ORDER M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. 1. This application is filed by the petitioner in E.P. No. 2 of 2014 seeking to issue a Commission under Order XXVI Rule 4(1)(a)and Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code to examine: (i) the Chief Police Officer, A1 Gharb Police Station, Ibrahim Mohd, A1 Midfa Street, A1 Manakh, Sharjah, Land Mark: Near Sharjah Municipality, PO Box No. 461, Sharjah; (ii) the Chief Police Officer, Jabel Ali Police Station, Jabel Ali Industrial Area, No. 3, Near Mohd. Bin Zayed Road, United Arab Emirates; and (iii) Embassy of India, rep. by Ambassador, PO Box No. 4090 Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates; for providing originals of material documents Annexure-VI and Annexure-K filed along with the Election Petition. In the Election Petition, the applicant/petitioner had sought to set aside the election of 1st respondent as a Member to the Telangana Legislative Assembly from 011-Armoor Assembly Constituency, Nizamabad District. 2. The polling for the above assembly constituency was held on 30-04-2014 and the results were declared on 16-05-2014. The 1st respondent herein, who contested on a ticket of Telangana Rashtra Samithi, was declared elected from the said Constituency. 3. The main ground on which the applicant has questioned the election of 1st respondent in the Election Petition is that 1st respondent had availed a loan of AED 445,000 from United Arab Bank; that 1st respondent had not repaid the said loan to the said Bank and had returned back; and consequently, a criminal case No. 5026 of 2013 was registered against him at Sharjah Police Head Quarters. He alleged that he had obtained from the Department of Immigration, UAE certain documents in Arabic, the translation of which are filed as Annexure-VI to the Election Petition, which indicates that 1st respondent allegedly issued a cheque for AED 445,000 to the United Arab Bank, which was dishonoured and the said Annexure indicates that a Criminal case has been registered against 1st respondent and he is liable to be arrested therefore. 4. It is further contended that 1st respondent had also been charged for issuing a bad cheque in bad faith for AED 24,000 to an entity "Dubai First", which cheque appears to have been dishonoured and a case vide Listing No. 6413/2013 dt.02-09-2013 was registered in Jebel Ali Police Station, Dubai Head Quarters. He alleged that he had obtained from the Department of Immigration. He alleged that he had obtained from the Department of Immigration. UAE certain documents in Arabic, the translation of which are filed as Annexure-IX to the Election Petition, which indicates that 1st respondent allegedly issued a cheque for AED 24,000 to the entity "Dubai First", which was dishonoured and the said Annexure indicates that a Criminal case has been registered against 1st respondent and he is liable to be arrested therefor. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Applicant that 1st respondent has not given the above referred information in the affidavit filed in Form 26 before the Returning Officer (filed as Annexure-4 to the E.P.); that he had stated therein that he was not accused of any offences punishable with imprisonment for 2 years or more in pending cases except C.C. No. 128 of 2013 before the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nizamabad; and that the declaration of assets given in the said affidavit did not include the loan taken for AED 445,000. He contended that the Supreme Court of India in People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and another v. Union of India and another 2004 (1) ALT (Crl.) 175 (SC) : (2003) 4 SCC 399 had held that a voter had a fundamental right to know the antecedents of a candidate as part of his right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, and therefore a candidate contesting a general election has to give a declaration about various criminal cases he was involved in, as also a correct declaration of his assets. He pointed out that contesting candidates cannot simply write "not applicable'" in the column where these details have to be given in the affidavit (as held in Resurgence India v. Election Commission of India 2013 (7) SCJ 361 : AIR 2014 SC 344 : 2013 (6) ALT 36.1 (DN SC)); that the Election Commission of India had issued circulars and directions in this regard; in Krishnamoorthyh v. Sivakumar 2015 (2) Laws (SC) 15 the Supreme Court had reiterated the above principles and had held that the disclosure of criminal antecedents of a candidate, especially, pertaining to heinous or serious offence or offences relating to corruption or moral turpitude at the time of filing of nomination paper is mandatory; their nondisclosure by the contesting candidate creates an impediment in the free exercise of electoral right; and as the candidate has the special knowledge of the pending cases where cognizance has been taken or charges have been framed, and if there is a non-disclosure of these facts on his part, it would amount to undue influence; and, therefore, the election is to be declared as null and void by the Election Tribunal under Section 100(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. In the said decision, it was also held that the question whether it materially affects the election or not would not arise. He also placed reliance on Section 8 of the Act, which provides for disqualification on conviction of the elected candidate for certain offences. 6. The learned counsel for applicant contended that on 24-04-2014 applicant herein had informed the Returning Officer i.e. District Collector and the Chief Election Officer that lsl respondent had shown less income in the election affidavit; that he had not disclosed the fact that 1st respondent had availed a loan from United Arab Bank and had come back without repaying it, because of which Criminal Case No. 5026 of 2013 was registered against him; and requesting the District Collector to disqualify him and stop him from contesting the election. This is filed as Annexure V to the E.P. According to the learned counsel for applicant, on the basis of this letter, the Returning Officer had addressed a letter No. C/878/2014 dt.29-04-2014 to 1st respondent (filed as Annexure-VII) to give his explanation in this regard within 24 hours; that 1st respondent had given an evasive reply dt.05-05-2014 (filed as Annexure-VIII) to the Returning Officer stating that he was not aware of any case at Dubai filed by the United Arab Bank in regard to the loan and also that he did not receive any information from any Police Station or summons from any Court or warrant from any authority and so, he did not mention it in his affidavit. 7. The counsel for the applicant contends that 1st respondent is I aware of not only the loan transaction but also the prosecution for dishonour of cheques for the above amounts and he ran away from Dubai on 14-01-2013 and that on 13-08-2013 summons were also issued to him. He pointed out that this amounts to suppression of facts of which 1st respondent is aware, which ought to have been disclosed in the affidavit in Form-26 filed before the Returning Officer. He also contended that in the response dated 05-05-2014 of 1st respondent to the 1st respondent (sic. Returning Officer), the 1st respondent had not denied about the civil liability to repay the money and only mentioned about criminal liability. 8. Lastly, he referred to the provisions of Civil Procedure Code as well as the Evidence Act, 1872 and contended that although the applicant, through the Immigration Authority of Dubai had obtained the certified copies of material documents, translation of which are filed as Annexures-VI and IX in the Election Petition, he had also issued letters rogatory to all concerned in Dubai requesting for information in this regard, but he did not get any response. Copies of the letters dt.20.1.2015 addressed by applicant to (i) the Embassy of India, Abu Dhabi, (ii) Sharjah Police Head Quarters, General Department of Police Operations/Comprehensive Police Stations Department, Sharjah (iii) A1 Gharab Comprehensive Police Station, Intended authority, Sharjah Police Head Quarters, Sharjah and (iv) Dubai Police Head Quarter/General Department of Criminal Investigations/Jebel Ali Police Station, Dubai and Receipts issued by DTDC Courier and Cargo Limited have been filed as Annexures to this application. The Counsel for the Applicant prayed that it is just and necessary to issue a Commission to examine the above referred Officials for proving Annexures-VI and IX before the trial commences. 9. Counter affidavit has been filed by 1st respondent opposing this application contending that the Election Petition is misconceived and unsustainable; that it had been filed only with an intention to harass him; it is not necessary therefore to issue a Commission under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure; and contending that no Commissioner can be appointed for collection of evidence. The 1st respondent contended that no Advocate-Commissioner can be appointed to examine the Officers concerned for proving the documents particularly if the Authority/police of Dubai are not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. He also denied that there are any reciprocatory arrangements between India and Sharjah, UAE in this regard. These submissions were reiterated by Counsel for 1st respondent. 10. He also denied that there are any reciprocatory arrangements between India and Sharjah, UAE in this regard. These submissions were reiterated by Counsel for 1st respondent. 10. In reply thereto, the learned counsel for applicant has pointed out that the main allegation in the Election Petition is suppression of information by 1st respondent about availing of loan and also involvement in 2 criminal cases referred to above; so, the applicant has no option but to seek the assistance of this Court to get authentic evidence through a Commission about the said allegations since the evidence is available in the UAE outside this Court's jurisdiction and the persons having the information in this regard are not within the control of applicant; in any event, he pointed out that there was an agreement dt.25-10-1999 between the Republic of India and the United Arab Emirates on "Juridical and Judicial co-operation in Civil and Commercial matters for the service of summons, judicial documents, commissions, execution of judgments and arbitral awards", and another agreement between United Arab Emirates and Republic of India on "Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (1999)" which contemplates rendering of assistance by one Government to the other Government for taking of evidence, obtaining of statements of persons and for providing of information, documents and other records including criminal and judicial records; that under Article-3 of this agreement, request for assistance should be made through the Central authorities of the Contracting Parties; the Central authorities as far as Republic of India is concerned is the Ministry of Home Affairs while for the United Arab Emirates, it is the Ministry of Interior; that these agreements are subsisting and are in force; and so it is also open for this Court alternatively to require the information on these matters to be provided under the terms of the said agreements since a letter of request can also be sent as contemplated by Order XXVI Rule 5 CPC. 11. In view of these submissions, the Assistant Solicitor General of India was requested to ascertain from the Ministry of External Affairs as well as the Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi as to the whether these agreements were in force between the Govt. of India and United Arab Emirates. 12. 