&nbsp; be effectively served even if only one copy was filed with&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; one nomination&nbsp; paper&nbsp; and no copies were filed along&nbsp; with&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the other&nbsp; nomination&nbsp; papers. While considering&nbsp; Section&nbsp; 33(5) and36(4) of the Act the Constitution Bench held that Section 33(5)required that it was the copy produced by the candidate which&nbsp; should&nbsp; show that he was qualified or&nbsp; not&nbsp; and&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; that purpose a copy produced by the candidate should be&nbsp; complete whether it was of the roll or of the relevant part&nbsp; thereof. To&nbsp; such&nbsp; a case Section 36(4) had no&nbsp; application.&nbsp; Section 36(4) provided that returning officer should not reject&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; any nomination&nbsp; paper on the ground of any defect which was&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; not of&nbsp; a substantial character. Non-production of copy&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the relevant part was a defect of a substantial character for it made&nbsp; it&nbsp; impossible to decide whether&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp; candidate&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; was qualified&nbsp;&nbsp; or&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; not.&nbsp; Since&nbsp; qualification&nbsp; for&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; contesting election was a matter of substantial character, the&nbsp; failure to produce a copy of the electoral roll which was incomplete was a defect of a substantial character it would&nbsp; invalidate the&nbsp; nomination paper. In this view we agree with&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; High Court&nbsp; that&nbsp; there had been no improper&nbsp; rejection&nbsp;&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the Umrao&nbsp; Ben&#39;s&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; nomination&nbsp;&nbsp; paper,&nbsp;&nbsp; as&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; accidental circumstances&nbsp; that&nbsp; the&nbsp; returning&nbsp; officer&nbsp; was&nbsp; also&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the returning officer of the other constituency should not&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; make any difference. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; PG NO 13 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; As&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; regards the rejection of the&nbsp; nomination&nbsp; paper&nbsp; of Hukmi&nbsp; Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi are concerned the&nbsp;&nbsp; High Court&nbsp; has held that none of the two candidates was&nbsp; present before the returning Officer at the time of scrutiny nor any person on their behalf Was present. In his nomination&nbsp; paper Ex.&nbsp; 2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Hukmi&nbsp; Chand had given a&nbsp; declaration&nbsp; that&nbsp; he&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; had completed&nbsp; 26&nbsp; years of age while Suraj&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Prakash&nbsp; Joshi&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; had given declaration in his nomination paper Ex. 3 that he&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; had completed&nbsp; 25&nbsp; years&nbsp; of age. At the&nbsp; time&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; scrutiny&nbsp; no objection&nbsp; was raised against their nomination paper by&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; any party&nbsp; and&nbsp; none&nbsp; appeared on behalf of&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp; aforesaid&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; two candidate. The Returning Officer found that according to the entries in the electoral roll the age of Hukmi Chand was&nbsp; 23 years similarly in the case of Suraj Prakash Joshi the entry in&nbsp; the electoral roll indicated that on the&nbsp; relevant&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; date his age was 22 years. On the basis of the entries&nbsp; contained in&nbsp; the electoral roll the Returning Officer held&nbsp; that&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the two&nbsp; candidates did not possess the requisite&nbsp; qualification of&nbsp; age&nbsp; as required by Article 173 of the&nbsp; Constitution&nbsp; to contest the&nbsp; election.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Accordingly he&nbsp; rejected&nbsp; both&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the nomination&nbsp; papers. Before the High Court a controversy&nbsp; was raised&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; as to whether the two candidate were present at the time&nbsp; of&nbsp; scrutiny but on the evidence on&nbsp; record&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; High Court&nbsp; has held that neither of the two candidates&nbsp; nor&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; any body&nbsp; on their behalf was present at the time&nbsp; of&nbsp; scrutiny. Placing&nbsp; reliance&nbsp; on&nbsp; the&nbsp; oral&nbsp; and&nbsp; documentary&nbsp; evidence produced&nbsp; by&nbsp; the&nbsp; respondent the High&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Court&nbsp; has&nbsp; recorded findings that Hukmichand as well as Suraj prakash Joshi both had&nbsp; attained&nbsp; the&nbsp; age of 25 years&nbsp; on&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp; relevant&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; date 1.1.1984&nbsp; and&nbsp; their&nbsp; nomination papers&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; had&nbsp; been&nbsp; rejected improperly&nbsp; by&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp; Returning&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; officer,&nbsp; which&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; materially affected the result of the election. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; PG NO 14 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Dr Chitale learned counsel for the appellant urged that on&nbsp; the&nbsp; admitted&nbsp; facts&nbsp; and&nbsp; circumstances&nbsp; the&nbsp; Returning Officer&nbsp; could&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; not&nbsp; be held to&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; have&nbsp; acted&nbsp; improperly&nbsp; in rejecting&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; nomination papers of Hukmi Chand&nbsp; and&nbsp; Suraj Prakash Joshi.