← MCS Departmental
Past Questions
The benefit of general exceptions must be proved and pleaded by the:
A)
Prosecution
B)
Accused
C)
Witness
D)
Court
In criminal jurisprudence, the general rule is that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. However, when an accused person claims the benefit of a 'General Exception' (such as insanity, intoxication, accident, or private defense), the burden of proving the existence of those circumstances shifts to the accused. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 (and previously under the IPC), and specifically governed by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) 2023 (formerly the Indian Evidence Act), the person who wishes to avail themselves of a legal exception must plead it and prove it. Therefore, the accused must prove that their actions fall under a general exception to avoid criminal liability.
When in the committing of theft, hurt or wrongful restraint is caused to person, the offence is:
A)
Extortion
B)
Robbery
C)
Dacoity
D)
Theft only
Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 (which retains the core principles of the previous IPC), theft becomes 'Robbery' when the offender, in order to commit the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away the stolen property, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause death, hurt, or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death, hurt, or wrongful restraint.
Breakdown of options:
- a. Extortion: This involves inducing a person to deliver property by putting them in fear of injury. It does not necessarily involve the act of 'theft' (stealthy taking) combined with immediate violence.
- b. Robbery: This is the correct answer as it is essentially 'theft' or 'extortion' aggravated by violence, hurt, or wrongful restraint.
- c. Dacoity: Dacoity is defined as robbery committed by five or more persons. While it involves robbery, the question describes the general nature of the offence without specifying the number of persons.
- d. Theft only: Theft is the simple dishonest removal of movable property. Once hurt or wrongful restraint is added to the act, it ceases to be 'simple theft' and is elevated to 'robbery'.
An Executive Magistrate is empowered to secure a security bond from habitual offenders under Section 129 of the BNSS, 2023 for a period not exceeding:
A)
One Year
B)
Two Years
C)
Three Years
D)
Six Months
Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, Section 129 deals with the security for good behaviour from habitual offenders. This section corresponds to Section 110 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. According to the provisions of Section 129 of the BNSS, 2023, when an Executive Magistrate is satisfied that a person is a habitual offender (or falls under the categories specified in the section), they may require such person to execute a bond with sureties for keeping the peace for a period not exceeding three years.
- Option (a) One Year: Incorrect, as the statutory limit for habitual offenders is higher.
- Option (b) Two Years: Incorrect, as it does not match the legal provision.
- Option (d) Six Months: Incorrect, as this is too short for the specific category of habitual offenders.
- Option (c) Three Years: Correct, as per the explicit wording of Section 129 of the BNSS, 2023.
Under Section 126 of BNSS, 2023 in which circumstances can an Executive Magistrate require a person to execute a bond for keeping the peace?
A)
Only when a breach of the peace has already occurred
B)
Only when the person has a criminal record
C)
When the Executive Magistrate receives information that such person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb public tranquility, and there is sufficient ground for proceeding
D)
When there is a request from the local police
Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (which corresponds to Section 107 of the old CrPC), empowers an Executive Magistrate to take preventive action to maintain public order.
1. **Legal Requirement**: Under this section, the Magistrate can require a person to show cause why they should not be ordered to execute a bond for keeping the peace if the Magistrate receives information that the person is 'likely to commit a breach of the peace' or 'disturb public tranquility'.
2. **Condition Precedent**: The Magistrate must be satisfied that there is 'sufficient ground for proceeding'.
3. **Analysis of Options**:
- **Option (a)** is incorrect because the power is preventive; it applies even before a breach has occurred to prevent one from happening.
- **Option (b)** is incorrect because a prior criminal record is not a mandatory legal prerequisite for this specific preventive measure.
- **Option (d)** is incorrect because while police reports often provide the 'information', the legal authority rests on the Magistrate's satisfaction regarding the likelihood of a breach, not merely the existence of a request from the police.
