The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a concise statement of material facts showing any corrupt practice against the respondent and the need for legally acceptable evidence to support such allegations.

Rakesh Kumar, J.

1. In the aforesaid election petition, after hearing learned counsel for the election petitioner and respondent on interlocutory application i.e. I.A. No. 7902 of 2016, which was filed by the respondent under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC'), order was reserved on 14.2.2017. The election petitioner has approached this Court by filing the aforesaid petition under Sections 80, 80-A, 81 and 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for setting aside election of returned candidate/respondent namely Ravi Jyoti Kumar, who was declared elected on 8.11.2015 from 173 Rajgir (SC) Assembly Constituency.

2. In the election petition, the petitioner has mainly alleged against the respondent in its paragraph Nos. 6, 9 and 10 of the election petition, which are quoted hereinbelow:-

"6. That the Returned Candidate has filled up Column 5(ii) of Form 26 of the Nomination Paper giving details of a criminal case pending in the Court of learned CJM, Jamtara bearing Jamtara P.S. Case No. 7 of 2007 under Section 379/427 IPC and has categorically mentioned within brackets that "cognizance has not been taken in the aforesaid case".

9. That it is relevant to submit for consideration that the Returned Candidate has filled up Column 5(ii) of Form 26 and has made modification of Column 5(ii) by writing within brackets that "cognizance has not been taken" and has thereby violated Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, wherein a voter of the aforesaid Constituency has a right to know about the contesting candidates including criminal antecedents. It is much more fundamental and basic for survival of democracy and only then the little man may think over before making his choice of electing law breakers as law makers. It is, therefore, noteworthy to mention that writing within brackets "cognizance has not been taken" has resulted into misconstruing the voters.

10. That it is relevant to submit for consideration that the Returned Candidate has purposefully written so as that the voters get a wrong idea in regard to his pending criminal case. It is also relevant to submit for consideration that stepping into the shoes of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, it is also desired that a voter should be given correct information and there should not be any misinformation and misrepresentation to the voters. If, at all cognizance has not been taken then the Returned Candidate was not required to furnish the information in Column 5(ii) of Form 26 of the Nomination Paper and writing within brackets "cognizance has not been taken" has created a sense of confusion in the minds of voters as only cases where cognizance has been taken is only to be furnished in Column 5(ii) of Form 26 of the Nomination Paper."

3. Short fact of the case is; that for holding assembly election in 173 Rajgir (SC) Assembly Constituency, the Returning Officer had issued Notification. As per Notification:-

(i) Last date of filing nomination paper was fixed as 8th October, 2015,

(ii) Date of scrutiny of nomination paper was fixed as 9th October, 2015,

(iii) Date of withdrawal of candidature was 12th October, 2015,

(iv) Date of poll was fixed as 28th October, 2015, and

(v) Date of declaration of result as 8th November, 2015.

Pursuant to aforesaid Notification, the respondent presented his nomination paper on 5.10.2015. In the said election, altogether 17 candidates contested for 173 Rajgir (SC) Assembly Constituency. The election petitioner had contested the election from "Bhartiya Janata Party" on election symbol of Lotus", whereas, the returned candidate namely Ravi Jyoti Kumar had contested from "Janata Dal (United)". In the said election, the returned candidate secured 62,009 votes, whereas, the election petitioner was declared as runner-up, having 56,619 votes. In paragraph-6 of the election petition, the petitioner alleged that returned candidate had filled up column No. 5(ii) of Form-26 of Nomination Paper gi