BABURAO BAGAJI KAREMORE Vs. GOVIND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent Govind Ramji Shende was declared elected as a member of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from Bhandara general constitutency on March 11, 1972. Fifteen persons had filed their nomination papers, before the last date for filing the nomination on February 8, 1972. These nomination papers were duly scrutinised on February 9, 1972 and accepted as valid. By the date fixed for withdrawal on February 11, 1972, eleven persons who had filed their nominations withdrew their candidature leaving only four persons to contest the election. Of these the first respondent contested the election as an independent candidate, the second respondent Tirpude, contested on Congress (R) ticket, the third respondent contested as a Republican Party (Khobragade Group) and the fourth respondent as a Republican Party (Gaikwad Group) candidates. These candidates polled respectively 41,511:24, 224:3,585 and 564 votes. As we have said earlier, the first respondent was declared elected as he had polled the highest number of votes and with a substantial majority of 17,287 votes.

(2.) Four electors from the constituency, of whom the first petitioner Baburao Bagaji Karemore was one, filed a joint petition challenging the election of the first respondent on various grounds of corrupt practices under Section 100 read with sub-section s(1), (2), (3), (3A), (4), (5), and (6) of Section 123 and for contravention of the provisions of Section 127A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 - hereinafter called Rs. the Act'. It was alleged in the petition that the first respondent did not keep separate and correct account of all the expenditure incurred and authorised in connection with his election between the date of the publication of the notification of holding the election and the date of the declaration of the results thereof. Nor were these accounts kept in accordance with the provisions of S.77 of the Act read with Rule 86 of the Conduct of Election Rules - hereinafter called Rs. the Rules' - by not showing distinctly the date on which the expenditure was incurred or authorised, the nature of the expenditure, the amount of the expenditure, i.e. the amount paid and the amouunt outstanding, the date of payment, the names and addresses of payees, the serial number of bills and the names and addresses of the persons to whom outstanding are payable. It is also alleged that the first respondent has not obtained a voucher for every item of expenditure and the vouchers are not arranged serially in chronological order according to the date of payment as prescribed by Section 77 of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Although the outside limit of the expenditure which a candidate at an election to the Legislative Assembly was Rs.12,000/- the first respondent suppressed many items of expenditure which were in excess of that amount such an expenditure on items relating to petrol vehicle, printing, painting, loudspeaker and generator, hire charges of cycles, badges, serving of food and refreshment, processions and public meetings, bands, construction of booths, payment made to workers, office establishment etc. Apart from these suppressions, it is also alleged that M.T. Dalal R. W.1, and Shivshankar Ninave R.W. 10 who were active agents of the first respondent were carrying on systematic propaganda on his behalf and they were also incurring expenditure with the consent of the first respondent as well as his election agent Bhole and were authorised to incur expenditure on behalf of the first respondent. Apart from these two persons it was also alleged that Kharabe and Waghaye, father in law and maternal uncle respectively of the first respondent and Ramji Gaidhane who were actually carrying on a systematic election campaign and propaganda on behalf of the first respondent also incurred expenses on various items with the consent and authority of the first respondent and his election agent Bhole, which expenses were not shown in the return of election expenditure submitted by the first respondent. Several other instances were also given by the petitioners and it was alleged that if all these items of expenditure were included in the return of expenditure, the limit of Rs.12,000/- would exceed.

(3.) Secondly, it was alleged by the petitioners that in an election meeting held at Shahid Maidan of Bhandara on February 18, 1972 on behalf of the first respondent. Jambuwantrao Dhote, who belonged to the Maha Vidarbha Sangharsh Samiti and was actively supporting the candidature of the first respondent made a false statement of fact which he himself as well as the first should believed to be false or did not believe it to be true in relation to the personal character and conduct of respondent No.2 Tirpude as well as petitioners No. 1 Karemore. The said Jambuwantrao Dhote is alleged to have made a statement in his speech in that meeting that the respondent No.2 (Tirpude) secured the withdrawal of the petitioner No.1 (Karemore) by giving him a bribe of Rs.60,000/-. It was also alleged that these false statements were made by Dhote in the presence of the first respondent and with his consent and that the first respondent was present in the meeting when Dhote delivered the speech and also spoke subsequently in the same meeting. According to the petitioners, the first respondent got the said statement published in the Bhandara Times, a weekly, in its issue date February 23, 1972, which newspaper was for all practical purposes acting as his agent. At any rate, the statement was published with the consent of the first respondent and his election agent.