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; He&nbsp; urged that since at&nbsp; the&nbsp; time&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the scrutiny&nbsp; neither of the two candidates nor&nbsp; their&nbsp; proposer nor&nbsp; anybody else appeared before the returning officer,&nbsp; or placed&nbsp;&nbsp; any material before him showing that either&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the two candidates was qualified to contest the election&nbsp; having attained&nbsp; the&nbsp; age&nbsp; of more than&nbsp; 25&nbsp; years,&nbsp; the&nbsp; returning officer&nbsp;&nbsp; had no option but to rely on the entries&nbsp; contained in&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; electoral roll and therefore the rejection&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the nomination&nbsp; papers&nbsp; of Hukmi Chand and Suraj&nbsp; Prakash&nbsp; Joshi could&nbsp; not be said to be improper. Learned&nbsp; counsel&nbsp; further urged&nbsp; that if the returning officer did not act&nbsp; improperly in&nbsp;&nbsp; rejecting&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp; nomination paper&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp; aforesaid candidates, appellants&#39;s election could not be set aside&nbsp; on the basis of fresh or additional material placed before&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the High&nbsp; Court. Section 36 provides that on the date fixed&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; for the&nbsp; scrutiny&nbsp; of nomination, the&nbsp; candidate,&nbsp; his&nbsp; election agent,&nbsp;&nbsp; proposer&nbsp; or&nbsp; any other person&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; duly&nbsp; authorised&nbsp; in writing&nbsp; by the candidate may attend the proceedings at&nbsp; the time and place fixed for scrutiny.&nbsp; The returning officer is required to give them all reasonable facility for&nbsp; examining the&nbsp; nomination paper of all the candidates.&nbsp; Section&nbsp; 36(2) requires&nbsp; the&nbsp; returning officer to examine&nbsp; the&nbsp; nomination papers and to decide all objections which may be made to any nomination.&nbsp; He may, either on such objection or on his&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; own motion, after such summary inquiry, if any, as he may&nbsp; think necessary,&nbsp; reject&nbsp; any&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; nomination on any&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp; grounds specified under clauses (a),(b),and (c). Clause (d) empowers the&nbsp; returning&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; officer&nbsp;&nbsp; to reject&nbsp; nomination&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; paper&nbsp; of&nbsp; a candidate&nbsp; if&nbsp; on&nbsp; the date fixed for the&nbsp; scrutiny&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the nomination the candidate is not qualified or is disqualified for&nbsp; being&nbsp; chosen&nbsp; to&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; fill&nbsp; the&nbsp; seat&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; under&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; any&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp; the provisions&nbsp;&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Articles&nbsp; 84,102,173&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and&nbsp;&nbsp; 191&nbsp;&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the Constitution.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Article&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; 173&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; lays&nbsp;&nbsp; down&nbsp;&nbsp; constitutional qualification&nbsp; for being a Member of the state&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Legislature, according to which a person is not qualified to be chosen to full&nbsp; a seat in the Legislature of a State unless he is&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; not less than 25 years of age. During the scrutiny the Returning Officer&nbsp; is under a statutory duty to satisfy&nbsp; himself&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; that the candidate who may have filed nomination paper&nbsp; possesses the&nbsp; necessary constitutional qualification&nbsp; for&nbsp; contesting the election. In the instant case none of the two candidates appeared nor any body on their behalf appeared or placed any material&nbsp; before&nbsp; the&nbsp; returning officer to&nbsp; show&nbsp; that&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the candidates were not less than 25 years of age on the date of scrutiny&nbsp; 1.1.1984. No doubt in the nomination&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; papers&nbsp;&nbsp; both the&nbsp; candidates&nbsp; had made a declaration that they&nbsp; were&nbsp; not less than 25 years of age but entries pertaining to them&nbsp; in the&nbsp; electoral&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; roll clearly indicated that they&nbsp; were&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; less than&nbsp; 25&nbsp; years&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; of&nbsp; age.&nbsp;&nbsp; The&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; returning&nbsp; officer&nbsp; placing reliance&nbsp; on&nbsp; the entries contained in the&nbsp; public&nbsp; document i.e.&nbsp; the electoral roll, rejected the nomination&nbsp; paper&nbsp; of the two candidates on the ground that Hukmi Chand and&nbsp; Suraj Prakash Joshi were not qualified to contest the election. In the&nbsp; absence of any material before the&nbsp;&nbsp; returning&nbsp; officer, the returning officer was not wrong in taking the entries in the&nbsp; electoral roll into consideration and acting&nbsp; on&nbsp; them. But his decision is not final. In an election petition it is open&nbsp; to&nbsp; an election&nbsp; petitioner to place&nbsp; cogent&nbsp; evidence before&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp; High&nbsp; Court to show that&nbsp; the&nbsp; candidate&nbsp; whose nomination&nbsp; paper was rejected had in fact attained the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; age of&nbsp; 25&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; years on the relevant date. It is open to&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; High Court to take a final decision in the matter notwithstanding the order of the returning officer rejecting the&nbsp; nomination paper.&nbsp;&nbsp; If&nbsp; on the basis of the material placed&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; before&nbsp; the High Court it is proved that the candidate whose&nbsp; nomination paper&nbsp; had&nbsp; been&nbsp; rejected&nbsp; was&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; qualified&nbsp; to&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; contest the election&nbsp; it&nbsp; is&nbsp; open to the High Court to&nbsp; set&nbsp; aside&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the election.