Chapter IX of the BNS, 2023 deals with:
A)
Offences Against Public Tranquility
B)
Offences Relating to Elections
C)
Offences Relating to the Contempt of the lawful authority of Public Servants
D)
Offences Relating to Public Servants
Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, the chapters are organized to categorize various offences. Chapter IX specifically covers 'Offences Relating to the Contempt of the Lawful Authority of Public Servants'.
Breakdown of options:
- Option (a) 'Offences Against Public Tranquility' is covered under Chapter X of the BNS.
- Option (b) 'Offences Relating to Elections' is covered under Chapter XI of the BNS.
- Option (c) 'Offences Relating to the Contempt of the lawful authority of Public Servants' is the correct subject matter of Chapter IX.
- Option (d) 'Offences Relating to Public Servants' is a broader category, but the specific title of Chapter IX focuses on the 'Contempt of the lawful authority' of such servants.
Under the Evidence Act, Court includes:
A)
All Judges
B)
All Magistrates
C)
All Arbitrators
D)
(a) and (b)
Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (and the corresponding Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam), the definition of 'Court' is provided in the interpretation clause. According to the Act, 'Court' includes all Judges and Magistrates, and all persons, whatever their position, legally authorized to take evidence.
1. Option (a) 'All Judges' is correct as they are explicitly included in the definition.
2. Option (b) 'All Magistrates' is correct as they are explicitly included in the definition.
3. Option (c) 'All Arbitrators' is incorrect. While an arbitrator performs a quasi-judicial function, they are not 'Courts' under the specific statutory definition of the Evidence Act unless specifically empowered by a statute to act as a court. Generally, the Evidence Act does not strictly apply to arbitration proceedings unless the parties agree or the law mandates it.
Since both (a) and (b) are correct, the most comprehensive answer is (d).
When a person summoned to produce a document produces it, then:
A)
he becomes a witness
B)
he is cross-examined by both the parties
C)
he is cross-examined with the permission of the court
D)
he does not become a witness and cannot be cross examined unless and until he is called as a witness
Under the law of evidence (specifically reflecting the principles found in the Indian Evidence Act and the Code of Civil Procedure), there is a clear distinction between a person summoned to produce a document (a 'witness for production') and a person called to give oral testimony (a 'witness for evidence').
1. **Nature of the Summons**: When a person is summoned solely to produce a document, their role is ministerial. They are acting as a conduit to bring a piece of evidence before the court.
2. **Status as a Witness**: The mere act of handing over a document in response to a summons does not automatically elevate that person to the status of a witness. To be a witness, a person must be sworn in and give testimony regarding the facts of the case.
3. **Right to Cross-Examination**: Cross-examination is a right that arises only after a witness has given evidence-in-chief. Since a person producing a document has not given oral testimony, there is nothing to cross-examine.
4. **Procedure**: If a party wishes to question the person who produced the document about the document's authenticity or contents, they must formally call that person as a witness to testify. Until that happens, the person remains a mere producer of the document and is not subject to cross-examination.
Therefore, option (d) is the legally correct position.
A document which is old will be presumed to be true by the Court, if it is:
A)
Old for more than 5 years
B)
Old for more than 10 years
C)
Old for more than 20 years
D)
Old for more than 30 years
This question pertains to the presumption as to ancient documents under the Law of Evidence (specifically Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which is the basis for evidence law in Mizoram). According to Section 90, where a document is alleged to be thirty years old, is produced from proper custody, and is admitted to be in the handwriting of a person who is dead or cannot be found, the court may presume that the signature and handwriting are genuine. While the presumption primarily applies to the handwriting/signature, in practice, it is the standard legal threshold for 'ancient documents' to be presumed authentic if the conditions of proper custody are met. Therefore, the statutory period required for this presumption is 30 years. Options a, b, and c are incorrect as they do not meet the statutory requirement of 30 years.
The principle of proving beyond reasonable doubt applies to:
A)
Criminal proceedings only
B)
Civil proceedings only
C)
Evidence Law
D)
All the Civil and Criminal proceedings
In legal jurisprudence, there are two primary standards of proof: 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt' and 'Preponderance of Probabilities'.
1. **Beyond Reasonable Doubt**: This is a very high standard of proof required in criminal proceedings. Because the liberty of an individual is at stake (potential imprisonment or death), the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused to such a degree that there is no reasonable doubt remaining in the mind of a prudent person. If there is a reasonable doubt, the benefit of that doubt goes to the accused.
2. **Preponderance of Probabilities**: This is the standard used in civil proceedings. It means that the court decides the case based on which side's version of events is 'more likely than not' to be true (i.e., a probability of more than 50%).
Therefore:
- Option (b) is incorrect because civil cases use the 'preponderance of probabilities' standard.
- Option (c) is incorrect because Evidence Law is the body of law that governs both standards, but the specific principle of 'beyond reasonable doubt' does not apply to every part of it.
- Option (d) is incorrect because it conflates the two distinct standards used in different types of litigation.
The three new criminal laws came into effect on:
A)
1st July, 2024
B)
26th January, 2024
C)
1st June, 2024
D)
25th December, 2023
The Government of India introduced three new criminal laws to replace the colonial-era legal framework. These laws are: 1. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which replaces the Indian Penal Code (IPC); 2. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which replaces the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC); and 3. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), which replaces the Indian Evidence Act. All three of these acts received Presidential assent in late 2023, and the Central Government officially notified that they would come into force on July 1, 2024. Therefore, option (a) is correct. Options (b), (c), and (d) are incorrect as they do not correspond to the official commencement date of these statutes.
According to Indian Evidence Act, a fact is said to be ‘not proved’, when the:
A)
Court believes that the fact does not exist
B)
Court considers its non-existence probable
C)
Fact is neither proved nor disproved
D)
Court considers its existence doubtful beyond reasonable doubt
The definition of 'not proved' is explicitly provided in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (and similarly in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam).
According to the Act:
1. A fact is said to be 'proved' when, after considering the matters before it, the Court believes that the fact exists, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought to act upon the supposition that it exists.
2. A fact is said to be 'disproved' when, after considering the matters before it, the Court believes that the fact does not exist, or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought to act upon the supposition that it does not exist.
3. A fact is said to be 'not proved' when it is neither proved nor disproved.
Analysis of options:
- Option (a) describes a fact that is 'disproved'.
- Option (b) describes a fact that is 'disproved'.
- Option (c) is the verbatim legal definition of 'not proved'. It represents a state of equilibrium or insufficiency of evidence where the court cannot definitively say the fact exists, nor can it definitively say it does not exist.
- Option (d) is a misapplication of the 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard, which is a burden of proof in criminal trials, not the definition of 'not proved'.
No Judge or Magistrate can be compelled to answer any question as to own conduct in Court as such Judge or Magistrate except upon the special order of:
A)
High Court
B)
Supreme Court
C)
Court to which he is subordinate
D)
Court having administrative control over him
This question pertains to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (and the corresponding provisions in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam). According to Section 121 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, no Judge or Magistrate shall be compelled to answer any questions as to his own conduct in Court as such Judge or Magistrate, except upon the special order of the Court to which he is subordinate. This provision is designed to protect the judicial independence and dignity of the court by preventing judges from being routinely harassed or intimidated by litigants regarding their official conduct in court, while still providing a legal mechanism for accountability through a superior court's order.
Estoppel-
A)
Need not be specifically pleaded
B)
Should be specifically pleaded
C)
May be specifically pleaded or may not be specifically pleaded
D)
Both (b) and (c) are correct
Estoppel is a rule of evidence and a point of law rather than a substantive cause of action. In legal procedure, specifically under the Indian Evidence Act (which governs the law in Mizoram), estoppel is a 'shield' used to prevent a party from denying the truth of a statement they previously made. Because it is a rule of evidence that operates by law to preclude a party from proving a certain fact, it does not require a formal pleading in the written statement or plaint. It can be raised at any stage of the proceedings based on the evidence brought on record. Therefore, it is a settled principle that estoppel need not be specifically pleaded to be invoked by the court.
Which of the following best captures the primary purpose of The State of Mizoram Act, 1986?
A)
To confer special constitutional provisions on Mizoram under Article 371G
B)
To reorganize representation and constituencies for Mizoram in the Parliament and its Legislative Assembly
C)
To establish the State of Mizoram and provide for its governance and related transitional arrangements
D)
To create a separate High Court for the State of Mizoram
The State of Mizoram Act, 1986 was enacted following the Mizoram Peace Accord of 1986. Its primary purpose was to elevate Mizoram from a Union Territory to a full-fledged State of the Indian Union. The Act provides the legal framework for the establishment of the state, the transition of administrative powers, and the governance structures necessary for its functioning as a state.
Analysis of other options:
- Option (a) is incorrect because Article 371G is a constitutional provision specifically for Nagaland, not Mizoram.
- Option (b) describes a function of the Delimitation Commission or specific representation acts, which may be a consequence of statehood but not the 'primary purpose' of the Act itself.
- Option (d) is incorrect because the establishment of a High Court is a judicial arrangement that follows statehood, but the Act's overarching purpose is the creation of the state entity itself.
The counting of votes is undertaken under the supervision of the:
A)
Presiding Officer
B)
Electoral Registration Officer
C)
Returning Officer
D)
Chief Electoral Officer
Under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, the Returning Officer (RO) is the statutory authority responsible for the overall conduct of the election in a specific constituency. While the Presiding Officer manages the polling station during the voting process, the responsibility for the counting of votes, the declaration of the result, and the supervision of the counting center rests solely with the Returning Officer.
Breakdown of options:
- a. Presiding Officer: Responsible for the conduct of polls at a specific polling station, not the overall counting process.
- b. Electoral Registration Officer: Responsible for the preparation and revision of the electoral rolls.
- d. Chief Electoral Officer: The head of election administration at the State level, who oversees the process but does not personally supervise the counting of votes for individual constituencies.
Section 3 of The State of Mizoram Act, 1986 establishes the State of Mizoram as comprising the territories which immediately before the appointed day were comprised in:
A)
The North-Eastern Areas
B)
The State of Tripura
C)
The existing Union territory of Mizoram
D)
The territories determined by the Delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies Order, 1976.
The State of Mizoram Act, 1986 was enacted to provide for the establishment of the State of Mizoram. Section 3 of this Act explicitly states that the State of Mizoram shall comprise the territories which immediately before the appointed day (February 20, 1987) were comprised in the existing Union territory of Mizoram.
Reasoning for other options:
- Option (a) 'The North-Eastern Areas' is too broad, as it encompasses several states and territories.
- Option (b) 'The State of Tripura' is a separate state and not the source territory for Mizoram.
- Option (d) refers to delimitation orders which deal with electoral boundaries, not the constitutional establishment of the state's territorial jurisdiction.
“Booth Capturing” includes: (i) Seizing a polling station and preventing votes (ii) Threatening any elector and preventing him from going to the polling station (iii) Seizing or damaging EVMs Choose the correct option:
A)
(i) only
B)
(ii) only
C)
(iii) only
D)
(i), (ii), and (iii)
Under Section 135A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, 'Booth Capturing' is defined broadly to ensure the integrity of the electoral process. According to the Act, booth capturing includes:
1. **Seizing a polling station**: When a person or group takes control of the polling station to prevent the free exercise of electoral rights (corresponds to statement i).
2. **Preventing electors from voting**: This includes threatening, intimidating, or using force to prevent any elector from going to the polling station or exercising their right to vote (corresponds to statement ii).
3. **Interference with voting machinery**: This includes the seizure, damage, or unauthorized manipulation of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) or voting papers to record fake votes or prevent genuine votes from being cast (corresponds to statement iii).
Since all three statements (i), (ii), and (iii) fall under the legal definition of booth capturing as per the RP Act 1951, option (d) is the correct choice.
The State of Mizoram Act, 1986 is an example of Parliament’s power to:
A)
Form new states and alter areas of existing states under Article 3 of the Constitution.
B)
Grant Union Territory status to a state.
C)
Amend the Constitution without a majority.
