SARJOO PROSAD, C.J.—This is an appeal against the order of the Election Tribunal Pratapgarh, dated 1st December, 1959.

2. The election petition in this case under section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act No. XLIII of 1951) hereinafter referred to as "the Act" was filed on the 23rd of April, 1957, by the appellant Inder Lall, an elector in the Chittorgarh Constituency praying that the election of the respondent Shri Lal Singh to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly should be annulled and declared void on account of illegal and corrupt practices which vitiated the election. The elections in the various constituencies took place in February and March, 1957. There appear to have been three contesting candidates at the election. Shri Lal Singh, the first respondent, who was the successful candidate, secured 7272 votes; the second respondent Shri Lakshman Singh, the Maharawal Dungarpur, secured 7261 votes, while the third respondent Shri Chhoga Lal only 569 votes. The result of the election was declared on the nth of March, 1957, and notified in the Rajasthan Rajpatra on 14th March, 1957, and Shri Lal Singh was returned.

3. The grounds on which the election has been challenged are mainly two-fold and have been enumerated in paragraph 4 of the election petition. Firstly, it is alleged that the respondent Shri Lal Singh procured or abetted or attempted to procure either by himself or by his agents or by other persons with his connivance or that of his agents the application by persons for ballot papers in the name of other persons, whether living or dead or non-existent, or whose names appeared in the same ward for two different houses, or persons who were not citizens of India but whose names all the same appeared in the electoral rolls; or even in names of fictitious persons. Secondly, it was alleged that the said respondent, his agents and other persons with his connivance or that of his agents published such statements of facts which were false and which they either believed to be false or did not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or conduct of the respondent No. 2 and in relation to his candidature, calculated to prejudice the prospects of the election of the second respondent, Shri Lakshaman Singh. Details of the above allegations find mention in the lists marked A and B appended to the petition. List A has again been sub-divided into six different parts. We will deal with these details in their appropriate place.

4. The respondent Lal Singh traversed the allegations in his reply. The locus standi of the petitioner to present the election petition was also challenged, but the point has been found in his favour. It has been held that he was an elector of Chittorgarh Assembly Constituency residing in House No. 76, Ward No. 4. The point of locus standi has not been canvassed before us any further. The contesting respondent, however, seriously denied the allegations of corrupt practice made in the petition. He asserted that neither the respondent nor anybody else to his knowledge or with his connivance committed any such corrupt practice. It was also stated that full particulars of the persons responsible for the corrupt practices alleged and the date and place of their commission were not mentioned as required by the law. The respondent claimed that the votes cast in his favour were all valid votes and the complaint in the election petition was baseless and the election of the respondent should be accordingly upheld.

5. The second respondent has supported the averments in the election petition, and said that the false statements made against him were widely circulated and explained to the masses in the whole constituency with the result that it materially affected the election of this respondent who lost only by a margin of about 11 votes.

6. The respondent No. 3 did not put in appearance at all.

7. In the replication filed by the petitioner further particulars of the polling booths and the date

Click Here to Read the rest of this document