ABDUL JALIL CHOUDHURY Vs. RATHINDRA NATH SEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of the Member, Election Tribunal, Cachar at Silchar dated 19th August, 1957 by which he set aside the election of the Appellant, the returned candidate from Badarpur Constituency of the Assam Legislative Assembly. The elections for the Assam State Legislative Assembly took place sometimes in March, 1957. Respondent Ratindra Nath Sen, along with the Appellant Moulana Abdul Jalil and one Usuf Ali Choudhury were the candidates at the election from the said constituency. They were duly nominated and the polling took place on the 6th of March; 1957. The Appellant secured 14854 votes, Respondent Ratindra Nath Son secured 12412 and Usuf Ali Choudhuri secured 663 votes.

(2.) THE case of the Respondent as stated before the Tribunal was that the Badarpur Constituency is partly in the Karimganji Subdivision and partly in the Hailakandi Subdivision. The Petitioner (Respondent) stood in the election as a nominee of the Praja Socialist Party of which he is a member. In the last General Election a united Leftist Front was formed at Karimganj by the Praja (sic) Party, the Communist Party and a local party known as Progressive Congress. This leftist front was formed to give a combined fight to the Congress. Thus the Respondent became a nominee of this Leftist party. Abdul Jalil was a nominee of the Congress party and one Yusuf Ali Choudhury stood as an independent candidate. Maulana Abdul Jalil was the sitting member being elected in the general election of 1952.

(3.) THE Appellant has raised three main contentions in the appeal. Firstly, it is contended by him that the petition does not comply with the provisions of Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act inasmuch as particulars were not completely given. As regards the charge that the Appellant committed corrupt practice by publication of the article in 'Nabasakti', it was strongly contended that the election petition was only based on the ground that the facts constituted a corrupt practice under Section 123(4) and the Tribunal was not right in permitting the Petitioner to produce evidence to establish a corrupt practice as defined under Section 123(2). The particulars given in the Annexure to the petition also do not fulfil the requirements of Section 83 as all the particulars, necessary for consideration of corrupt practice under Section 123(2)(a) were not given. In this connection, it was further urged that the Tribunal was not right in making out a case against the Appellant of a corrupt practice as defined under Section 123(2)(a) when the petition itself was based on the ground that the publication constituted a corrupt practice under Section 123(4).