KONDAVETI GURUNATH REDDY Vs. V SESHAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under section 116A of the Representation or the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") from the order of the Election Tribunal of Andhra Pradesh dated January 10, 1964, in Election petition No. 81 of 1962, whereby the election of the Communist candidate, Kondaveti Gurunath Reddy, to the Legislative Assembly of Andhra Pradesh from Chinnakondur constituency of Nalgonda District at the General Election held in February 1962, was set aside. A further prayer in the Election petition that the Congress candidate, Konda Lakshman Bapuji should be declared to have been duly elected, was however rejected. The Election Petition was filed by two voters of the constituency by names, V. Sesbaiah and G. Anantha Reddy, and to the Election Petition the three candidates who had contested the election, namely, Kondaveti Gurunath Reddy, Konda Lakshman Bapuji, and Gummakala Narayan Reddy who stood on the Congress, Communisl and Swatantra tickefs, were impleaded as Respondents 1, 2 and 3 respectively. In this appeal we shall, for the sake of convenience refer to the parties as they were arrayed before the Election Tribunal. Polling took place on February 19, 1962 and the result of the poll was announced on February 26. Respondent-1 secured 20,967 votes, Respondent-2, 20,411 votes; Respondent-3, 1,454 votes and there were 2,087 invalid votes. Respondent-1 was, therefore, declared as duly elected. Subsequently the petitioners filed the present Election Petition questioning the election of Respondent-1 on the main ground that he and his agents had resorted to various corrupt practices during the election. The principal corrupt practices alleged were bribery, undue influence and appeal to voters on the basis of caste and community, falling within the mischief of Subsections 1, 2 and 3 of Section 123 of the Act. As many as 22 instances of bribery, 16 instances of undue influence and 35 instances of caste appeal were alleged in the Election Petition. Respondent-1 in his turn filed a Recrimination Petition against Respondent-2 alleging various corrupt practices by the latter and his agents.

(2.) After a protracted trial, in which a mass of oral and documentary evidence was let in by the parties, the Tribunal, after carefully sifting and weighing the evidence, held as proved beyond reasonable doubt four instances or bribery by treating the electors to sendhi or toddy two instances of undue influence by intimidating the voters and two instances of caste appeal to wean away the voters, while holding that the other allegations in the Election Petition and the allegations in the Recrimination Petition had not been substantiated. In the result, the Tribunal declared the election of Respondent-1 to be void but declined to declare Respondent-2 as having been duly elected.

(3.) In this appeal, Mr. Raghuvir, the learned Advocate for the appellant-Respondent-1, took us through the material portions of the record and contended that the findings of the Tribunal are vitiated by an incorrect appreciation of the relevant evidence.