LexJAGAT KISHORE PRASAD NARAIN SINGH versus RAJENDRA KUMAR PODDAR AND ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G 821 JAGAT KISHORE PRASAD NARAIN SINGH v. RAJENDRA KUMAR PODDAR AND ORS. August 14, 1970 [J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.J R•presentation of the People Act, 1951, Ss. 81, 82, 86 and 111- Strious discrtpancies beMeen original petition- and copy supplied to res- ponde11t-lf 11on-comp/1iince with s. 81 (3 )-Whether petition liable to be dismissed 11nder s. 86. By· an election petition, the appellant challenged the validity of the first respondent's election to the Rajya Sabha from Bihar held in March, 1968. The grounds of challenge included allegations of corrupt practice by the first respondent. The High Court found that there were serious discrepancies between the original petition filed in the Court and the copy supplied to the first respondent. It dismissed the petition on the ground, Inter alia, that there was non-compliance with ·the provisions of ss. 81, 82 and 117 of the Representation of the People Act. 1951. On appeal to this Court, HELD : Dismissing the appeal, On a reference to only one of the discrepancies found by the High Court which related to allegations of corrupt practice it was clear that this discrepancy was bound to mislead the contesting respondents and pre- judice their defence. Pleadings in a case have great importance an<l that is more so in election petitions particularly when the returned. candidate is charged with corrupt practice. He must know what the charge against him is so that he may prepare his defence. If replying on the allegations in the copy of the petition served on him, the first respondent had collected evidence to show that that allegation was false then the entire basis of him is so that he may prepare his defence. If relying on the allegations to meet a totally different case. The law requires that a true copy of the election petition should be served on the respondents. That requirement had not been either fully or substantially complied with. Therefore the election petition was liable to be dismi,,ed under s. 86 of the Act. [825 A-CJ Murarka Radhey Sliyam Ram Kumai· v. Roop Singh Rat/tore and Ors .. [1964] 3 S.C.R. 573 and Cl!. S11bharao v. Member, Election Tribunal, Hyderabad, [1964] 6 S.C.R. 213; referred to CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISDICT!ON : Civii Appeal No. 1925 of. 1969. Appeal under s. 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 from the judgment and order dated July 1969 of the H Patna High Court in Election Petition No. I of 1968. M. C. Chag/a, D. N. Mishra and B. P. Singh, for tht appellant. 822 SUFREME COURT REPORTS [1971] l S.C.R. K. P. Verma, R. Goburdhun and D. Goburdhun, for respon- A de,nt No. 1. S. Saukat< Hussain, for respondent No. 13. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J.-This is an appeal under s. 1l6A of the Represen- tation of the People Act, 1951 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) from the judgment and order dated July 14, 1969 of the Patna High Court in Election Petition No. 1 of 1968. A biennial election to the Rajya Sabha was held in March 1968. In that election, Bihar Legislative Assembly had to elect seven members to the Rajya Sabha. Twenty persons contested for those seven seats. The app.ellant is one of them. The appel- lant failed to get the required number of votes. By means of an election petition which has given rise to this appeal, he challenged the validity ot the election of the 1st responde,nt on two grounds ri;.-( 1) that the nomination of respondent No. 1 was improperly accepted ·inasmuch as he was not qualified to be enrolled as an elector in the electoral roll of West Patna Assembly constituency for the time being in force on the ground that he was then not ordinarily resident in the said constituency, but was on the other hand, ordinarily resident in Alipur constituency of the West Ben- · gal Legislative Assembly and (2) that he was guilty of corrupt practic~ within the meaning of sub-s. (1) of s. 123 of the Act, in- asmuch as he had not only made offers but also payments of money to various electors as motive or reward for voting in his favour. The election petition was resisted by the 1st respondent on various grounds. One of the contention taken by him was that the petition was not in accordance with the provisions of ss. 81. 82 and 117 of the Act and therefore it was not maintainable. The High Court has accepted that contention. It has also rejected the other pleas taken by
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.