Bench:
SK Sen
Issues:
Whether the election petition is maintainable due to the corrupt practices involved?
Facts:
- The petitioner, in an election, won more than 60 thousand votes while the respondent got over 59 thousand.
- The petitioner won in the election but lost in the election petition appeals in the smaller courts, which was under Sec 116A of the Representation of the People Act,1951 (RPA).
- Under Sec 99 of the RPA Act, Ramesh Prabhoo Vs PrabhakarKunte was referred & theelection petition was ordered to be decided afresh.
Appellant's contentions:
- Under Sec 100 (1) (d) of the RPA Act, the returned candidate has committed many corrupt practices.
- It is proved that under Sec 123 of the RPA Act, corrupt practices were done, thus the returned candidate’s 216 SabangLegislative Assembly constituency should be declared void by the court.
- Political machinery of CPI actively propagated for the respondent, they were working diligently for the respondent.
Respondent's contentions:
- The respondent challenged that the election was void.
- A recount of the votes was contended.
- The respondent is not guilty for any corrupt practices on his part as per Sec 100 of the RPA Act.
Final judgement:
- The respondent is guilty of the alleged corrupt practices under RPA Act.
- The trial of the election petition was done in such a manner that it defeated the purpose of jurisdiction under the Representation of People (Amendment) Act, 1966, election petition should be like a civil trial.
- There has been defective framing of the issues through the material & the recording of the evidence was done over 120 days & was recorded in big volumes when it could have been done much sooner in brief.
- Sec 146, 148, 150, 151 & 152 of the Evidence Act should have been properly followed through.
- In Ram Chandar Vs State of Haryana, it was stated that the judge has to be a participant in the trial.
