2014 (4 ) AKR 580 , 2014 (6 )ALD(Cri)203 , 2014 (6 )ALD203 (SC ), 2014 (6 )ALLMR951 , 2015 (111 ) ALR 811 , 2015 (3 ) ALT (Crl.) 161 (SC), 2015 1 AWC156 SC , 2014 (4 )BLJ(SC )185 , 2017 (352 )ELT416 (S.C. ), 2014 GLH(3 )305 , 2014 (5 )GLT62 , 2014 INSC 645 , 2015 (1 )JCC214 , 2015 (1 )KarLJ547 , 2014 (4 )KLT104 (SC ), 2015 (2 )MhLJ135 (SC), 2015 MPLJ507 (SC), 2014 (4 )PLJR334 , 2014 (4 )RCR(Civil)504 , 2015 129 RD112 , 2014 (10 )SCALE660 , (2014 )10 SCC473 , (2014 )1 SCC(LS)108 , (2015 )1 SCC(LS)108 , 2014 (9 ) SCJ 1 , [2014 ]11 SCR399 , ,MANU/SC/0834/2014
R.M. Lodha#Kurian Joseph#Rohinton Fali Nariman#3521SC4750Judgment/OrderABR#AIR#AIR#AKR#ALD(Cri)#ALD#AllMR#ALR#ALT (Criminal)#AWC#BLJ#ELT#GLH#GLT#INSC#JCC#KarLJ#KLT#MANU#MhLJ#MPLJ#PLJR#RCR (Civil)#RD#SCALE#SCC#SCC(LS)#SCC(LS)#SCJ#SCRKurian Joseph,SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2014-9-19Proof of facts by oral evidence,Admissibility of electronic records,Special provisions as to evidence relating to electronic record,Prior general law and later particular law,Implied Repeal,Expiry and Repeal of Statutes,Law of Evidence,Interpretation of Statutes56770,56797,15578,15600,108497,108405,15646,15724,15723,15651,15653,15650 -->
MANU/SC/0834/2014
True Court CopyTM English
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 4226 of 2012
Decided On: 18.09.2014
Appellants: Anvar P.V. Vs. Respondent: P.K. Basheer
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
R.M. Lodha, C.J.I., Kurian Joseph and Rohinton Fali Nariman JUDGMENT
Kurian Joseph, J.
1. Construction by Plaintiff, destruction by Defendant. Construction by pleadings, proof by evidence; proof only by relevant and admissible evidence. Genuineness, veracity or reliability of the evidence is seen by the court only after the stage of relevancy and admissibility. These are some of the first principles of evidence. What is the nature and manner of admission of electronic records, is one of the principal issues arising for consideration in this appeal.
2. In the general election to the Kerala Legislative Assembly held on 13.04.2011, the first Respondent was declared elected to 034 Eranad Legislative Assembly Constituency. He was a candidate supported by United Democratic Front. The Appellant contested the election as an independent candidate, allegedly supported by the Left Democratic Front. Sixth Respondent was the chief election agent of the first Respondent. There were five candidates. Appellant was second in terms of votes; others secured only marginal votes. He sought to set aside the election Under Section 100(1)(b) read with Section 123(2)(ii) and (4) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RP Act') and also sought for a declaration in favour of the Appellant. By order dated 16.11.2011, the High Court held that the election petition to set aside the election on the ground Under Section 123(2)(a)(ii) is not maintainable and that is not pursued before us either. Issues (1) and (2) were on maintainability and those were answered as preliminary, in favour of the Appellant. The contested issues........