SITARAM GUPTA Vs. BIJOYESH MUKHERJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts in this case are as follows: The petitioner was elected as a member of the West, Bengal Legislative Assembly, during the last General Elections, from the Bhatpara Constituency. On or about the 1st May, 1957, the Respondent No. 2 Dayaram Beri, filed an election petition, challenging the election of the petitioner. This election petition hag been numbered as 406 of 1957, and by a notification dated 4. 7. 57, the Respondent No. 1 was appointed as the sole member of the Election Tribunal, to try the same. Sec. 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (herein after referred to as the 'act') lays down as to what should be the contents of an election petition. The material part runs as follows:

(2.) THE particulars of corrupt practices are set out in paragraph 18 of the petition. It will be necessary to refer particularly to sub-paragraphs (g) and (o) which run as follows: (g) On the day of the purported counting, many of the ballot boxes had in fact been found with their seals already broken open sometime earlier in the presence of the candidates and their counting agents. (o) But for the said irregularities, illegalities, non-observance of the provisions of the Constitution and/or the said Acts and/or rules and/or orders made and passed thereunder, and malpractices herein complained against the results would have been materially different and the results at present have been materially affected by the same. In the petition as filed, all the allegations in paragraph 18 of the petition were verified as submissions.

(3.) ON or about the 3rd August, 1957, the Respondent No. 2, made an application before Respondent No. 1, for amendment of the verification. It was alleged that" the election petition was prepared in haste and the allegations in paragraph 18 were, through inadvertence and oversight, verified as submissions, while they should have been verified as true to knowledge. It was therefore sought to amend the verification clause by substituting the words "true to my knowledge" instead of the words "my submissions", so far as paragraph 18 is concerned. By his order dated the 6th August, 1957, the Respondent No. 1, allowed the amendment, except as to sub-paragraphs (g) and (o) set out above. The material part of the order is as follows: