HUKAM SINGH Vs. BANWARI LAL BIPRA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGEMENT This is an appeal under S. 116-A of the Representation of the People Act from the judgment of Sri H.K. Sinha, District Judge of Agra appointed as Tribunal under that Act to try an election petition filed by Hukam Singh, appellant questioning the election of Banwari Lal Bipra respondent No. 1, who was elected to the Uttar Pradesh Assembly from 364 Fatehabad Constituency in Agra district in the general elections held in February 1962. The appellant was one of the contesting candidates and so were the other respondents impleaded in this appeal. The roll was taken on the 19th February 1962. As a result of the counting; of votes Banwari Lal Bipra respondent No. 1 obtained 10,988 votes and Hukam Singh appellant obtained 10,939 votes. Thus there was a difference of 47 votes only between the appellant and respondent No. 1, the other contesting candidates obtaining far lesser number of votes. Accordingly Banwari Lal Bipra respondent No. 1, was declared elected. Appellant Hukam Singh then filed an election petition calling in question the election of Banwari Lal Bipra respondent No. 1, on various grounds based on Ss. 100 and 123 of the Representation of the People Act and also prayed that after declaring the election of Banwari Lal Bipra to be void he may be declared to have been duly elected.

(2.) WE are not concerned in this appeal with the case of the parties challenging the election on charges of corrupt practice under S. 123 of the Act and therefore it would not be necessary to mention the pleadings of the parties in respect of those charges. What we are concerned with are the grounds under Ss. 100(d)(III) and (IV) of the Act questioning the election and the grounds under S. 101 of the Act on the basis of which the appellant prayed to be declared to have been elected. The averments in paragraph 6 of the petition constituted the pleas questioning the election grounded on S. 100 of the Act. The grounds which were detailed and amplified in sub-paragraph A related to impersonation. It was alleged that the votes were received of electors who were dead or who did not actually come to vote and the votes were cast in their names by persons impersonating them. As the Tribunal found that the petitioner was not able to prove impersonation and that finding has not been challenged in this appeal before us we are not called upon to consider that finding and the evidence given by the parties on that question. The main points which fall for consideration in this appeal concern the grounds made out on the averments made in sub-para B of para 6 of the petition. It would be convenient at this stage to reproduce the contents of this sub-paragraph which are as follows :-

(3.) THE Tribunal on the pleadings of the parties in respect of the averments in sub-paragraph B of the petition framed issues numbers 2, 3, 4 and 5 which are as follows :-