D)
Legislate on state list matters.
The State of Mizoram Act, 1986 was the legislative instrument used by the Parliament of India to elevate Mizoram from a Union Territory to a full-fledged State of the Indian Union. Under the Constitution of India, Article 3 empowers the Parliament to form a new state by separation of territory from any state, or by uniting two or more states or parts of states, or by increasing or diminishing the area of any state. The transition of Mizoram to statehood on February 20, 1987, was a direct exercise of this power.
Why other options are incorrect:
- Option (b) is incorrect because the Act granted 'State' status to a 'Union Territory', not the other way around.
- Option (c) is incorrect because the creation of a state under Article 3 is considered a legislative act and does not require a formal Constitutional Amendment under Article 368 (it only requires a simple majority).
- Option (d) is incorrect because while Parliament has certain powers to legislate on state matters under specific circumstances (Articles 249-253), the creation of a state is a structural change to the Union's geography under Article 3, not a matter of legislative jurisdiction over the State List.
A candidate can withdraw their candidature by submitting a notice in the prescribed form to the Returning Officer before:
A)
3 p.m. on the day fixed for withdrawal.
B)
5 p.m. on the day fixed for withdrawal.
C)
3 p.m. on the day after the last date of nomination.
D)
5 p.m. on the day after the last date of nomination.
According to the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the corresponding Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 (specifically Rule 25), a candidate who has been nominated may withdraw their candidature by delivering a notice of withdrawal to the Returning Officer. The statutory deadline for the submission of this notice is 3 p.m. on the date fixed for the withdrawal of candidatures.
- Option (a) is correct as it aligns with the legal time limit (3 p.m.).
- Option (b) is incorrect because 5 p.m. is not the prescribed cutoff time for withdrawal.
- Options (c) and (d) are incorrect because the withdrawal must happen by the specific 'day fixed for withdrawal' as per the election schedule, not simply 'the day after the last date of nomination', and the time limit remains 3 p.m.
The President may authorize expenditure from the Consolidated Fund of the State of Mizoram for a period not exceeding six months, pending sanction by:
A)
Parliament
B)
The Governor of Mizoram
C)
The Legislative Assembly of the State of Mizoram
D)
The Central Government
Under the State of Mizoram Act, 1986, specifically regarding the financial administration and the Consolidated Fund of the State, the President of India holds certain powers to ensure the continuity of governance. In instances where expenditure is required but the formal appropriation process has not yet been completed, the President may authorize the withdrawal of money from the Consolidated Fund of the State of Mizoram. However, this is a temporary measure. Such expenditure is subject to the subsequent sanction and approval of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Mizoram, which is the sovereign body responsible for the state's budget and financial appropriations. The period for this temporary authorization is limited to six months to ensure that the executive remains accountable to the legislature. Options (a), (b), and (d) are incorrect because the Parliament handles Union funds, the Governor acts on behalf of the state but does not 'sanction' the budget (the Assembly does), and the Central Government is the executive arm, not the legislative sanctioning body for state funds.
Under Section 30 of the State of Mizoram Act, 1986, who determines the grants-in-aid of the revenues of the state of Mizoram and its share in Union duties of excise, estate duty and taxes on income?
A)
The Governor of Mizoram in consultation with the Finance Commission.
B)
Parliament by law, under Article 158 of the Constitution.
C)
The President, by order.
D)
The Comptroller and Auditor-General.
Under Section 30 of the State of Mizoram Act, 1986, the determination of grants-in-aid of the revenues of the State of Mizoram and its share in Union duties of excise, estate duty, and taxes on income is vested in the President of India. The Act specifies that the President shall, by order, determine these amounts. This is a standard constitutional and legislative mechanism for managing financial relations between the Union and the State under specific transitional or special acts.
- Option (a) is incorrect because the Governor does not have the authority to determine Union grants-in-aid.
- Option (b) is incorrect because while Parliament makes laws, the specific mechanism under Section 30 of this Act delegates the determination to the President by order; furthermore, Article 158 of the Constitution relates to the conditions of the Governor's office, not financial grants.
