S. MANOJ Vs. ANTO ANTONY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The election of the sole respondent as the returned candidate from No. 17 Pathanamthitta Constituency of the House of the People (Lok Sabha) has been called in question in these Election Petitions. The petitioners in the Election Petitions are electors enrolled as voters in the Adoor Assembly Constituency forming part of No. 17 Pathanamthitta Constituency and have allegedly cast their votes. There were 16 candidates in the poll fray and the respondent had defeated his nearest rival by name Adv. Peelipose Thomas by a margin of 56191 votes. The specific case of the petitioners is that the respondent and his agents along with his brother induced another person by name Peelipose Thomas to contest as a candidate. There was an illegal gratification by payment of Rs. 25,000/- as bribe to the said Peelipose Thomas which was done through an account maintained in the Bank. The respondent has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the Election Petitions referring to the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ('the Act'). The alleged illegal gratification by the payment of Rs. 25,000/- to Peelipose Thomas who had also contested the election is 'bribery' which is deemed to be a corrupt practice under the Act. The respondent contends that Peelipose Thomas against whom also allegations of corrupt practice are made ought to have been joined as a respondent in the Election Petitions. The failure to join Peelipose Thomas as a respondent to the Election Petitions is fatal warranting the same to be dismissed as not maintainable at the threshold.

(2.) I heard Mr. K. Shaj, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. K. Ramakumar, Senior Advocate duly instructed by Mr. Saiby Dose Kidangoor, Advocate on behalf of the respondent.

(3.) The expression 'Corrupt Practices' has been defined under S. 123 of the Act as follows:-