9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Commission of corrupt practices of undue influence under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1961. 2. Making appeal on the ground of caste under Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: 1. Commission of Corrupt Practices of Undue Influence (Section 123(2)): The first issue pertains to the allegation of undue influence by the appellant. The respondent claimed that the appellant used force to prevent the respondent's supporters from canvassing and voting, and that bogus votes were polled in favor of the appellant. Specific incidents in the villages of Dumduma and Mukhraon were highlighted. Evidence was presented showing that on January 30, 1969, the appellant and his workers restrained the respondent's workers in Dumduma using lathis and brickbats. Similarly, on January 31, 1969, in Mukhraon, the appellant's workers prevented the respondent's workers from canvassing by throwing brickbats. The High Court found these charges proved and concluded that these actions constituted undue influence, leading to the setting aside of the appellant's election. 2. Making Appeal on the Ground of Caste (Section 123(3)): The second issue involves the appellant making appeals on the ground of caste. The appellant, a Bhumihar Brahmin, allegedly leveraged his caste identity to garner votes. Swami Bimlanand Saraswati, also a Bhumihar Brahmin, campaigned for the appellant, appealing to voters of the same caste to support the appellant. The High Court found that Swamiji made caste-based appeals in several villages including Harpur, Piprarh, Kanahari, Sujatpur, Chhitandihra, and Kuchhila. The evidence included oral testimonies and a letter (Ext. I) written by Swamiji to Ram Chandra Sharma, urging him to support the appellant on caste grounds. The High Court held that these appeals constituted a corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the Act. Evidence and Findings: - Village Harpur: Witnesses including Ram Chandra Sharma, Ramnath Singh Yadav, and Suraj Nath Rai testified that Swamiji made caste-based appeals. The High Court found their testimonies credible, supported by the letter Ext. I. - Village Piprarh: Witnesses Jadunandan Rai and Sarabjeet Rai testified about the caste appeal. The High Court found their evidence reliable. - Village Kanahari: Witnesses Bindhyachal Rai, Deonandan Singh, and Manrakhan Rai testified. Despite some being polling agents for the respondent, the High Court found their testimonies credible. - Village Sujatpur: Witnesses Sarabjeet Singh and Kamla Rai testified about the caste appeal. The High Court accepted their evidence. - Village Chhitandihra: Witnesses Raj Narain Rai and Nethuni Rai testified. The High Court found their testimonies credible. - Village Kuchhila: Witnesses including Abbas Mian, Lalmani Rai, Radha Mohan Rai, Digeshwar Rai, and Lalbahadur Rai testified about the caste appeal. The High Court found their evidence credible. The High Court's findings were based on the credibility of the witnesses and the supporting evidence, including the letter from Swamiji. The appellant's failure to examine Swamiji as a witness weakened his defense. The High Court's judgment was upheld, confirming the commission of corrupt practices under Section 123(3). Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's findings of corrupt practices under Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1961. The election of the appellant was rightly set aside on these grounds. The issue of undue influence under Section 123(2) was not further examined, as the finding of corrupt practices on caste grounds was sufficient to dispose of the appeal. Result: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
