Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S. Sunil Dutt Yadav, J.
Sri B. Suresh Gowda, S/o late Sri Bettaiah - Petitioner
Versus
Sri D.C.Gowrishankaraswamy, S/o Sri C.Chennigappa and ors. – Respondents
Election Petition No. 1 OF 2018
Decided On : 30-03-2023
Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 80, 81, 99, 100, (2), (1)(b), 123, (1), (2), (1)(A), (1)(B), 83(1)(c) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 171E – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 190(1)(b) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI Rule 15(4) - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114 - Election Petitions Procedure Rules - Rule 19 - Validity of election - Corrupt practices - Petitioner challenged validity of election of respondent No.1 contending that his election was vitiated by commission of corrupt practices – Evidence would point out to role of KMSS in commission of corrupt practice by facilitating distribution of Medi Assist cards and not taking any steps to distance itself from such distribution - Para 152(xi).
Finding of the Court: Evidence and material on record would indicate that KMSS has stood by and did not distance itself from distribution of Medi Assist cards which was in name of KMSS - It can be stated that KMSS has been an accessory and played a part in entirety of design of commission of corrupt practice - It is clear that case is made out for declaring election of respondent No.1 as void in terms of Section 100(1)(b) of R.P.Act - No grounds are however made out for declaring petitioner to be elected - No grounds have been made out in terms of Section 100(2) of R.P. Act so as to refrain from declaring election void, despite respondent No.1 being guilty of commission of corrupt practice by virtue of acts done, found to be done with his consent - Election of returned candidate Tumkur Rural Assembly Constituency having been declared elected is hereby declared to be void.
Result: Petition allowed in part.
ORDER :
S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV. J
This order has been divided into the following sections to facilitate analysis:
| I | BRIEF FACTS |
| II | ISSUES FRAMED |
| III | ANALYSIS: |
|
| PART A - CONSIDERATION OF ISSUE NOS. ii(a) AND ii(b) |
|
| PART B - CONSIDERATION OF ISSUE NOS. ii(c), ii(d) AND v |
|
| ISSUANCE OF MEDI ASSIST POLICY ON 26.02.2018 |
|
| ISSUANCE OF MEDI ASSIST POLICY IN THE NAME OF |
|
| KMSS |
|
| ASSOCIATION OF RESPONDENT NO.1 WITH KMSS |
|
| CANCELLATION OF MEDI ASSIST POLICY |
|
| PART C - CONSIDERATION OF ISSUE NO.(iii) |
|
| MEDI ASSIST POLICY AND CORRUPT PRACTICE |
|
| ALLEGATIONS AGAINST PALANETHRAIAH |
|
| DISTRIBUTION OF MEDI ASSIST CARDS |
|
| MEDI ASSIST CARDS AND ENTICEMENT |
|
| CONSENT OF RETURNED CANDIDATE/RESPONDENT NO.1 |
|
| PART D - CONSIDERATION OF ISSUE NO. (iv) |
|
| PART E - CONSIDERATION OF ISSUE NO. (vii) |
|
| PART F - CONSIDERATION OF ISSUE NO. (i) |
| IV | ANALYSIS OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 99 OF R.P ACT |
|
| ANNEXURE |
The present Election Petition has been filed under Sections 80, 81, 100 read with Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ('R.P. Act') seeking to set aside the election of respondent No.1 to the 15th Karnataka Legislative Assembly from Tumkur Rural Assembly Constituency held during May 2018 and consequently declare the petitioner as duly elected to fill the seat of Karnataka Legislative Assembly as regards Tumkur Rural Assembly Constituency (No.133).
I. BRIEF FACTS:
2. The facts make out that the petitioner and respondent No.1 had filed nomination seeking election to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly from Tumkur Rural Assembly Constituency. The petitioner belongs to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), while the respondent No.1 belongs to Janata Dal (S) Party [JD(S) Party]. In the ensuing elections, the petitioner is stated to have obtained 77,100 votes, while the respondent No.1 had secured 82,740 votes and was declared as elected by margin of 5,640 votes and the Returning Officer had issued Form No.21-C under Section 64 of the R.P. Act declaring the respondent No.1 as elected.
3. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the election of respondent No.1 contending that his election was vitiated by commission of corrupt practices as defined under Sections 123(1) and 123(2) of the R.P. Act.
4. Amongst the corrupt practices that are stated to have been resorted to by the respondent No.1 are the following:-
(i) Payment of Rs.5,00,000/- by the Kammagondanahalli Sri Maruthi Seva Samithi [KMSS] which is a Registered Society alleged to have been controlled by first respondent's father and having as its office bearers, mother, brother and members of the extended family, for renovation of Shanidevaru Temple at Dasarahalli.
(ii) The promise of 1000 free seats in Engineering College run by KMSS in the event the JD(S) Party comes to power.
(iii) The followers of JD(S) Party, Smt.Gowramma and Sri Anantha were distributing Medi Assist Cards while canvassing on 02.04.2018 in order to lure the voters to vote for the respondent No.1. It is stated that there was seizure of 56 Medi Assist Bonds from the house of Smt.Gowramma and Sri Anantha.
(iv) It is further submitted that on 11.05.2018, the FST-II Squad was visiting Gulur and Hebbur Hobli and Sri C.Rangadhamappa, Sri Jayaram C.N. and Sri Devaraju intercepted a Scorpio vehicle bearing registration number KA-06-N- 2725, coming from the opposite direction and the said vehicle was abandoned by inmates. The Medi Assist cards, cash and other materials along with materials which contained details of JD(S) Party workers were seized. Subsequently, the investigation report revealed that the vehicle belonged to Sri Palanethraiah, who eventually pleaded guilty for the offence under Section 171E of IPC, who is alleged to be the Counting Agent of respondent No.1.
(v) That Medi Assist Policy was taken
gpt-4
Section 123 of R.P. Act provides for what would constitute corrupt practice.
Corrupt practices in elections, including undue influence based on religion and dissemination of false statements, violate the Representation of People Act, leading to disqualification and annulment ....
An election petition may be rejected if it fails to comply with mandatory pleading requirements regarding concise statements of material facts and particulars of corrupt practices as per the Represen....
Clause (4) of Section 123 of Act shows that publication is required to be reasonably calculated by a candidate or his agent.
RP Act is a complete and self contained code, within which, any rights claimed in relation to an election or an election dispute must be found.
Election petitions must allege clear material facts for corrupt practices; mere suspicions and vague allegations do not provide a basis for a trial.
The burden of proof in election petitions for corrupt practices lies with the petitioner, requiring evidence beyond reasonable doubt, which was not established in this case.
In election petitions alleging corrupt practices, the burden of proof rests on the petitioner to establish claims beyond reasonable doubt, and mere oral testimonies without corroborative evidence are....
The use of religious symbols in election campaigning is prohibited under Section 123(3) of the R.P. Act, and the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to establish allegations of corrupt practices b....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