&nbsp; Enquiry during scrutiny is summary in&nbsp; nature&nbsp; as there&nbsp; is no scope for any elaborate enquiry at that&nbsp; stage. Therefore&nbsp; it&nbsp; is&nbsp; open&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; to&nbsp; n&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; party&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; to&nbsp; place&nbsp; fresh&nbsp; or additional&nbsp; material before the High Court to show that&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the Returning Officer&#39;s order rejecting the nomination paper was improper. It should be borne in mind that the proceedings in an election petition are not in the nature of appeal against the&nbsp; order&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the returning officer.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; It&nbsp; is&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; an&nbsp; original proceeding.&nbsp; In&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp; instant&nbsp; case&nbsp; it&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; was&nbsp; open&nbsp; to&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the respondent election petitioner to place material before&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the High&nbsp; Court to show that the two candidates&nbsp; were&nbsp; qualified and their nomination paper was improperly rejected. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; PG NO 15 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; question&nbsp; then arises whether&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp; respondent has proved&nbsp; in&nbsp; accordance with law that Hukmi Chand&nbsp; and&nbsp; Suraj Prakash Joshi whose nomination papers were rejected by the Returning&nbsp; Officer&nbsp; had&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; attained the age&nbsp; of&nbsp; 25&nbsp; years&nbsp; on 1.1.1984.&nbsp; In the election petition the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; respondent&nbsp; pleaded that Hukmi Chand&#39;s nomination paper was improperly mentioned his&nbsp; age&nbsp; as 23 years while his correct date&nbsp; of&nbsp; birth&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; was 13.5.1956 as evidenced by the certificate issued by the Head Master of the New Government School Jodhpur. The&nbsp; respondent had&nbsp; further&nbsp; pleaded&nbsp; that the nomination&nbsp; paper&nbsp; of&nbsp; Suraj Prakash Joshi was rejected on the sole ground that&nbsp; in&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the electoral roll his age was recorded as 23 years on&nbsp; 1.1.1984 but&nbsp; the&nbsp; entries contained in the electoral roll&nbsp; were&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; not final&nbsp; and&nbsp; conclusive. The date of birth of&nbsp; Suraj&nbsp; Prakash Joshi&nbsp; was not mentioned in the election petition and&nbsp; there was&nbsp; no further&nbsp; pleading that on the date&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; filing&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; his nomination&nbsp; Suraj Prakash Joshi had&nbsp; actually&nbsp; attained&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the age&nbsp; of&nbsp; 25 years. However it was pleaded that&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; since&nbsp; Suraj Prakash Joshi had given a declaration that he had&nbsp; completed 25 years of age there was no reason to disbelieve&nbsp; him as no objection&nbsp; had been raised against the declaration&nbsp; made&nbsp; by him and therefore the returning officer acted improperly&nbsp; in rejecting&nbsp; his&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; nomination&nbsp; nation&nbsp; paper.&nbsp; In&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; his&nbsp; written statement the appellant denied the allegations&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; made by the election petitioner and asserted that the Returning&nbsp; Officer acted&nbsp; rightly in rejecting the nomination papers&nbsp; of&nbsp; Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi as they were not qualified&nbsp; to contest the election as they had not completed 25 years&nbsp; of age on the date of nomination. The respondent produced oral and&nbsp; documentary&nbsp; evidence to support his&nbsp; contention.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Even before&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp; High Court none of the&nbsp; two&nbsp;&nbsp; candidates&nbsp; whose nomination&nbsp; papers were rejected appeared nor their&nbsp; parents were&nbsp; examined by&nbsp; the respondent&nbsp; nor&nbsp;&nbsp; any&nbsp; person&nbsp; having special&nbsp;&nbsp; knowledge&nbsp; about&nbsp; the dates of&nbsp; birth&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp; two candidates was&nbsp; examined by the respondent. As regards Hukmi Chand&nbsp; the&nbsp; respondent produced Ex. 8 (a&nbsp; copy&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; of&nbsp; scholars register)&nbsp; Ex.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 9 (counter-foil of certificate of&nbsp; Board&nbsp; of Secondary Education) Ex. 10 (mark-sheet of Hukmi Chand)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Ex. 11&nbsp; (a&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; copy&nbsp; of counter foil of&nbsp; certificate&nbsp; of&nbsp; Board&nbsp; of Secondary&nbsp; Education) relating to Suraj Prakash&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Joshi,&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and Ex. 12 (Tabulation record of marks obtained by Suraj Prakash Joshi).&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; These documents were sought to be proved&nbsp; by&nbsp; Anant Ram&nbsp; Sharma PW 3 and Kailash Chand Taparia PW 5. Ex. 8 is&nbsp; a copy&nbsp; of&nbsp; the scholars register issued by the&nbsp; Head&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the Government&nbsp; Higher&nbsp; Secondary School and&nbsp; entries&nbsp; contained therein&nbsp; show that Hukmi Chand had joined Government&nbsp; Middle School&nbsp;&nbsp; Palasani on 24.6. 1972 and he had left the&nbsp; same&nbsp; on 10.6.1976 after having passed Viiith class. In this document 13.6. l956 is mentioned as the date of birth of Hukmi&nbsp; Chand son&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp; Sardar Mal. Ex. 9 is a certificate&nbsp; issued&nbsp; by&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the Board&nbsp; of&nbsp; Secondary Education&nbsp;&nbsp; Rajasthan&nbsp; certifying&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; that Hukmi&nbsp; Chand&nbsp; Bhandari&nbsp; son of Sardar&nbsp; Mal&nbsp; Bhandari&nbsp; passed Secondary&nbsp; School Examination of 1974 from&nbsp;&nbsp; New&nbsp; Government Higher Secondary School Jodhpur, it also shows 13.6. 1956 as date of birth of Hukmi Chand. Ex. 10 is a tabulation&nbsp; record containing the details of the marks obtained by Hukmi&nbsp; Chand at&nbsp; the Secondary School Examination 1974. In this&nbsp; document also&nbsp; his date of birth is mentioned as 13.6. l95h.