NEPAL CHANDRA ROY Vs. NETAI CHANDRA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under S. 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter to be referred as the-Act) is from the order and judgment, dated 25/03/1970, of the Calcutta High court in election petition No. 1 of 1969, setting aside the election of the appellant from the 130-Jorabagan Assembly Constituency after declaring the same void. After hearing arguments in the appeal, we passed on February 9, 1971, the following order :

(2.) In the mid-term elections held on 9/02/1969, the appellant nepal Chandra Roy was the Congress candidate for election to the Legislative assembly from 130-Jorabagan Assembly constituency situated in the State of West Bengal. The third respondent Har Prasad Chatterjee, contested the election as the candidate of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). Respondents Nos. 2 and 4 were also candidates in the said election. Both of them were defeated and we are not concerned with them in these proceedings. "the poll respondent got 28,315. As the appellant received 1,066 more than the next contesting candidate, namely, the third respondent, the appellant was duly declared elected. The first respondent Netai Das as an elector of the 130-Jorabagan Assembly constituency, Calcutta, filed on 24/03/1969, election petition No. I of 1969, challenging the election of the appellant on various grounds. He alleged that the appellant was guilty of various acts of corrupt practice. Such allegations were made by him in paragraph 7, sub-paragraphs (a) to (c) as well as Paragraphs 8, 12 and 15 of the election petition. The first respondent prayed for setting aside the election of the appellant after declaring it void. He also prayed for a declaration that the third respondent has been duly elected in the said election to the West Bengal Legislative Assembly. Though the election petitioner alleged in the election petition various acts of corrupt practice, yet during the trial and at the final stage of hearing of the election petition he gave up several of these allegations. Ultimately he pressed for the relief only on the basis of the allegations made in paragraphs 7 (b) (1) and (2) , 7 (c) , 7 (j) , 7 (A) , 7{l) and 7 (m). The appellant contested the allegations made by the election petitioner. The material allegations of corrupt practice as well as the pleas of the appellant will be referred to later. The learned Judge held that the election petitioner has not succeeded in proving the allegations of corrupt practice made in Paragraphs 7 (b) (l) and (2) and 7 (c) of the election petition. However, the learned Judge found that the allegations contained in Paragraphs 7 (J) , 7 (k) , 7 (1) and 7 (m) were proved, and on those findings declared the election of the appellant to be void and set aside the same. The learned judge, however, has not declared the third respondent to have been duly elected. The material elements of corrupt practice that have been foundby the court to have been committed by the appellant are) as mentioned earlier, those alleged in Paragraphs 7 (J) , 7 (k) , 7 (1) and 7 (m). They are as follows:

(3.) The first respondent with reference to the above allegations lias replied as follows: