The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of corrupt practice under Sec. 123 (3) and (3a) of the Representation of People Act.

Avadh Behari Rohatgi,j.

( 1 ) BY this election petition the petitioner,pritpal Singh, has challenged the election of the returned candidate, Ranjitrai Sharma, respondent No. 1. Both of them were contesting candidates atthe Metropolitan Council election from the Metropolitan Constituency ofpaharganj No. 44 held on 5-2-1983. Respondent No. 1 was declared as asuccessful candidate. He won by III votes. At the first count he was declered elected by a margin of 113 votes. On a recount the margin was reduced to111 votes. So the election petitioner is his closest rival.

( 2 ) THE petitioner seeks to set aside the election of respondent No. 1 onfour grounds : (1) that respondent No. 1 indulged in corrupt practice, (2) 336valid votes of the petitioner were improperly rejected, (3) 85 votes from theballot boxes of Municipal Corporation election were not counted, and (4) 89void votes were counted in favour of respondent No. 1. It is not necessaryto set out the pleadings of the parties at any great length as they are sufficiently reflected in the following issues and the discussion that follows those issues :

1. Whether the persons mentioned in annexure a were voters eligible to vote at the election in dispute and the said persons or anyof them were denied the right of vote by the Presiding Officerat the polling station No. 313 If so, to what effect ?

2. Whether the question of violation of Rule 21-A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 alleged in paragraph 12 of the petition can be gone into and forms subject matter of enquiry in thepresent proceedings ? It not the result of election in so farrespondent No. 1 is concerned ?

3. Whether the 3 persons mentioned in annexure c were dead atthe date of poll and votes were cast in their names by others andas such to what effect ?

4. Whether the persons mentioned in annexure b were registered asvoters at two places at two different polling stations in the samemetropolitan Constituency No. 44 and whether any such voterstwice at the election in dispute and as such any votes were received which were allegedly void ? If so, to what effect ?

5. Whether any void votes were received in the election in disputematerially affecting the result of election in so far as respondentno. 1 is concerned ?

6. Whether the persons mentioned in annexure c were dead atthe date of poll and votes were cast in their names by othersand as such void votes were received and counted in the resultof election ? If so, to what effect ?

7. Whether the persons mentioned in annexure d were impersonated in the election in dispute and whether any votes were received in their names as void votes as alleged in paragraph 14 ofthe petition ? If so, to what effect ?

8. Whether the result of counting as alleged is based on arroneouscounting ? If so, to what effect ?

9. Whether there was any improper rejection of valid votes, improper acceptence and reception of votes in violation of the provisions of the Act and the rules affecting the result of election inso far as it concerns the returned candidate ?

10. Whether respondent No. 1 obtained and procured the assistanceof the Government Officers for the furtherance of the prospectsof his election, namely, Shri Hari 0m son of late Shri Jagan Nath as alleged in paragraph 21 of the petition ? If so, to whateffect ?

11. Whether the allegations contained in paragraph 21 of the petition amount to a corrupt practice as alleged in paragraph 21 ofthe petition ?

12. Whether respondent No. 1 and persons mentioned in paragraph23 distributed the handbills in Punjabi containing an allegedappeal of Harcharan Singh Longowal as alleged in paragraph 22 and 23 of the petition ? If so, to what effect ?

13. Whether the allegations contained in paragraph 22 and 23 ofthe petition amount to corrupt practice ? If not, to whateffect ?

14. Whether any corrupt practice were committed in the interest ofrespondent No. 1 affecting the result of election materially in sofar as it concerns respondent No. 1 ?

15. Whether the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document