BALMUKUND SINGH GAUTAM Vs. NEENA VIKRAM VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This election petition, under section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short 'the R.P.Act'), has been filed calling in question the election of 201-Dhar (General) Assembly Constituency against the returned candidate with the symbol of 'Lotus' ('Kamal'); a candidate of the Bhartiya Janta Party, a recognized national political party, by the defeated candidate with the symbol of 'Hand' ('Panja'); Indian National Congress', a recognized national political party having lost with a margin of 11, 482. Out of the total votes polled i.e. 171354, the returned candidate poled 85624 votes whereas the defeated candidate poled 74142 votes as per the certificate issued by the Returning Officer in form 21-E (Annexure P/1).

(2.) My predecessor (Shri Justice Alok Verma) has framed six issues with sub-issues under issue Nos.(1) & (2) vide order dated 27/08/2015. Vide order dated 08/03/2018, this Court has recorded that both the parties have addressed the Court on issue Nos.2(e), 2(f) & 2(h) only as regards the corrupt practices as defined under section 123(2) & 123(4) of the R.P.Act, referable to paragraphs 9(k), 9(l) and 9(n) of the election petition and had given up other issues framed by this Court on 27/08/2015. As such, for ready reference issue Nos.2(e), 2(f) & 2(h) are reproduced below:

(3.) Shri A.M.Mathur, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner referring to contents thereof contends that a public meeting was organized by the respondent at 00 pm on 13/11/2013 at Rajwada Chowk, Dhar. The President of BJP, Rajnath Singh was the chief speaker. The stage of the meeting was shared by respondent in person and her husband, the noticee Vikram Verma alongwith other persons. Vikram Verma in his public address had criticized the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court with a remark that 'Gods do not sit in the High Court' and that main points were left out. He had further spoken that he will capture 'a bhoot' and bury it in the village Lebad; a village where the petitioner resides.' According to him, the aforesaid remark was referable to the petitioner which was with a calculated mind to malign his election prospects. Besides, the former statement was contemptuous to the Majesty of Law of the High Court. A complaint (Annexure P/18) was immediately made to the observer by Gangaram Joshi (P.W.17). The comments were called from the Video Observation Team through letter annexed as P/19 and the report in that behalf was submitted as Annexure P/20. As such, this act of the respondent and her husband is a corrupt practice within the meaning of section 123(4) of the R.P.Act.