&nbsp; Placing reliance on these three&nbsp;&nbsp; documents the High Court held&nbsp;&nbsp; that Hukmi&nbsp; Chand&#39;s date &nbsp;of birth was&nbsp; 13.6.1956&nbsp; and&nbsp; therefore his&nbsp; age&nbsp; on 1. 1. 1984 was more than 15&nbsp; years.&nbsp;&nbsp; The&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; High Court&nbsp; further&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; held&nbsp; that&nbsp; view of the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; entry&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; in&nbsp; Ex.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 11. certificate&nbsp; issued&nbsp; by&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the Board&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Secondary&nbsp; Education Rajasthan&nbsp; Suraj.&nbsp; Prakash&nbsp; was&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; born&nbsp; on&nbsp; 11.3.&nbsp; 1959&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and therefore&nbsp; the was qualified to contest&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the election as&nbsp; he was&nbsp; not less than 25 years of age. On these&nbsp;&nbsp; findings&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the High Court held that the respondent had successfully&nbsp; proved that the nomination papers of Hukmi Chand and. Suraj Prakash Joshi had been wrongly rejected. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; PG NO 16 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Before&nbsp; the&nbsp; High Court appellant raised&nbsp; a&nbsp; contention that&nbsp; there&nbsp; was no evidence to prove that Ex. 8, 9, 10,&nbsp; 11 and&nbsp; 12 related to Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash&nbsp; Joshi&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and therefore the documents could not be pressed into service. A further&nbsp; contention was raised that the election&nbsp; petitioner had&nbsp; failed to place any evidence before the Court&nbsp; to&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; show that entries of age in the documents Ex. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 had&nbsp; been made on the basis of information furnished&nbsp; either by&nbsp; the parents or by any one else having special&nbsp; knowledge about&nbsp; the&nbsp; date of birth of Hukmi Chand and&nbsp; Suraj&nbsp; Prakash Joshi.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In the absence of such evidence the entries&nbsp; in&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the documents&nbsp; had no evidentiary or probative&nbsp; value. The&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; High Court&nbsp; rejected&nbsp;&nbsp; this&nbsp; submission on&nbsp; the&nbsp; ground&nbsp; that&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the appellant&nbsp; had raised no such plea in his written&nbsp; statement nor he produced any evidence to prove that the documents did not&nbsp; pertain to Hukmi Chand or Suraj Prakash Joshi&nbsp; or&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; that any&nbsp; other persons having the same parentage by the name&nbsp; of Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi existed. The High&nbsp; Court committed error. The question of appreciation of evidence is not&nbsp; to be pleaded instead it was the duty of the&nbsp; Court&nbsp; to consider&nbsp; whether the documents produced by&nbsp; the&nbsp; respondent proved the facts in issue. As regards the evidentiary&nbsp; value of&nbsp; Ex.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 the High Court took&nbsp; note&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; that there&nbsp; was&nbsp; no&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; evidence&nbsp; as to&nbsp;&nbsp; who&nbsp; gave&nbsp; the&nbsp; information regarding&nbsp; the date of birth of Hukmi Chand at the&nbsp; time&nbsp; of his&nbsp; admission&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; in Government Middle School&nbsp;&nbsp; Paslasani&nbsp; and even&nbsp; the&nbsp; initial&nbsp; application form for&nbsp; admission&nbsp; to&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the school was not produced and subsequent form for admission to the Government Multi-purpose Higher Secondary School Jodhpur from where he passed the Secondary examination was also&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; not produced, as it observed &quot;No attempt was made by the parties to&nbsp; get&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp; application form for&nbsp; admission&nbsp; and&nbsp; transfer certificate&nbsp;&nbsp; produced&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; from&nbsp; the&nbsp; New&nbsp;&nbsp; Government&nbsp;&nbsp; Higher Secondary&nbsp; School Jodhpur and similarly no application&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; form for&nbsp; admission was got produced from the&nbsp; Government&nbsp; Middle School, Palasni. But still it can be presumed that the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; date of birth recorded in the Scholar&#39;s Register is based on&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the date&nbsp; of&nbsp; birth&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; given in&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; application&nbsp; form&nbsp; initially submitted&nbsp; a Palasni continued in the&nbsp; transfer&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; certificate and&nbsp; the same was mentioned at the time of admission in the Government&nbsp; Multipurpose Higher Secondary&nbsp; School,&nbsp; Jodhpur&quot; (emphasis supplied). After making the aforesaid observations the&nbsp; High&nbsp; Court&nbsp; held&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; that&nbsp; these&nbsp; documents&nbsp;&nbsp; were&nbsp; public documents&nbsp; within the meaning of Section 74 of the&nbsp; Evidence Act&nbsp; and&nbsp; therefore&nbsp; there&nbsp; was&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; a&nbsp; presumption&nbsp; about&nbsp;&nbsp; the correctness of the date of birth mentioned therein. The High Court was conscious of the fact that&nbsp; in the absence of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the evidence&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp; person who&nbsp; may&nbsp; have&nbsp; given&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; information regarding&nbsp; the date of birth, the entries contained&nbsp; in&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the scholar&#39;s register or certificate had no probative value&nbsp; as would be clear from the following observations: &quot;It is&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; true that&nbsp; it would have been better if the person who&nbsp; gave&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the information&nbsp; regarding&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the date of birth&nbsp; would&nbsp; have&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; been examined but failure to examine such a&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; person would not&nbsp; in any way affect the genuineness of the entries and also their probative&nbsp; value unless in comparison to these entries,&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; any other&nbsp; weighty&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; evidence having greater probative&nbsp; value&nbsp; is produce&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (emphasis&nbsp; supplied).