BALDEV SINGH MANN Vs. GURCHARAN SINGH MLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been directed against the judgment dated November 8, 1993 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissing the Election Petition No.13 of 1992 (reported in AIR 1994 Punj and Har 66) filed by the appellant herein challenging the election of the return candidate S. Gurcharan Singh, the first respondent.

(2.) The election for Punjab Legislative Assembly was held in February, 1992. The appellant was sponsored by Shriromani Akali Dal as a candidate from 87-Dirba Constituency while the respondent No.1 S. Gurcharan Singh was fielded by the Congress party and the respondent No.2 Chet Singh was a candidate set up by Bahujan Samaj Party. The respondent No.3 S. Amarjit Singh contested the election from the said constituency as an independent candidate. The date of polling was February 19, 1992 and the result was declared next date i.e. on February 20, 1992 according to which the respondent No.1 secured the highest number or votes having polled 3072 votes while the appellant had secured only 2624 votes. The respondent No.2 had polled 1925 votes and the respondent no.3 polled only 75 votes. The respondent No.1 having secured higher number of votes was declared elected from 87-Dirbra Constituency.

(3.) The appellant challenged the election of the returned candidate, respondent No.1 herein by presenting an election petition under Part VI of the Act of declaring his election as void and to declare the appellant himself as duly elected candidate for the said constituency in place of the first respondent. The appellant called in question the election of the respondent No.1 on the allegations that he had indulged in the commission of the corrupt practice of booth capturing by himself and through his agent within the meaning of Section 123(8) read with Section 135-A of the Act. The details of the allegations with regard to various booth capturing are pleaded in sub-paras I, II, III, IV, V and VI of para 3 of the election petition which have also been reproduced verbatim by the High Court in the impugned judgment. It is, therefore, not necessary to catelogue all those allegations herein again.