- Option (d) is incorrect because the Comptroller and Auditor-General (CAG) is responsible for auditing accounts, not determining the allocation of grants or shares of revenue.
Under Section 24 of The State of Mizoram Act, 1986, “proceedings shall be deemed to be pending in a court until that court has disposed of all issues between the parties, including any issues with respect to:”
A)
The transfer orders
B)
The allocation of assets
C)
The taxation of the costs of the proceedings
D)
The legislative authority
Section 24 of The State of Mizoram Act, 1986, deals with the continuity of legal proceedings. According to the legal language of this section, proceedings are considered 'pending' in a court until all issues between the parties have been fully disposed of. This specifically includes the finalization of the 'taxation of costs' (the process by which the court determines the amount of legal costs one party must pay to another).
- Option (a) 'transfer orders' refers to administrative movements and is not the defining factor for the conclusion of a court proceeding under this section.
- Option (b) 'allocation of assets' is a specific outcome of certain types of cases but not the general legal definition of when a proceeding is deemed 'pending' across all cases.
- Option (d) 'legislative authority' refers to the power to make laws, which is unrelated to the procedural status of a pending court case.
The authority responsible for the conduct of elections to Parliament and State Legislatures is the:
A)
President of India
B)
Chief Justice of India
C)
Election Commission of India
D)
Parliament of India
Step-by-step reasoning:
1. Constitutional Mandate: Under Article 324 of the Constitution of India, the superintendence, direction, and control of elections to Parliament and the State Legislatures are vested in the Election Commission of India (ECI).
2. Scope of Authority: The ECI is an autonomous constitutional authority responsible for administering election processes in India to ensure they are free and fair.
3. Analysis of other options:
- (a) President of India: While the President appoints the Chief Election Commissioner, the President does not conduct the elections.
- (b) Chief Justice of India: The CJI heads the judiciary and has no administrative role in conducting general elections.
- (d) Parliament of India: Parliament makes the laws governing elections (such as the Representation of the People Act), but the execution and conduct of the elections are handled by the ECI to maintain neutrality.
The provisions of Section 31 of The State of Mizoram Act, 1986 which deals with assets and liabilities shall not apply to or in relation to:
A)
Any institution, undertaking or project the expenditure in relation to which is immediately before the appointed day met from and out of the Consolidated Fund of India.
B)
Any institution, undertaking or project financed exclusively by private donations and endowments before the appointed day.
C)
Any institution, undertaking or project funded solely by international grants before the appointed day.
D)
Any institution, undertaking or project whose expenditure was met from the Consolidated Fund of India from the appointed day.
The State of Mizoram Act, 1986, governs the transition of administration and assets from the Union to the State of Mizoram. Section 31 specifically addresses the transfer of assets and liabilities. According to the legal provisions of this Act, the transfer of assets and liabilities to the State Government does not extend to institutions, undertakings, or projects whose expenditures were being met directly from the Consolidated Fund of India immediately before the 'appointed day'. This is because such entities remain under the financial and administrative jurisdiction of the Central Government. Option (b) and (c) are incorrect as they refer to private or international funding, which are not the primary legal exclusions mentioned in Section 31. Option (d) is incorrect because the exclusion applies to expenditure met 'immediately before' the appointed day, not 'from' the appointed day.
In the RP Act, 1950, District Election Officers are mentioned in:
A)
Section 13AA
B)
Section 13B
C)
Section 14
D)
Section 21
Under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, Section 13AA specifically deals with the appointment and duties of the District Election Officer. This section empowers the Election Commission to appoint a District Election Officer for each district to supervise the preparation of electoral rolls and other related administrative tasks.
Breakdown of other options:
- Section 13B typically relates to the appointment of Electoral Registration Officers in specific contexts or amendments.
- Section 14 deals with the 'Preparation of rolls' and the duties of the Electoral Registration Officer.
- Section 21 relates to the 'Correction of entries in electoral rolls'.
Therefore, the specific mention of the District Election Officer is found in Section 13AA.