11. In view of these submissions, the Assistant Solicitor General of India was requested to ascertain from the Ministry of External Affairs as well as the Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi as to the whether these agreements were in force between the Govt. of India and United Arab Emirates. 12. A memo dt.01-05-2015 had been filed by him stating categorically that the agreement entered into between the United Arab Emirates and the Govt., of India on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal matters (1999) is still in force. 13. This Court is of the view that the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made by the applicant against the 1st respondent can only be established at the trial of the E.P. It is therefore for the applicant to prove the allegations made by him against the 1st respondent. 14. Sec.77 CPC states: '77. Letter of request: In lieu of issuing a commission the Court may issue a letter of request to examine a witness residing at any place not within [India]. 15. Order XXVI Rule 5 CPC states: "Order XXVI. Commissions, Commissions to examine witnesses Rule 5: Commission or request to examine witness- not within India: Where any court to which application is made for the issue of commission for the examination of a person residing at any place not within India is satisfied that the evidence of such person is necessary, the Court may issue such commission or a letter of request." 16. I will now examine the scope of Or. XXVI Rule 5 CPC. 17. In M.J. Sheth and Co., by its Power-of-Attorney Agent K.N. Abdul Rahiman v. Ramiza Bi and another AIR 1938 Madras 646, the Madras High Court considered the question whether a Commission under Order XXVI Rule 5 CPC should be issued to examine witnesses residing not within British India. The trial Court had refused to grant such a commission on the ground that the number of witnesses to be examined on commission was large and it would be rather expensive for plaintiff to bring them down to the place where the suit is pending, which was within British India. The trial Court had refused to grant such a commission on the ground that the number of witnesses to be examined on commission was large and it would be rather expensive for plaintiff to bring them down to the place where the suit is pending, which was within British India. The Court therefore held that the only question before the trial Court was whether the evidence of these persons was necessary and if it was so necessary, the trial Court had no discretion in the matter, and Commission should have been ordered as a matter of course. The Court held that if all the important witnesses of the plaintiff were residing outside British India and commission is not issued to examine them, the suit was bound to be dismissed. The plaintiff would then be left with the remedy of filing an appeal against the decree of dismissal and he will have to then ask for a remand on the ground that the trial Court was not justified in refusing to issue a commission and depriving him of the opportunity of producing his evidence and substantiating his allegations. It held that if these applications of plaintiff were to be accepted at the end, it would be done after a great deal of mischief has been done; that one of the primary concerns of the Courts of Law is to avoid unnecessary delay and waste of money as far as it is possible to do so in the administration of justice; and such object would not be achieved if the order dismissing the commission was not set aside. 18. In A.V. Nataraja Konar v. Poovalingam Pillai 1967 (2) MLJ 369 , the Madras High Court reiterated that to examine a witness living abroad, Order XXVI Rule 5 of CPC would apply since the witness is outside India and is not under the control of the party who seeks to examine him as a witness. 19. The Madras High Court again considered the scope of Order XXVI Rule 5 CPC in Amina Bivi v. Abdul Jabar AIR 1979 Madras 121. The Court held that if a witness is not resident within the jurisdiction of the Court and also not within India, the provisions of Order XXVI Rule 5 CPC are attracted. 19. The Madras High Court again considered the scope of Order XXVI Rule 5 CPC in Amina Bivi v. Abdul Jabar AIR 1979 Madras 121. The Court held that if a witness is not resident within the jurisdiction of the Court and also not within India, the provisions of Order XXVI Rule 5 CPC are attracted. The Court held that if the witness resides outside the jurisdiction of the Court and also outside the country, commission to examine him should normally be issued. It however pointed out that there is a difference between a party witness and a third party witness, and held that normally a party would not be allowed to be examined on commission particularly if he is the plaintiff, but the case would be different where the application is made by defendant who is normally outside the jurisdiction of the Court. It held that in the case of a third party witness, because such a witness is not interested in the subject matter of litigation and he is a third party to the action, a commission or a letter of request may be issued. 20. In Susan Leigh Beer v. India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. 1990 (40) DLT 545 , the Delhi High Court held that there are methods of obtaining evidence in a foreign country, namely, by a letter of request addressed to a foreign court or by means of Commission appointing an individual to take the evidence thus constituting pro-tanto an officer of the Court; that a Commissioner has ordinarily no power to compel attendance of a witness and can only invite the witness to present himself and to give evidence and if the witness declines to do so, the Commissioner is helpless. It held that if, on the other hand, recourse is taken to a Letter of Request addressed to the foreign court concerned, the latter can, if necessary, exercise its power of compulsion. It also observed that a Commissioner can record evidence only if the local law of the country where the commission is sent permits the Commissioner to record evidence and so it would be more appropriate to adopt the method of a Letter of Request in the case of foreign countries. It also observed that a Commissioner can record evidence only if the local law of the country where the commission is sent permits the Commissioner to record evidence and so it would be more appropriate to adopt the method of a Letter of Request in the case of foreign countries. It referred to Section 77 CPC which provided that the Court may in lieu of issuing a commission issue a letter of request to examine a witness residing at any place not within India. 21. Thus, from the above decisions, it is clear that if a witness to be examined resides outside India and is not within the control of the party who seeks to examine him as a witness, the Court has no discretion but to grant relief under Order XXVI Rule 5 CPC particularly if the Court feels that the evidence of such a witness is necessary. Such relief may be by appointing an Advocate Commissioner or by way of a Letter of Request. The latter recourse is more desirable as explained by the Delhi High Court above. 22. In the present case, the main allegation in the Election Petition is suppression of information relating to the liabilities of 1st respondent as well as launching, of prosecution by authorities in Arab Emirates against him. This information according to the applicant is available outside India in UAE with witnesses (named in application), who are not under control of the applicant. He seeks get material in respect of the said allegations which is crucial for the applicant to succeed in the E.P. As stated above, the applicant has addressed letter dt.20.1.2015 to the above persons for furnishing material in support of his allegations against 1st respondent but they have not responded. Therefore I am of the view that it is a fit case to invoke jurisdiction under Order XXVI Rule 5 CPC. I reject the contention of Counsel for 1st respondent that allowing this application would amount to collection of evidence. 23. Admittedly there is a subsisting agreement between the United Arab Emirates and Government of India on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (1999). I will now refer to the terms thereof. 24. I reject the contention of Counsel for 1st respondent that allowing this application would amount to collection of evidence. 23. Admittedly there is a subsisting agreement between the United Arab Emirates and Government of India on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (1999). I will now refer to the terms thereof. 24. This Agreement was entered into in 1999 by the Governments of United Arab Emirates and Republic of India recognizing the need to facilitate the widest measures of mutual assistance in the service of summons, execution of warrants and other judicial documents of crime, through co-operation and mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. 25. Article-1 of the said Agreement envisages that the contracting parties would grant each other the widest measure of mutual legal assistance in criminal matters and it contemplates grant of such legal assistance irrespective of whether the assistance is sought or to be provided by a Court or some other authority. 26. Sub-article (1)(a) to Article-2 defines the term "Criminal Matters" as meaning "investigations, inquiries, trials or other proceedings relating to an offence created by law"; and sub-article (1)(b) to Article-2 provides that Criminal matters shall include investigations or proceedings relating to offences concerning taxation, duties, customs and International Transfer or Capital or payments. Article 2(c) of the said Agreement defines the term "Assistance" as including measures to locate, restrain, forfeit or confiscate the proceeds and instruments of crime, talking evidence and obtaining of statements of persons, and providing of information, documents and other records including criminal and judicial records. 27. Article-3 sub-article (1) of the Agreement provides that the requests for assistance under the agreement shall be made through the Central authorities of the Contacting Parties and such central authority as far as Republic of India is concerned, is Ministry of Home Affairs and for the Governments of United Arab Emirates, the central authority is prescribed as its Ministry of Interior. 28. In view this agreement on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (1999) between the Governments of United Arab Emirates and Republic of India, in exercise of the powers vested in this Court by Sec.77 r/w Order XXVI Rule 5 CPC, I direct the Secretary. 28. In view this agreement on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (1999) between the Governments of United Arab Emirates and Republic of India, in exercise of the powers vested in this Court by Sec.77 r/w Order XXVI Rule 5 CPC, I direct the Secretary. Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi to address a letter of request to the Ministry of Interior, United Arab Emirates to provide information as regards: (1) Crime Case reference No. 5026 of 2013 on the file of Sharjah Police Quarter/General Department of Police Operations/Comprehensive Police Stations Department, Sharjah, UAE and (2) Criminal case reference No. 6413/2013 pending before the Dubai Police Head Quarters/General Department of Criminal Investigations/Jebel Ali Police Station allegedly filed against 1st respondent i.e. Jeevan Reddy Ashannagari forthwith; the said information shall be conveyed by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi to the Asst. Solicitor General for the High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh; and the said Assistant Solicitor General of India is directed to file the information received in this regard by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India from the Ministry of Interior, United Arab Emirates as and when it is received by him. This application is accordingly allowed.