M. HIDAYATULLAH, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under Section 116-A read with Section 98 of the representation of the People Act against the decision of the Election Tribunal, morena, in Election Petition No. 247 of 1957 decided on 31 March 1958. The petition was filed by the present appellant Jamuna Prasad Singly who was an elector in the constituency. The election relates to the Legislative Assembly of the state from the Ambah single-member constituency. As many as 7 candidates contested the election, and the first respondent Shri Ramnivas was returned as elected.

( 2 ) IN his petition the present appellant set out a number of grounds which were all decided against him with the result that the election petition was ordered to be dismissed. In this appeal the findings on most of the major points have been challenged before us, but the discussion of the election appeal can be dealt with under 14 distinct heads. In addition to the corrupt practices which were alleged against the returned candidate and others, there are matters of a procedural character, which are also included. We need not try to separate the two because the sequel will show our decision both on the procedural aspect of the case and on merits. ( 3 ) I. By an order dated the 24th September 1957, issue No. 18 which was framed in the case was disallowed. Previous to this an application had been made on the 5th August 1957 for the amendment of an averment on which the issue was based. The application for amendment itself was dismissed by an order dated the 12th August 1957. The appellant challenges not only the order of dismissal of the contention contained in the 18th issue but also questions the order of the Tribunal with regard to the decision on the amendment question. We shall deal first with the amendment and then pass on to the decision of the issue.

( 4 ) IN view of the fact that in the petition which was filed the petitioner had alleged that Huzuri dacoit had exercised undue influence over electors of the Ambah constituency between the 28th February 1957 and 4th March 1957 and had threatened the electors with injury to life and property and thus compelled them to vote for respondent No. 6, the issue, which was framed, correctly reflected this aspect of the controversy and mentioned specifically that the acts of Huzuri dacoit were calculated to benefit respondent No. 6. If this was a fact, there would be a corrupt practice committed in the interests of respondent No. 6, and in view of the provisions of Sections 100 and 123 of the representation of the People Act this matter could not be gone into in an enquiry against the present returned candidate. By his application for amendment the petitioner sought to change respondent No. 6 to respondent No. 1. It may be pointed out that a period of almost four months had passed between the filing of the petition and the date of the application for amendment. During this time some of the respondents had already filed their written statements, and the first respondent, who was affected by the amendment, had also tendered his written statement on the 5th August when the application for amendment was made. In view of this delay the Tribunal did not accept the plea that the amendment was bona fide or was sought with is little delay as was possible. The Tribunal, therefore, disallowed the amendment. The application for amendment of the original petition by correction of clerical and typing errors contains no other correction of such a vital nature as this. We do not think that for a long period of four months the petition would not have been scanned by the petitioner or his counsel. If so a mistake of this vital character would have been noticed much earlier. Indeed, there was no need for the counsel for the petitioner or the petitioner to have written 'no. 6' in handwriting in another part if the allegation had been made in respect of the first respondent. The typist had left that place blank. We are of the opinion that th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document