MAGRAJPATODIA Vs. R K BIRLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises the question as to the validity of the election of Mr. R. K. Birla to the Lok Sabha, in the General Election held in 1967, from the Jhunjhunu constituency in the State of Rajasthan. The election for that constituency was held in the month of February 1967. The notification calling upon the constituency to elect one member to the Lok Sabha was published on January 13, 1967. The last date for filing the nomination was January 20, 1967. Several persons filed their nominations but some out of them withdrew later. Eleven persons including Mr. R. K. Birla (respondent No. 1) and Mr. Morarka Radheshyam (Respondent No. 2) contested the election. The polling took place on February 15, 18 and 20th. Counting commenced on the 21st of that month and completed on the 23rd on which date results were declared. According to the declaration made by the returning officer, respondent No. 1 secured 1,50,546 votes and respondent No. 2, 1,04,023. It is not necessary to refer to the other candidates in the course of this judgment Respondent No. 1 was declared elected.

(2.) The appellant who is a voter in the Jhunjhunu constituency and a supporter of Mr. Morarka challenged the election of the respondent under S. 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act) on various grounds. His petition was tried and dismissed by a single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court. Thereafter he has brought this appeal under S. 116A of the Act.

(3.) The election of respondent No, 1 was challenged on various grounds. It was alleged that he had committed corrupt practices coming under S. 123 (1) (bribery) , 123 (4) (false statements as regards the personal character and conduct of respondent No. 2) , 123 (5) (hiring or procuring vehicles for the free conveyance of electors) and 123 (6) (incurring or authorising the incurring of expenditure in contravention of S. 77) . The respondent denied the allegations made against him. At the trial of the case most of the grounds alleged in support of the petition were not pressed. At present we are only concerned with the allegation that respondent No. 1 had incurred or authorised the expenditure in contravention of S. 77 in connection with his election. Section 77 of the Act reads: