TIRATH SINGH Vs. BACHITTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was a candidate for election to the Legislative Assembly of the State of PEPSU from the Dhuri Constituency and having secured the largest number of votes was declared duly elected. The first respondent who is one of the electors in the Constituency filed the petition out of which the present appeal arises, for setting aside the election on the grounds, 'inter alia', (1) that the nomination of one Mali Singh had been wrongly rejected by the returning officer, and (2) that the appellant was guilty of the corrupt practice of bribery. The Tribunal held that both these grounds were made out, and accordingly set aside the election. It further recorded a finding in terms of S. 99(1)(a), Representation of the People Act 43 of 1951 that the appellant was proved to have committed the corrupt practice of bribery as mentioned in S. 123(1) of the Act. The Appellant thereupon filed in the High Court of Patiala and East Punjab States Union an application under Art. 227 attacking the finding of the Tribunal that he was guilty of bribery. The order of the Tribunal in so far as it set aside his election was not challenged. By order dated 12-1-1954 the High Court upheld the findings of the Tribunal, and dismissed the application, and by order dated 7-6-1954 granted a certificate for appeal to this Court under Art, 133(1)(c). That is how the appeal comes before us.

(2.) On behalf of the appellant, the learned Attorney-General raised two contentions:(1) The findings that the appellant was guilty of bribery was reached in disregard of the mandatory provisions of S. 83, and that it was besides open to other legal objections; and (2) the findings recorded under section 99 of the Act was bad, because no notice was given to the appellant, and no enquiry held as required by the proviso to S. 99. This point was not taken in the application under Art. 227, and was sought to be, raised at the time of the argument in the High Court; but the learned Judges declined to entertain it.

(3.) (1) On the first question, the complaint of the appellant is that in the election petition the allegations relating to bribery were vague and wanting in particulars and that the petition should accordingly have been dismissed under Ss. 83 and 85 of the Act; that the charge that was sought to be proved it the hearing was at variance with the charge as alleged in the petition, and that the Tribunal had erred in giving a finding of bribery on the basis not of the allegations in the petition but of the evidence adduced at the trial. The allegations in the petition relating to this charge are as follows: