JOSHI, J.—This is a defeated candidates election petition filed under sections 80 and 81 of the Representation of the People Act (briefly the Act) challenging the election of respondent No. 1 Shri Lal Shanker to the Sagwara Legislative Assembly Constituency in the election held in June 1977. The main ground upon which the election is sought to be challenged is the commission of corrupt practices alleged in the election petition by respondent No. 1.

2. The respondent was served with summons along with the copy of the election petition including annexures and affidavit. The respondent No. 1 submitted his written statement and along with his written statement produced the copy of the election petition sent to him along with the summons. In his written statement respondent No. i traversed all the allegations in regard to the commission of corrupt practices and inter alia contended that the copy of the election petition along with the annexures served on him, do not contain the attestation of the petitioner under his own signature that it is a true copy of the original petition as required by section 81(3) of the Act. It was further contended that the copy of the election petition supplied to him is not a true copy of the original petition, as there are material differences between the contents of the copy supplied to him and the contents of the original petition.

3. On the pleadings of the parties, in all five issues were raised on 9-11-1977. On 4-1-1978, it was directed by the Court that issues Nos. 1 and 2 shall be heard as preliminary issues. Issues Nos. 1 and 2 may be reproduced as under:—

(1) Whether the copy accompanying the election petition is not true copy of the petition and the petitioner has not attested the same under his signature to be a true copy as required by law?

(Onus on respondent No. 1)

(2) If the answer to issue No. 1 is in the affirmative, is the petition liable to be dismissed?

(Onus on respondent No. 1)

Issue No. 1:—

4. Issue No. 1 consists of two parts. The first part is to the effect whether the copy accompanying the election petition and furnished to the Respondent No. 1 is not a true copy of the petition The second part of the issue No. 1 is whether the petitioner has not attested the copy under his own signatures to be a true copy as required by law.

5. Taking up the first part of the issue it may be pointed out that apart from certain minor discrepancies referred to in para No. 2 of the written statement, the copy supplied to the respondent No. 1 is correct in material particulars. From the comparison of the original with the copy supplied to respondent No. 1, I do not find any material discrepancies between the contents of the copy and that of the original election petition excepting a few minor discrepancies which are of very insignificant nature. Learned counsel for respondent No 1, when called upon to point out any material discrepancies, has failed to do so. On the other hand, he had to concede that there are no material discrepancies in the contents of the copy supplied to him which could mislead him as to cause prejudice to him. The first part of the issue No. i is, therefore answered against Respondent No. 1.

6. This brings me to the second part of issue No. 1 as to whether the petitioner has not complied with the requirements of section 81(3) of the Act by not attesting the copy of the petition under his own signatures to be a true copy of the original petition. The question that arises for consideration is whether the omission to sign and attest the copy of the election petition under the petitioners own signatures to be a true copy of the original election petition is fatal in this case. Before I deal with the matter, I does it appropriate to refer to some of the relevant provisions of the Act which have bearing on the point.

7. Sec 81 is under the head presentation of petitions. It reads as under:

"S.81. Presentation of petition—(1) An election petition calling in question any election petition cal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document