LexGAJANAN KRISHNAJI BAPAT AND ANOTHER versus DATTAJI RAGHOBAJI MEGHE AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c GAJANAN KRISHNAJI BAPAT AND ANOTHER v. DATTAJI RAGHOBAJI MEGHE AND OTHERS JULY 18, 1995 [AS. ANAND AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ .] Representation of People Act, 1951-Generally--Right to elect or be elected-Nature of-Whether statutory or common law right. Representation of People Act, 1951-Sections 81 and 98-Election result-When can be inteif ered with. Representation of People Act, 1951-5ections 123 and 87(2)-Charge of conupt practice-Nature of-Degree of proof required-Onus of proving charge-Liability of the returned candidate-Direct and circumstantial D evidence-Evidence Act, 187rSection 106. Representation of People Act, 1951-Section 83-Election Peti- tion-Pleadings-Requirement of-Code of Civil Procedure-Order VI. Representation of People Act, 1951-Section 116A-Appeal-Scope E of-Evidence-When can be reappraised. F Representation of People Act, 1951-Sections 77 and 123-Expenditure beyond pennissible limit-When amounts to conupt practice-Held, should be incun-ed or authorised by the returned candidate or his election agent. Representation of People Act, 1951-Section 77(1)-"ln connection with the election''-Meaning of-Expenses made after declaration of result-If included. Civil Procedure Code, 1908-0rder VI Rule 17-Election peti- G lion-Amendment of-When should be allowed-Further evidence on amended pleadings-Desirability of-Representation of People Act, 1951-Section 87(1). The appellants, who were electors of Nagpur Parliamentary Con- stituency, challenged the election of Respondent No. 1 to the Lok Sabha H from their constituency, on the ground that Respondent No. l/his election 186 - • --·--\ G.K. BAP AT v. D.R. MEG HE 187 agent had incurred expenditure far in excess of the limit of Rs. 1,50,000 A permitted under Section 77. It was alleged that the expenditure actually incurred/authorised by Respondent No. l/his elt.ction agent was shown to have been incurred by various organisations some of which were non- existent. The High Court allowed several amendment petitions, one of them after recording the evidence of some of the witnesses. The High Court also allowed the recall of some witnesses in view of the amendments allowed by it. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the High Court held that Respondent No. 1 had not disclosed an expenditure of Rs. 58,220 in his return of expenditure lodged under Section 78 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. However, even after addition of the said amount of Rs. 58,220 to the amount of expenditure shown in the return filed by the respondent No. 1, the total expenditure did not exceed the permissible limit of Rs. 1,50,000, the High Court held that the respondent No. 1 did not commit any "corrupt practice" and dismissed the election petition, The High Court held that 1180 liters of petrol had been purchased by respondent No. 1, the expenditure whereof had not been disclosed in the return of expenditure. The High Court calculated tlie amount of petrol consumed on the basis of oil- petrol ratio required in a particular car used B c D by respondent No. 1 during campaigning. The High Court held that to use E the quantity of oil purchased by respondent No. 1, 1180 liters of petrol in excess of that disclosed in the return was required and therefore, the High Court allowed the claim of the appellant that an amount of Rs. 17,900 incurred in purchase of petrol had not been disclosed by respondent No. 1. The High Court further held that certain expenditure made on adver- F tisements had not been disclosed by respondent No. 1. The appellants filed an appeal before this Court. Respondent No. 1 also filed a cross objection challenging the findings of the High Court which were against him. Before this court the appellant contended that G besides the amount found to have been suppressed by the High Court several other expenditure b1curred/authorized by respondent No. 1 had not been disclosed by him. The appellant alleged that respondent No. 1 got voters card distributed to all the voters of the Constituency incurring an expenditure of Rs. 2,25,000. Further, it was alleged that respondent No. 1 got posters printed at the cost of Rs. 3,40,250. It was also alleged by the H 188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A appellant that respondent No. 1 sent letters to all the voters in the Constituency through one Sarva Dharma Samajik Sangathan at the cost of Rs. 12,40,830. the appellant further all
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.