&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The&nbsp; entry&nbsp; in&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp; scholar register may be contradicted&nbsp; by the birth entry or entry in the vaccination register or&nbsp; reliable horoscope or any other reliable or weighty oral or documentary evidence but in&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the absence of such contradicting weighty&nbsp; evidence, the entries in&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp; scholar&nbsp; register&nbsp; and&nbsp; other&nbsp; records&nbsp;&nbsp; of&nbsp; the educational&nbsp; institution&nbsp; would, in&nbsp; my&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; opinion,&nbsp; certainly enjoy such probative value.&quot; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; PG NO 18 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; After making aforesaid observations the High Court&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; held that&nbsp;&nbsp; in view of the Ex. X, 9, 10, 11 and I1&nbsp; the&nbsp; election petitioner had&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; discharged the burden in proving that&nbsp; Hukmi Chand&nbsp; and Suraj Prakash Joshi both had attained the age&nbsp; of 25 years on the relevant date. The&nbsp; High Court drew&nbsp; adverse inference&nbsp; against the appellant on the ground&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; that&nbsp; though Hukmi&nbsp; Chand&nbsp; and&nbsp; Suraj Prakash Joshi had&nbsp; been&nbsp;&nbsp; cited&nbsp; as witnesses&nbsp; by the appellant but they were not examined.&nbsp;&nbsp; The High&nbsp; Court&nbsp; proceeded&nbsp;&nbsp; on&nbsp; the&nbsp; assumption&nbsp; that&nbsp; if&nbsp; these witnesses&nbsp; had been examined they would not&nbsp; have&nbsp; supported the respondent. After drawing adverse inference against&nbsp; the appellant and placing reliance&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; on the aforesaid documentary evidence&nbsp; the&nbsp; High Court held that Hukmi&nbsp; Chand&nbsp; and&nbsp; Suraj Prakash Joshi both were qualified to contest&nbsp; the&nbsp; election as&nbsp; they had completed 25 years of age on 1. 1.198$ and&nbsp; the returning&nbsp; officer had improperly rejected their&nbsp; nomination papers&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; which&nbsp; materially&nbsp; affected&nbsp; the&nbsp; result&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the election.&nbsp; The High Court in&nbsp; our opinion committed&nbsp; serious error&nbsp; of law in appreciating the evidentiary value&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the documentary evidence produced by the respondents as a result of which its findings are not sustainable. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; PG NO 18 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; We&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; would&nbsp; now&nbsp; consider the evidence&nbsp; produced&nbsp; by&nbsp; the respondent&nbsp; on the question of age of Hukmi Chand and&nbsp; Suraj Prakash Joshi. The respondent examined Anantram Sharma PW&nbsp; 3 and&nbsp; Kailash&nbsp; Chandra Taparia PW5. Anantram sharma PW 3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; has been&nbsp; the&nbsp; Principal&nbsp;&nbsp; of New&nbsp; Government&nbsp; Higher&nbsp; Secondary School,&nbsp; Jodhpur since 1984. On the basis of&nbsp; the&nbsp; scholar&#39;s register&nbsp; he stated before the High Court&nbsp; that Hukmi&nbsp; Chand joined&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; school on 24.6. 1972 in 9th class and his&nbsp; date&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; of birth&nbsp; as mentioned in scholar&#39;s register was 13.6.1956.&nbsp; He made this statement on the basis of the entries contained in the&nbsp; scholar&#39;s register&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Ex. 8. He admitted that entries&nbsp; in the scholar&#39;s register are made on the basis of the&nbsp; entries contained&nbsp; in the admission form. He could not&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; produce&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the admission form in original or its copy. He stated that Hukmi Chand&nbsp; was&nbsp; admitted in 9th class on the basis&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; of&nbsp; transfer certificate issued by the Government Middle School,&nbsp; Palasni from&nbsp; where&nbsp; he had&nbsp; passed 8th&nbsp; standard.&nbsp; He&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; proved the signature of Satya Narain Mathur the then Principal who&nbsp;&nbsp; had issued&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp; copy&nbsp; of the scholar&#39;s register&nbsp; Ex.&nbsp; 8.&nbsp; Satya Narain&nbsp;&nbsp; Mathur was admittedly alive but he was not&nbsp; examined to&nbsp; show&nbsp; as to on what basis he had mentioned the&nbsp; date&nbsp; of birth&nbsp; of&nbsp; Hukmi Chand in Ex. 8. The&nbsp; evidence&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; of&nbsp; Anantram Sharma merely&nbsp;&nbsp; proved that Ex. 8 was a copy of&nbsp;&nbsp; entries&nbsp; in scholar&#39;s&nbsp; register. His&nbsp; testimony does not show as&nbsp; to&nbsp; on what&nbsp; basis&nbsp; the entry relating to date of&nbsp; birth&nbsp; of&nbsp; Hukmi Chand&nbsp; was made in the scholar&#39;s register.&nbsp; Kailash&nbsp; Chandra Taparia PW&nbsp; 5 was Deputy Director&nbsp; (Examination)&nbsp; Board&nbsp; of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, he produced the counter foil of Secondary Education Certificate of Hukmi Chand&nbsp; Bhandari. a copy of which has been filed as Ex. 9. He also proved&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the tabulation record of the Secondary School Examination&nbsp; 1974, a&nbsp; copy&nbsp; of which has been&nbsp; filed as Ex. 10. In&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; both&nbsp; these documents&nbsp;&nbsp; Hukmi&nbsp; Chand&#39;s&nbsp; date of birth&nbsp; was&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; recorded&nbsp; as 13.6.1956.&nbsp; Kailash&nbsp; Chandra Taparia further proved&nbsp; Ex.