VIRINDAR KUMAR SATYAWADI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was candidate for election to the House of the People from the Karnal Reserved Constituency during the last General Elections. The proviso to S. 33 (3) of the Representation of the People Act (XLIII) of 1951), omitting what is not material, enacts "that in a constituency where any seat is reserved for the Scheduled Castes, no candidate shall be deemed to be qualified to be chosen to fill that seat unless his nomination paper is accompanied by a declaration verified in the prescribed manner that the candidate is a member of Scheduled Caste for which the candidate is a member of the Scheduled Castes for which the seat has been so reserved and the declaration specifies the particular caste of which the candidate is a member and also the area in relation to which such caste is of the Scheduled Castes". Rule 6 of the Election Rules provides that the declaration referred to in the above proviso shall be verified by the candidate on oath or solemn affirmation before a Magistrate. Schedule II contains the form of nomination paper to be used, with the terms in which the declaration is to be made by the candidate and verified by the Magistrate. On 5-11-1951 the appellant signed two nomination papers, each containing the following declaration:

(2.) On 27-8-1952 Jai Ram Sarup filed the application out of which the present appeal arises, under Ss. 476 and 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the District Magistrate, who functioned as the returning officer. He therein alleged that the declaration made by the appellant that he belonged to the Balmiki caste was false,; that, in fact, he was born a Muslim and had been converted to Hinduism, and that therefore 'in the interests of the Scheduled Castes", proceedings should be taken for his prosecution. In his counter- affidavit the appellant stated:

(3.) Against this order, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Karnal, who dismissed the same on the ground that the returning officer was not a Court, that the proceedings before him did not fall under S. 746, and that therefore no appeal lay under S. 746-B . The appellant took the matter in revision before the High Court, Punjab, and that was heard by Harnam Singh J., who held, differing from the Sessions Judge, that the returning officer was a Court, and that his order was therefore appealable. He, however, held that on the merits there was no case for interference, and accordingly dismissed the revision. It is against this order that the present appeal by special leave is directed.