SAJJANSINGH VERMA Vs. SURENDRA VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By a plurality of less than 123 votes, (123 votes to be exact as reduced from initial margin of 146 votes) on recount of votes in terms of Rule 63 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (for short 'the Rules'), respondent No. 1 (Surendra Verma), a candidate sponsored by Bhartiya Janta Party was declared elected on 1st December, 1993 from Sonkatcha Constituency No. 277 of the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly in the general election held on 27th November, 1993 defecation his main rival, the petitioner, a candidate put up by Indian National Congress. Respondents Nos. 2 to 6, ex parte here, were also in the field and polled poorly. The petitioner has filed this Election Petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act') calling in question the election of the respondent No. 1 on the ground specified in Sections 100 and 101 of the Act to obtain triple reliefs as noted below : -

(2.) The allegation of 'corrupt practice' mainly rests on the linchpin of alleged objectionable speeches by Parmanadji and Ritumbhara Devi with the consent of respondent No. 1 in a general meeting at Tehsil Maidan, Tonk Khurd, District Dewas, part of the aforesaid Constituency, on 24-11-1993 ostensibly organised by Hindu Chetna Manch and Bajrangdal, prone to promote feelings of hatred and enmity among different classes of citizens, particularly Hindus and Mohammedan on the ground of religion as recorded in the audio cassettes, purchased from blue Maruti Car (number not partitcularised) parked near the venue of this meeting and reproduced (doer not named) in type script, (anusuchi 'A') with over (Schedule 'A'), attached with the petition. The other allegation centers round the grievance of non-compliance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules.

(3.) Respondent No. 1 has filed the written statement of the defence controverting all allegations and raising preliminary objections against tenability of this petition on the fulcrum of (i) absence of requisite particulars and thus non-disclosure of cause of action; (ii) improper verification; (iii) non-production and non-supply of audio cassette; and (iv) non-compliance with the provisions of the Act.