&nbsp; 11 which&nbsp; is&nbsp; the copy of the tabulation&nbsp; record&nbsp; of&nbsp; Secondary School Examination of 1977 relating to SuraJ Prakash&nbsp; Joshi. In&nbsp; that document the date of birth of Suraj&nbsp; Prakash&nbsp; Joshi was recorded&nbsp; 11.3.1959&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Kailash Chandra Taparia stated that date&nbsp; of&nbsp; birth&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; as mentioned in the&nbsp; counter&nbsp; foil&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the certificates and in the tabulation form Ex. 12 was&nbsp; recorded on the basis of the date of birth mentioned by the candidate in &nbsp;the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; examination form. But the examination form&nbsp; or its copy&nbsp; was&nbsp; not&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; produced before&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Court.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; In&nbsp; substance&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the statement&nbsp; of the aforesaid two witnesses merely prove&nbsp;&nbsp; that in the scholar&#39;s register as well as in the Secondary School examination&nbsp; records&nbsp; the date of birth of a&nbsp; certain&nbsp; Hukmi Chand&nbsp; was&nbsp; mentioned&nbsp; as 13.6.1956 and&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; in&nbsp; the&nbsp; tabulation record&nbsp;&nbsp; of&nbsp; Secondary&nbsp; School Examination&nbsp; a&nbsp; certain&nbsp; suraj Prakash Joshi&#39;s date of birth was mentioned as 11.3.1959. No evidence&nbsp; was produced by the respondent to prove&nbsp; that the aforesaid documents related to Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi&nbsp; who had filed nomination nation papers.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Neither the admission&nbsp; form nor the examination form on&nbsp; the&nbsp; basis&nbsp; of which the aforesaid entries relating to the date of birth of Hukmi&nbsp; Chand&nbsp; and&nbsp; Suraj Prakash&nbsp; Joshi&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; were&nbsp; recorded was produced before the High Court. No doubt, Exs. 8, 9. 10.&nbsp; 11 and 12 are relevant and admissible but these documents&nbsp;&nbsp; have no&nbsp; evidentiary value for purpose of proof of date of&nbsp; birth of&nbsp; Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi&nbsp; as the vital&nbsp; piece of&nbsp; evidence&nbsp; is&nbsp; missing, because no&nbsp; evidence&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; was&nbsp; placed before&nbsp;&nbsp; the Court to show on whose information the&nbsp; date&nbsp; of birth of Hukmi Chand and the date of birth of Suraj&nbsp; Prakash Joshi&nbsp; were recorded in the aforesaid document.&nbsp; As&nbsp; already stated neither of the parents of the two candidates nor&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; any other&nbsp; person having special knowledge about their&nbsp; date&nbsp; of birth&nbsp; was examined by the respondent&nbsp; to prove the date&nbsp; of birth&nbsp; as mentioned in the aforesaid documents.&nbsp;&nbsp; Parents&nbsp; or near relations having special knowledge are the best&nbsp; person to&nbsp; depose&nbsp; about the date of birth of a&nbsp; person.&nbsp; If&nbsp; entry regarding date of birth in the scholars register is made&nbsp; on the information given by&nbsp; parents or some one having special knowledge of the fact, the same would have probative value. The&nbsp; testimony&nbsp;&nbsp; of&nbsp; Anantram&nbsp; Sharma&nbsp; and&nbsp;&nbsp; Kailash&nbsp; Chandra Taparia merely&nbsp; prove the documents but&nbsp; the&nbsp; contents&nbsp; &nbsp; of those documents were not proved. The date of birth mentioned in&nbsp; the scholar&#39;s register has no evidentiary&nbsp; value&nbsp; unless the person who&nbsp; made the entry or who gave the date of birth is&nbsp; examined. The entry&nbsp;&nbsp; contained in the admission form&nbsp; or in&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; scholar register must be shown to be&nbsp; made&nbsp; on&nbsp;&nbsp; the basis of information given by the parents or a person having special&nbsp;&nbsp; knowledge&nbsp; about the date of birth&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp; person concerned. If the entry in the scholar&#39;s register&nbsp; regarding date of birth&nbsp; is made in the basis of information given&nbsp; by parents,&nbsp; the entry would&nbsp; have evidentiary value but if&nbsp; it is given by a stranger or by someone else who had no special means of knowledge of the date of birth, such&nbsp; an entry will have no evidentiary value. Merely because the documents Exs. 8, 9, 1(). 11 and 12 were proved, it does not mean that&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the contents&nbsp; of documents were also proved. Mere proof&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the documents&nbsp; Exs. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 would not tantamount&nbsp; to proof&nbsp; of&nbsp; all the contents or the correctness&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; of&nbsp; date&nbsp; of birth stated in the documents.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Since the truth of the fact, namely, the date of birth of HukmiChand and&nbsp; Suraj&nbsp; Prakash Joshi was in issue, mere proof of the documents as&nbsp; produced by the aforesaid two witnesses does not furnish evidence&nbsp; of the&nbsp; truth&nbsp; of the facts or contents of the&nbsp; documents.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The truth&nbsp; or otherwise of the facts in issue, namely, the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; date of&nbsp; birth&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp; two&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; candidates&nbsp; as&nbsp; mentioned&nbsp; in&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the documents&nbsp; could be proved by admissible&nbsp; evidence&nbsp; i.e.&nbsp; by the evidence of those persons who could vouch&nbsp; safe for&nbsp; the truth&nbsp; of the facts in issue. No evidence of any&nbsp; such&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; kind was&nbsp;&nbsp; produced by the respondent to prove the truth&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the facts. namely, the date of birth of Hukmi Chand and of Suraj Prakash Joshi. In the circumstances the dates of&nbsp; birth&nbsp; as mentioned in the aforesaid documents have no probative value and&nbsp; the&nbsp; dates of birth as mentioned therein could&nbsp; not&nbsp; be accepted. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; PG NO 20 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The&nbsp; High&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Court&nbsp; held&nbsp; that in&nbsp; view&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp; entries contained in the&nbsp; Ex. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 proved by Anantram Sharma PW 3 and Kailash Chandra Taparia PW 5, the&nbsp; date&nbsp; of birth of Hukmichand and Suraj&nbsp; Prakash Joshi was proved&nbsp; and on&nbsp; that&nbsp; assumption it held that the&nbsp; two&nbsp;&nbsp; candidates&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; had attained&nbsp; more&nbsp;&nbsp; than 25 years of age on the&nbsp; date&nbsp; of&nbsp; their nomination. In our opinion the High Court committed&nbsp; serious error.