The affidavit filed in support of election petition where the election of the returned candidate is challenged on the grounds of corrupt practices is intended to be regarded as an integral part of the election petition.

Headnote:
ELECTION PETITION - Dismissal - Non-compliance of statutory provisions - Failure to furnish true copy of affidavit in support of corrupt practices - Section 81(3) read with proviso to sub-section (1) of section 83 of the Representation of Peoples' Act, 1951 read with Rule 94(A) read with Form No. 25 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.
Fact of the Case:

Election petition challenging the election of the 1st respondent held on 9-2-89, for constituency No. 89, Dhule City, District Dhule, on the grounds of corrupt practices, breach of Code of Conduct of Election Commission, and canvassing within the prohibitory area.
Finding of the Court:

The copy of the affidavit accompanying the petition served upon the respondent did not contain the particulars with regard to the affirmation authority such as its name, its designation, whether the said authority has in fact attested the affirmation and put any signature, date of attestation.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent and his election agent committed corrupt practices as defined under section 123(2) of the Representation of Peoples' Act. 1951? 2. Whether the petitioner proves that respondent and his election agent committed corrupt practices as defined under section 130 of the Representation of Peoples' Act. 1951? 3. Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent and his election agent committed breaches of the Code of Conduct in the election? 4. Whether the petitioner proves that Shri Anil Chaudhary was the publisher for the respondent in respect of the respondent's election pamphlets, dummy ballot papers/sample voting papers? 5. Does the petitioner prove that on the date of the election the petitioner and his election agent distributed the sample voting papers/ballot papers in the town of Dhule on the day of polling on 9th February, 1995? 6. Does the petitioner prove that the sample voting papers distributed on 9th February, 1995 in ward No. 13 (Old 9) part 51 by the respondent, his election agent and or by his workers with the consent of the respondent or his election agent resemble ballot papers in size and colour. 7. Does the petitioner prove that Shri J.M. Chavan and Sanjay V. Malli, were the workers and supporters of the respondent for the election campaign and does the petitioner further prove that on 9th February, 1995 two dummy ballot papers printed and published at the instance of the respondent were recovered from Shri J.M. Chavan and Sanjay V. Malli, on 9th February, 1995 in Ward No. 13 (Old 9) part 51 at the polling station? 8. Does the petitioner prove that the respondent his election agent and his workers with the consent of the respondent and his election agent distributed printed dummy ballot papers within the prohibited area and thereby directed and attempted to interfere with the free exercise of voting right of the voters in 89- Dhule Constituency District Dhule and thereby committed the corrupt practice and undue influence under section 123(2) of the Representation of People's Act, 1951? 9. Does the petitioner prove that distribution of dummy voting/ballot papers by the respondent and his election agent create a confusion in the minds of the voters and also resulting undue influence upon the voters of 89-Dhule Constituency of District Dhule on the day of polling which affected his election. 10. What relief the petitioner is entitled to?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The affidavit in support of the allegations of corrupt practices accompanying the election petition proper is an integral part of the election petition. 2. The copy of the election petition which is required to be supplied to the returned candidate has to be wholly and substantially same as original. 3. If such copy contains important omissions or discrepancy of a vital nature, which are likely to cause prejudice to the defence of the returned candidate then the same cannot be said to be substantial compliance of the provisions of section 81(3) of the said Act.
Final Decision: Election petition dismissed for non-compliance of statutory provisions and failure to furnish true copy of affidavit in support of corrupt practices.

JUDGMENT - M.S. Rane, J.:---The petitioner an unsuccessful candidate has questioned the validity and legality of the election of the 1st respondent held on 9-2-89, for constituency No. 89, Dhule City, District Dhule. The challenge is directed upon three grounds viz: (i) The respondent his election agent or persons with consent of the respondent or with consent of the election agent having published sample/dummy voting papers/ballot papers resembling the voting papers/ballot papers of the election agency and having distributed the same on the day of election in the polling booths for the purpose of promotion of his election in breach of Code of Conduct of Election Commission; (ii) respondent his election agent or persons with his consent or with the consent of his election agent having canvassed within the prohibitory area like polling stations for the promotion of his election contrary to the provisions of section 130 of the Representation of Peoples' Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'); and (iii) The respondent, his election agent and person with the consent of respondent or his election agent having indulged in corrupt practices as defined under section 123(2) of the said Act, for exerting undue influence upon the voters. Election to Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from Dhule Constituency No. 89, District Dhule was held on 9-2-1995. Result was declared on 13-2-1995. In all there were 23 contesting candidates including the petitioner and respondent herein. The respondent herein secured 34463 votes which were the highest and was declared as successful candidate. The petitioner herein secured 1,899 votes and stood 8th in the terms of number of votes secured and it is stated he also lost his deposit. Petitioner and other 21 candidates needless to say were thus unsuccessful candidates.

2. The petition herein has been filed on 27-4-1995 by the petitioner herein calling the election of the respondent on the grounds as mentioned hereinabove.

3. After service of process in this petition the respondent appeared and filed his written statement denying and repudiating the various allegations made by the petitioner in his petition against the respondent and in particular the grounds of challenge. In short, the respondent denied having committed corrupt practices or breached Code of Conduct of Election Commission etc.

4. On 11-10-1995 this Court on the basis of pleadings framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent and his election agent committed corrupt practices as defined under section 123(2) of the Representation of Peoples' Act. 1951?

2. Whether the petitioner proves that respondent and his election agent committed corrupt practices as defined under section 130 of the Representation of Peoples' Act. 1951?

3. Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent and his election agent committed breaches of the Code of Conduct in the election?

4. Whether the petitioner proves that Shri Anil Chaudhary was the publisher for the respondent in respect of the respondent's election pamphlets, dummy ballot papers/sample voting papers?

5. Does the petitioner prove that on the date of the election the petitioner and his election agent distributed the sample voting papers/ballot papers in the town of Dhule on the day of polling on 9th February, 1995?

6. Does the petitioner prove that the sample voting papers distributed on 9th February, 1995 in ward No. 13 (Old 9) part 51 by the respondent, his election agent and or by his workers with the consent of the respondent or his election agent resemble ballot papers in size and colour.

7. Does the petitioner prove that Shri J.M. Chavan and Sanjay V. Malli, were the workers and supporters of the respondent for the election campaign and does the petitioner further prove that on 9th February, 1995 two dummy ballot papers printed and published at the instance of the respondent were recovered from Shri J.M. Chavan and Sanjay V. Malli, on 9th February, 1995 in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document