JOSEPH M PUTHUSSERY Vs. T S JOHN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, filed under Section 116A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (Rs. the Act for short), is directed against judgment dated August 8, 2005, rendered by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Election Petition No. 6 of 2001 by which the election of the Appellant as Member of Kerala Legislative Assembly from No. 106, Kallooppara Constituency is declared void on the ground that he was guilty of the corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123(4) of the Act as he extensively distributed directly and through UDF workers, who did so with his consent, the copies of Ext. X4, which contained statements of fact, which were false and which he believed to be false or did not believe to be true in relation to the personal character and conduct of the Respondent No. 1.

(2.) The facts, emerging from the record of the case, are as under: The election to the Kerala Legislative Assembly was held on May 10, 2001. From the Constituency, i.e., No. 106 Kallooppara Constituency, the Appellant, i.e., Joseph M. Puthussery, the Respondent No. 1, i.e., Advocate T.S. John, Prof. P.K. Rajasekharan Nair, i.e., the Respondent No. 2 and Mathew Pinakkulath Padinjaremannil, i.e., the Respondent No. 3, contested the election. The result of the election was declared on May 13, 2001 and the Appellant was declared elected with 42,238 votes cast in his favour. As far as the Respondent No. 1 is concerned, he was able to poll 31,013 votes. Thus, the Appellant defeated the Respondent No. 1 by a margin of 11,225 votes. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 received 4,432 and 361 votes respectively.

(3.) Having regard to the pleadings of the parties, the learned Single Judge framed as many as eight issues for determination. On behalf of the Respondent No. 1, who was the original Petitioner, as many as 90 witnesses were examined and documents Ext. P-1 to P-22 were produced in support of his case that the election of the Appellant was liable to be voided. So far as the Appellant is concerned, he had examined 53 witnesses and produced documents at Ext. R-1 to R-20 in support of his case that his election was not liable to be set aside on the ground of alleged corrupt practice. Further, Ext. C-1 to C-3(b) were marked as Court Exhibits whereas X-1 to X-24 documents were marked as proved by witnesses and Ext. N-1(a) and N-1(b) were marked by the persons to whom the court had issued notice under Section 99 of the Act.