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down that entry&nbsp; in&nbsp; any&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; public,&nbsp; official&nbsp; book,&nbsp; register,&nbsp; record stating&nbsp;&nbsp; a&nbsp; fact in issue or relevant&nbsp; fact and&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; made&nbsp; by&nbsp; a public&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; servant&nbsp; in&nbsp; the&nbsp; discharge&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; his&nbsp; official&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; duty specially&nbsp; enjoined by the law of the country is itself&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the relevant&nbsp; fact.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; To&nbsp; render&nbsp; a&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; document&nbsp; admissible&nbsp; under Section&nbsp; 35,&nbsp; three conditions must be&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; satisfied,&nbsp; firstly, entry&nbsp; that is relied on must be one in a public&nbsp;&nbsp; or&nbsp; other official&nbsp; book, register or record, secondly, it must be&nbsp; an entry&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; stating&nbsp;&nbsp; a&nbsp; fact&nbsp; in issue&nbsp; or&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; relevant&nbsp; fact;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and thirdly,&nbsp; it must be made by a&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; public servant in&nbsp; discharge of his official duty, or any other person in performance&nbsp; of a duty specially enjoined by law. An entry relating to&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; date of&nbsp; birth&nbsp; made&nbsp;&nbsp; in&nbsp; the school&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; register&nbsp; is&nbsp; relevant&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and admissible&nbsp; under&nbsp; Section&nbsp; 35&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; of the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Act&nbsp; but&nbsp; the&nbsp; entry regarding to the age of a&nbsp; person in a school register is of not&nbsp; much evidentiary value to prove&nbsp; the age of the&nbsp; person in&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; absence&nbsp; of the material on&nbsp; which&nbsp; the&nbsp; age&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; was recorded. In Raja Janaki Nath Roy &amp; Ors. v. Jyotish&nbsp; Chandra Acharya Chowdhury, AIR 1941 CAL. 41 a Division Bench of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the Calcutta&nbsp; High Court discarded the entry in school&nbsp; register about&nbsp; the&nbsp; age of a party to the suit on&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ground&nbsp; that there was no evidence to&nbsp; show on what material the entry in the&nbsp; register about the age of the&nbsp; plaintiff was made.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The principle so laid down has been accepted by&nbsp; almost all&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the High Courts in the country, see Jagan Nath v.&nbsp; Moti Ram Moti Ram &amp; Ors., [1951] Punjab 377; Sakhi Ram &amp; Ors. v. Presiding Officer,&nbsp; Labour&nbsp; Court, North Bihar,&nbsp; Muzzafarpur&nbsp; &amp;&nbsp; Ors., [1966]&nbsp;&nbsp; Patna 459; Ghanchi Vora Samsuddish Isabhai v.&nbsp; State of&nbsp; Gujarat,[1970]&nbsp; Gujarat&nbsp; 178 and Radha Kishan&nbsp; Tickoo&nbsp; &amp; Anr.&nbsp; v.&nbsp; Bhushan Lal Tickoo &amp; Anr.,&nbsp; [1971] J &amp;&nbsp; K&nbsp; 62.&nbsp; In addition&nbsp; to these decisions the High Courts&nbsp; of&nbsp; Allahabed, Bombay,&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Madras have considered the question&nbsp; of&nbsp; probative value&nbsp; of an entry regarding the date of birth made&nbsp; in&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the scholar&#39;s&nbsp; register&nbsp; or in school&nbsp; certificate&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; in&nbsp; election cases.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Courts have consistently held that the&nbsp; date&nbsp; of birth&nbsp; mentioned&nbsp; in&nbsp; the scholar;s&nbsp; register&nbsp; or&nbsp; secondary school certificate has no probative value unless either&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the parents are examined or the person on whose information&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the entry may have been made, is examined,see Jagdamba prasad v. Sri&nbsp; Jagannath Prasad &amp; Ors., 42 ELR 465; K.&nbsp; Paramalali&nbsp; v. L.M. Alangam &amp; Anr., 31 ELR 401 and Krishna Rao Maharu Patil v. Onkar Narayan Wagh, 14ELR 386. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; PG NO 21 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Brij Mohan Singh v. Priyu Brat Narain Sinha &amp;&nbsp; Ors., [1965]&nbsp;&nbsp; 3&nbsp;&nbsp; SCR 861 a question arose&nbsp; whether&nbsp; the&nbsp; returned candidate&nbsp; had attained the age of 35 years on the&nbsp; date&nbsp; of his&nbsp; nomination. The High Court had&nbsp; set aside the&nbsp; election of&nbsp; the returned candidate on the ground that he&nbsp; was&nbsp; below the&nbsp; age of 25 years on the date of filing&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; nomination. This Court set aside the order of the High Court and&nbsp; upheld the&nbsp; election of&nbsp; the returned candidate on the ground&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; that the&nbsp; burden of proving that the returned candidate&nbsp; had&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; not attained&nbsp; the age of 25 years on the date of his&nbsp; nomination was&nbsp; on the election petitioner and since he had failed&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; to prove that, the election of the returned candidate could not be set&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; aside. This Court held that an entry recorded in the birth&nbsp; register&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; maintained by an illiterate&nbsp; Chowkidar&nbsp; by somebody else at his request, was not admissible and had&nbsp; no probative&nbsp; value&nbsp; within Section 35 of the&nbsp; Indian&nbsp; Evidence Act. In Ram Murti v. State of Haryana, AIR 1970 SC 1029&nbsp;&nbsp; the date of birth of a girl mentioned in the school&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; certificate was not accepted. However in Mohd. Ikram Hussain v. State of U.P.&nbsp; &amp; Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1625 this Court accepted the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; date of birth of a girl as mentioned in the school certificate as the&nbsp; date&nbsp; of birth mentioned therein was&nbsp; supported&nbsp; by&nbsp; an affidavit filed by the father of the girl. