L R SHIVARAMAGOWDA Vs. T M CHANDRASHEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals have been filed under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dated the 27th day of September, 1991 in Election Petition No. 15 of 1990. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 4272 of 1991 is the first respondent in the other appeal and the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 4379 of 1991 is the first respondent in the former appeal. The parties will be referred to in this judgment in accordance with their ranking in Civil Appeal No. 4272 of 1991.

(2.) The appellant was the successful candidate in the election held in November, 1989 to 101 Nagamangala Assembly Constituency in the State of Karnataka having polled 48654 votes as against 17165 votes polled by the first respondent. The appellant contested the election as an independent candidate while the first respondent represented the Congress-I party. The election was challenged by the first respondent on grounds of corrupt practices by the appellant falling within the scope of Section 123 of the Act. In short, the following were the allegations made by the first respondent in the Election Petition:

(3.) The petition was contested by the appellant who denied all the allegations contained therein. The High Court framed as many as eight issues for consideration and after trial decided the first six in favour of the appellant. While answering Issue No. 7 in the affirmative the High Court held that the appellant had not maintained true and correct account of expenditure incurred or authorised by him which amounted to corrupt practice. On issue No. 8, the High Court observed that the expenditure incurred by the appellant was not proved to have crossed the prescribed limit but the appellant was guilty of suppression of true accounts. On the aforesaid findings the High Court declared that the election of the appellant was void and set it aside. However, the High Court found that the prayer of the first respondent that he be declared elected could not be granted in view of the number of votes polled by him being considerably low and that the voters must have a free choice to elect their representative to achieve which, fresh election for the constituency became imperative.