9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Wrongful rejection of nomination. 2. Allegation of bribery and corrupt practices. 3. Compliance with mandatory provisions of section 83. 4. Validity of the finding under section 99 without notice. Detailed Analysis: 1. Wrongful Rejection of Nomination: The appellant's election was contested on the grounds that the nomination of one Mali Singh had been wrongly rejected by the returning officer. The Tribunal upheld this contention and set aside the election. 2. Allegation of Bribery and Corrupt Practices: The appellant was accused of bribery, specifically granting a "good work allowance" of Rs. 5 per month to sweepers of the Small Town Committee, Dhuri, during the election period to induce them to vote for him. The Tribunal found that the appellant, who was then Minister for Health and in charge of Local Administration, had indeed offered to raise the sweepers' pay in exchange for their votes. The Tribunal concluded that the order dated 7-12-1951, granting the allowance, was the result of this bargain and thus constituted bribery. 3. Compliance with Mandatory Provisions of Section 83: The appellant contended that the allegations in the election petition were vague and lacked particulars, arguing that the petition should have been dismissed under sections 83 and 85 of the Representation of the People Act. The Tribunal, however, accepted the evidence that the appellant had offered to increase the sweepers' pay to secure their votes. The High Court and the Supreme Court both held that the allegations were sufficient to raise the issue of bribery and that the appellant had ample opportunity to call for particulars if he was genuinely embarrassed by the vagueness of the charges. Therefore, the contention that the petition should have been dismissed for lack of particulars was rejected. 4. Validity of the Finding Under Section 99 Without Notice: The appellant argued that the finding of corrupt practice under section 99 was invalid because no notice was given to him as required by the proviso to section 99. The Supreme Court held that the proviso to section 99, which requires notice to be given to persons before they are named for corrupt practices, applies only to those who had no opportunity to participate in the trial. Since the appellant was a party to the petition and had ample opportunity to be heard, no additional notice was required. The Court also noted that the proviso aims to ensure natural justice by giving an opportunity to be heard, which the appellant had already received during the trial. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's findings of wrongful rejection of nomination and bribery. The Court concluded that the allegations in the election petition were sufficient, and the appellant had been given adequate opportunity to defend himself. The finding under section 99 was valid despite the lack of additional notice, as the appellant had participated fully in the trial. No costs were awarded as the respondent did not appear to contest the appeal.
|