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; PG NO 22 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; appellant&nbsp; was declared elected aS&nbsp; he&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; had&nbsp; polled majority of valid votes. His election could not be set aside unless the respondent-election petitioner was able to&nbsp; prove that Hukmichand and Suraj Prakash Joshi had attained the age of&nbsp; 25 years on the date of nomination by&nbsp; producing&nbsp; cogent and reliable evidence before the High Court.&nbsp; The burden&nbsp; to prove&nbsp; that&nbsp; fact was on the respondent throughout&nbsp; and&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; he could&nbsp; not&nbsp; and&nbsp;&nbsp; did not discharge&nbsp; that&nbsp; burden&nbsp; merely&nbsp; by producing&nbsp; the documentary evidence Ex. 8, 9, 10, 11 and&nbsp; 12 or&nbsp; on the basis of&nbsp; oral testimony of Anantram Sharma PW&nbsp; 3 and&nbsp; Kailash&nbsp; Chandra&nbsp; Taparia PW 5.&nbsp; As&nbsp; discussed&nbsp; earlier these&nbsp; documents&nbsp; do not conclusively&nbsp; prove&nbsp; the&nbsp; dates&nbsp; of birth&nbsp; of Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The&nbsp; entries regarding&nbsp; dates&nbsp; of&nbsp; birth&nbsp; contained&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; in&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp; scholar&#39;s register&nbsp; and&nbsp; the&nbsp; secondary&nbsp; school&nbsp; examination&nbsp; have&nbsp; no probative value, as no person on whose information the dates of&nbsp; birth of the aforesaid candidates was mentioned&nbsp; in&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the school record was examined. In the absence of the connecting evidence the documents produced by the respondent, to&nbsp; prove the age of the aforesaid two candidates have no&nbsp; evidentiary value.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The High Court committed serious documents.&nbsp; In&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; our view&nbsp; the&nbsp; High Court&#39;s entire approach in&nbsp; considering&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the question&nbsp; of&nbsp; dates of birth was&nbsp; wholly&nbsp; misconceived.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The burden&nbsp; to&nbsp; prove the fact in issue, namely,&nbsp; the&nbsp; dates&nbsp; of birth&nbsp; of&nbsp; Hukmichand&nbsp; and Suraj Prakash Joshi&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; was&nbsp; on the respondent&nbsp; who was the election petitioner. The&nbsp; respondent could&nbsp; not&nbsp; succeed&nbsp; if&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; no evidence&nbsp; was&nbsp; produced&nbsp; by&nbsp; the appellant on the question of age of the aforesaid candidates and his election could not be set aside merely on the ground that the respondent had made out a prima facie case that the entry&nbsp; contained in the electoral roll regarding the age&nbsp; of two candidates was incorrect. It appears that in his list of witnesses&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; appellant&nbsp; had included the&nbsp; name&nbsp; of&nbsp; Suraj Prakash Joshi and his father Maghdutt Joshi as witnesses but they&nbsp; were not examined by him. Similarly,&nbsp; Hukmi Chand&nbsp; was also&nbsp; cited by the appellant but he was also&nbsp; not&nbsp;&nbsp; examined instead&nbsp; Navratan Mal Bhandari, brother of Hukmi Chand was examined as PW 4 and Ghanshyam Chhangani was examined as&nbsp; PW 6&nbsp; by the appellant, who supported the appellants case&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; that Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi had not attained the age of&nbsp; 25 years on the date of nomination. Since the&nbsp; appellant had not examined Hukmi&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Chand. Suraj Prakash Joshi or&nbsp; their parents, the High Court drew adverse inference against&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; him. The&nbsp; High Court committed serious error in doing&nbsp; so.&nbsp; There was&nbsp; no question of drawing adverse inference&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; against&nbsp; the appellant, as the burden to prove the age of Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash joshi was on the election petitioner and since he&nbsp; had&nbsp; failed&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; to prove the same&nbsp; by&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; cogent&nbsp; evidence&nbsp; no adverse inference&nbsp; could be drawn against the appellant.&nbsp; In fact.&nbsp; burden&nbsp; was on the respondent to prove&nbsp; his&nbsp; case&nbsp; by producing the Hukmichand and Suraj&nbsp; Prakash Joshi, or&nbsp; their parents to&nbsp; prove&nbsp; and corroborate the dates&nbsp; of&nbsp; birth&nbsp; as mentioned in the school register and the certificate. If&nbsp; he failed&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; to&nbsp; do&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; that he could&nbsp; not&nbsp; succeed&nbsp; merely&nbsp; because appellant&nbsp; had&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; not produced them. In the&nbsp; circumstances&nbsp; no adverse inference was at all possible to be&nbsp; drawn&nbsp; against the&nbsp; appellant&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; for&nbsp; not examining&nbsp; Hukmi&nbsp; Chand&nbsp; and&nbsp; suraj Prakash Joshi or their parents. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; view of the above discussion we are of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp; opinion that Umarao Ben&#39;s nomination paper was rightly rejected and further the respondent has failed to prove that Hukmi&nbsp; Chand and&nbsp;&nbsp; Suraj&nbsp; Prakash&nbsp; Joshi&nbsp; possessed&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp; necessary&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; age qualification&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; as&nbsp;&nbsp; required&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; by&nbsp; Article&nbsp;&nbsp; 173&nbsp;&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the Constitution. Therefore the returning officer was&nbsp; justified in&nbsp; rejecting their nomination paper. In this view the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; High Court&nbsp; wrongly&nbsp;&nbsp; set&nbsp; aside&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; appellant&#39;s&nbsp; election.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; We accordingly allow the appeal set aside the order of the High Court&nbsp; and dismiss the election petition. The&nbsp; appellant&nbsp; is entitled to costs which we quantify at Rs.5,000. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;

📄 Full Judgment

PDF content is currently unavailable for this record.

← Back to All Cases