Vinayagamoorthy V. Ponnambalam

1936 Present: Maartensz J.
 
In re ELECTION PETITION AGAINST THE RETURN OF G. G.

PONNAMBALAM AS MEMBER FOR POINT PEDRO.

VINAYAGAMOORTHY v. PONNAMBALAM

Election petition-Security for costs-Recognizance entered into by petitioner and sureties-Validity of form-Number of charges-Amount of security-Appointment of agent-Necessity for writing and stamp-Validity of notice given. by agent-Ceylon (State Council Elections) Order-in-Council 1931, Schedule VI, rules 9, 16, 18-Stamp Ordinance, No. 22 of 1909.

An election petition is not an instrument chargeable with stamp duty within the meaning of section 3, sub-section (14), of the Stamp Ordinance.

Where, in proceedings arising out of an election petition, a recognizance is entered under rule 16 of the rules in Schedule VI of the Ceylon (State Council Elections) Order-in-Council, 1931, whereby the petitioner and

his sureties bound themselves jointly and severally to the King and the condition of the recognizance was that it should become void if the petitioner and the sureties or any one of them paid all the costs, charges, and expenses payable by the petitioner in respect of the election petition,-

Held, that the terms of the recognizance were sufficient to satisfy the requirements of rule 16 of the rules in Schedule VI of the Ceylon (State Council Elections) Order-in-Council, 1931.

Wijeywardene v. Jayawardene (26 N. L. R. 193) followed.

Allegations in the petition that the candidate and his agent were guilty of undue influence and treating amount to no more than charges made against the candidate and they constitute two and not four charges for the purposes of Article 74 of the Order-in-Council.

A notice that security for costs has been given by a recognizance executed by the petitioner and his sureties is sufficient.

An appointment under rule 9 by which a person is authorized by the petitioner to act as his agent must be in writing and must be stamped.

A notice given under rule 18 by a person, whose appointment has not been duly stamped is bad.

Retrospective effect cannot be given to the letter of appointment by supplying the stamp as the rule requires notice to be given within a prescribed time.

THIS was an election petition filed on March 27, 1936, to have the election of the respondent for the Point Pedro electoral district declared void on the ground that the respondent and his agent were guilty of the following corrupt practices : -

(a) Undue influence on the day of the election and before that date.

(b) Treating.

(c) Bribery.

On the same day the petitioner filed a writing appointing a Proctor of the Supreme Court his agent with reference to the election petition to be filed against the respondent.

An instrument purporting to be a recognizance in the sum of Rs. 5,000 executed by the petitioner and two sureties was filed on March 31, 1936.

Notice of the filing of the petition and that the required security had been given by a recognizance executed by the petitioner and two sureties was published in the Government Gazette. The notice which was sent for publication was signed by the Proctor, as agent for the petitioner.

The respondent prayed for the dismissal of the petition on the following grounds:-

(1) That the petition was not duly stamped.

(2) That the recognizance was not in conformity with the rules 12 (2), and 16 of the rules in Schedule VI of the (State Council Elections) Order-in-Council.

(3) The recognizance was limited to Rs. 5. 00G, although the petitioner alleged more than three charges.

(4) The notice published in the Government Gazette was not in compliance with rule 18 as the writing appointing the Proctor, was not duly stamped and the notice did not. set out the nature of the security given.

H. V. Perera, K. C. (with him N. Nadarajah, E. B. Wikramanayake, D. W. Fernando, Thambidurai, and Soorasangaran), for respondent. - Security is not given as i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document