The main legal point established is the requirement for specific evidence, reasoning, and official declaration to substantiate allegations of corrupt practice and the use of national symbols as per the relevant Acts.

MANJULA CHELLUR, J.

( 1 ) THIS Revision Petition is filed challenging the orders of the Trial court in Election Petition No. 1/2000 on the file of the Additional civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and II Additional J. M. F. C. , Ranebennur dated 10. 10. 2002.

( 2 ) THE petitioner herein is the successful candidate in the Gram panchayath election of Kamadod, which was held on 27/2/2000. There were two seats to be elected in the village of Ennihosalli, one from general and another from S. T. group reserved for woman. The contesting candidate (opposition) ie. , petitioner before the Trial court and Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 represented reserved seat for woman in S. T. group. In the election, the petitioner before this Court was declared as successful candidate. Aggrieved by the same Smt. Yellava the 1st respondent herein filed the election petition contending that both herself and the petitioner hereunder got 206 votes, one extra vote given to the petitioner herein was an invalid vote and the concerned authorities were wrong in taking into consideration such vote. The other ground of challenge was that there was corrupt practice as contemplated under sub-section (3) of Section 22 of sub-section 3 of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj act, as the petitioner hereunder used the National Symbol i. e. , the ballot paper- Ex. P-3 contained the pictures of national party leaders and also national party symbol. Evidence was let in only by the 1st respondent herein. Three documents were marked.

( 3 ) ON perusal of the entire records, it is noticed that the petitioner hereunder did not lead any evidence on her behalf. However, the learned Judge accepted both contentions of the petitioner before the Trial Court and allowed the petition, setting aside the election of the petitioner herein to the membership of ennehosalli village of Kamadod Gram Panchayath. Aggrieved by the same the present Revision Petition is filed.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Judge was wrong in holding that the petitioner herein adopted the corrupt practice by publishing Ex. P. 3, because such publishing of pictures of political leaders do not amount to as corrupt practice. According to him, it is not at all a national symbol. The other limb of the argument is that the 1st respondent hereunder never gave the details and the description of the invalid vote. Therefore the learned Judge was wrong in accepting the case of the petitioner based on her oral evidence. Section 22 sub-section 3 reads as under: The appeal by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his agent to vote or refrain from voting for any person on the ground of his religion, race, caste, community or language or the use of or appeal to religious symbols or the use of or appeal to national symbols, such as the national flag or the national emblem, for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate.

( 5 ) THIS Section refers to the use of national symbols, such as national flag or national emblem. The learned Judge without going into the details like what the national flag and national emblem is, has straight away came to the conclusion that the party symbols and party leaders pictures would mean national symbols. One has to refer to the exact meaning of the National Flag, National Emblem, national Anthem, National Calender, National Flower, National Animal and National Bird. Some of the details of these were published by the Central Government, Ministry of Information and Broad Casting, government of India, in a book called India 1985 A reference annual. By reading this book, it is found from time to time the government had published which are all considered as National symbols. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also relies on two judgments of this Court reported in SANGAPPA ANDANAPPA vs shivamurthiswamy SIDDAPPALYASWAMY1. This was with reference to Representati

Click Here to Read the rest of this document