RAGHBIR SINGH Vs. THE ELECTION TRIBUNAL AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question for consideration in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is whether a returned candidate, whose election is challenged and who has made recrimination petition in accordance with the provisions of Section 97 of the Representation of People Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is debarred from giving evidence to prove that the election of his rival defeated candidate who has brought the election petition and claims the seat would have been void if he had been the returned candidate and a petition had been presented calling in question his election if he (the returned candidate) fails to furnish within 14 days of the commencement of the trial the security referred to in Section 117 of the Act for the full amount. The facts giving rise to this petition, in brief, are as follows:

(2.) ON behalf of Raghbir Singh, it was maintained that the proviso to Section 97(1) of the Act had been fully complied with and the deposit of Rs. 1,000 was adequate. Reliance in this connection was placed upon the fact that the amending Act 40 of 1961, by which the amount of security deposited under Section 117 of Act 43 of 1951 was enhanced to Rs. 2,000 with effect from 20th September, 1961, having been itself repealed on 30th October, 1964, by the Repealing and Amending Act 52 of 1964. the position with regard to the amount of security under Section 117 was the same as it stood when that provision was originally enacted in 1951, and, accordingly, the deposit, which was required to be made under that section, was only Rs. 1,000 and not Rs. 2.000. The learned Tribunal rejected this contention in view of Section 6 -A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which provides:

(3.) IT may be mentioned here that on 7th October, 1966, the day fixed for arguments on the preliminary issues, Raghbir Singh deposited a further sum of Rs. 1,000 as security and produced the relevant treasury receipt. In view of this deposit, it was urged on behalf of Raghbir Singh that the deficiency, if any, having thus been made up. he was entitled to lead evidence under Sub -section (1) of Section 97 of the Act. The learned Tribunal, however, rejected this contention and found the preliminary issue referred to above against Raghbir Singh, observing as under: