LALLUKHUM FIMATE Vs. CHALTONLIEN AMO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This election petition has been filed by the petitioner under Sec. 81 read with Ss. 100 and 101 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 [for short, "the Act of 1951"] for declaring the election of the first respondent from 55-Tipoaimukh (ST) Assembly Constituency, Churachandpur, Manipur as void and to declare the petitioner as elected on the grounds that (i) the first respondent is guilty of a corrupt practice under Sec. 100(1)(b) of the Act of 1951 by way of booth capturing under Sec. 135(A)(1), Explanation (a), (b), (c) and (e) of the Act of 1951; (ii) by means of undue influence the first respondent has interfered with the free exercise of electoral right of genuine voters, thereby attracting Sec. 123(2) of the Act of 1951 and (iii) the first respondent had sworn a false affidavit for which his nomination should have been rejected.

(2.) The allegation against the first respondent is that on 4/3/2017, two polling agents namely Lalngilnei and Remruotsang were threatened by the first respondent and he pointed out finger on the forehead of Lalngilnei with anger and loud and harsh voice, as he continued to raise objection against persons who were trying to vote by impersonation during polls. According to the petitioner, polling booth of 25/55- Tipaimukh police station was under seized by the first respondent in between 1.00 p.m. and 3.00 p.m. by remaining inside the polling booth.

(3.) The first respondent resisted the election petition by filing his written statement stating that the allegation for seizure of the booth is vague, incorrect and concocted and also the first respondent denied each of the instances of booth capturing alleged by the petitioner. According to the first respondent, the allegations levelled by the petitioner lack in material facts and particulars. On the basis of such pleadings, no case of corrupt practice can be said to have been made out. In fact, no complaint by the election agents of the petitioner or by the petitioner or by the said polling agents, who were alleged to have been threatened by the first respondent and two candidates, namely Thangthatling Sinate and Ngurivung to the competent authority on the day of the alleged occurrence. Further, no complaint was also lodged either by the Presiding Officer or the Polling Officers stationed at the polling station to the Returning Officer or to the Election Commission of India that the first respondent remained in the polling booth in question and threatened two polling agents.