SHANKARAGOUDA Vs. SIRUR VEERABHADRAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against the order dated 14-11-1959 by the Election Tribunal, Raichur (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), in Election Petition No. 258 of 1957 on its file. Shirur Veerabhadrappa Veerappa as a candidate on behalf of the Lok Sevak Sangha and Shankaragouda Basan Gouda as a candidate on behalf of the Congress Party, contested for a seat in the Mysore Legislative Assembly from the Yelburga Constituency of Raichur District, Mysore State, in the last general election of 1957. Shirur Veerabhadrappa Veerappa having polled only 14,500 votes, Shankargouda Basan Gouda was declared duly elected, he having polled 20,541 votes. Thereupon, Shirur Veerabhadrappa Veerappa filed an election petition under Section 80 of the Act alleging that because of the various corrupt practices committed by the respondent, his agent and persons interested in the respondent with his consent, the election of the respondent was void; Shirur Veerabhadrappa Veerappa had also further claimed that he should be declared to be duly elected. All these allegations were denied by Shankara Gouda. The Tribunal framed issues in respect of the matters in controversy and each side examined a number of witnesses. After trial, the Tribunal found that practically every one of the corrupt practices alleged had been committed and allowed the petition declaring the election of Shankaragouda as void and further declared that Shirur Veerabhadrappa Veerappa had been duly elected. It is against this order of the Tribunal, that Shankara Gouda has filed the present appeal. For the sake of convenience, Shirur Veerabhadrappa Veerappa, who was the petitioner before the Tribunal, will be referred to by us also, as the petitioner; Shankaragouda, who was the respondent before the Tribunal and who is the appellant before us, will be referred to, as the appellant.

(2.) Practically every corrupt practice covered by Section 123 of the Act had been alleged by the Petitioner. Amongst other contentions, the petitioner had alleged in para 11 (4) of his petition that as the appellant is the pattedar Mali Patel of Halwagli in Koppal Taluk, he was holding an office of profit under the State Government and that as the same had not been declared by the Legislature of the Stat not to disqualify its holder, the appellant was, under Article 191 of the Constitution, disqualified for being chosen as a member of the Mysore Legislative Assembly. This contention had been covered by the first issue framed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal treated this as a preliminary issue and by its order dated 22-11-1958 held that though the appellant held office of profit he was by reason of the provisions of the Hyderabad Legislative Assembly (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, XVIII of 1955, not disqualified for being chosen as a member of the Mysore Legislative Assembly. It will be more convenient to deal with the contentions of the learned Advocates in regard to the Tribunal's finding on this issue, after dealing with the contentions in regard to the other issues.

(3.) I will proceed to consider the arguments of the learned Advocates in respect of each of the corrupt practices alleged and the findings of the Tribunals thereon. The first corrupt practice alleged is bribery. The main allegation is in Para 3 (a) of the petition; the details are mentioned in the first part of para 5 of the petition and para 1 of the schedule; the names of the appellant's agents and workers who were parties to the corrupt practices are mentioned in the petitioner's rejoinder statement. This bribery or gratification, as alleged, was in the following four forms;