9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the rejection of Jai Bhagawan's nomination paper. 2. Allegation of corrupt practice under Section 123(7)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 3. Preliminary objection regarding the appeal being filed beyond time. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the rejection of Jai Bhagawan's nomination paper: The appellant's election was challenged on the ground that the nomination paper of Jai Bhagawan was improperly rejected by the returning officer. The returning officer rejected the nomination paper under Section 36(2)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, due to the candidate's failure to produce a copy of the electoral roll of his constituency or a certified copy of the relevant entries at the time of scrutiny. The High Court upheld the rejection, stating that the statutory requirement to produce the prescribed document was mandatory and the failure to comply with it justified the rejection of the nomination paper. The Supreme Court agreed with this view, emphasizing that the statutory requirements of election law must be strictly observed and any failure to comply with them leads to the specific consequence prescribed by the statute. 2. Allegation of corrupt practice under Section 123(7)(c): The election petition also alleged that the appellant committed a corrupt practice by securing the assistance of Puran Singh, a member of the armed forces, as his polling agent. Both the tribunal and the High Court found that Puran Singh did not actively canvass for the appellant. However, they differed on whether Puran Singh was appointed as the appellant's polling agent. The High Court concluded that Puran Singh acted as the polling agent based on circumstantial evidence, including the similarity in handwriting on the forms appointing polling agents. The Supreme Court, however, found that there was no legal evidence to support the High Court's conclusion that the appellant had signed the form appointing Puran Singh. The Supreme Court emphasized that in cases involving allegations of corrupt practices, the evidence must be clear and conclusive. The circumstantial evidence presented did not irresistibly lead to the conclusion that the appellant had appointed Puran Singh as his polling agent. Therefore, the finding of the High Court on this point was reversed. 3. Preliminary objection regarding the appeal being filed beyond time: A preliminary objection was raised by Mr. Doabia, arguing that the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed time limit. The judgment under appeal was delivered on May 13, 1958, and the petition for leave to appeal was filed on September 2, 1958. The appellant had applied for leave to the Punjab High Court within the prescribed time, and his application was dismissed on August 22, 1958. The Supreme Court held that the time occupied by the application for leave in the High Court should be excluded in computing the period of limitation. The Court noted that it was a common practice for parties aggrieved by orders under Section 116A of the Act to apply for leave under Article 133 of the Constitution. Even if this practice was erroneous, the appellant had followed it in good faith, and the delay in filing the appeal was excused. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court, and dismissed the election petition filed by respondent 1. The Court held that the rejection of Jai Bhagawan's nomination paper was valid and that there was no legal evidence to support the allegation of corrupt practice against the appellant. The appeal was not dismissed on the ground of limitation as the delay in filing was excused.
|
