AMIR CHAND Vs. SUCHETA KRIPLANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMIR Chand has appealed to this court under section 116A of the Representation of the People Act (No. 43) of 1951, and it is directed against the decision of one -member Election Tribunal whereby the election petition originally filed by Shrimati Gurcharan Kaur and taken over by him has been dismissed with costs. In the general elections of 1957, the Election Commissioner fixed 3rd March, 1957, as the polling date for the election to the Lok Sabha from Delhi. Five persons contested the election for the Lok Sabha from the New Delhi Parliamentary constituency No. 394. In this constituency there were 1,92,684 voters, out of which 1,04,161 exercised their right to vote. Smt. Sucheta Kriplani (Congress Party) obtained 76,450 votes, Bal Raj Madhok (Jan Sangh) obtained 22,726 votes, while Smt. Gurcharan Kaur (Independent) and C.P. Aggarwal (Independent) obtained 3,771 and 8.77 votes respectively. Smt. Sucheta Kriplani was declared elected to the Lok Sabha. Smt. Gurcharan Kaur on 18th April, 1957, filed an election petition (No. 117 of 1957), before the Election Commissioner for a declaration that the election was void. The election petition was duly published and the returned candidate was served with a copy thereof. By an application under section 108 of the Act, Shrimati Gurcharan Kaur applied to the Election Commissioner for withdrawal of the election petition on 15th May, 1957. The Election Commissioner granted her leave to withdraw and notice of this withdrawal application was duly published under section 110(3)(b). On 14th June, 1957, Amir Chand, a registered elector, applied under section 110(3)(c) to be substituted as petitioner in place of Smt. Gurcharan Kaur and for permission to prosecute the proceedings. This application was granted on 1st July, 1957. Shri Rameshwar Dayal was constituted single -member Election Tribunal and the election petition was referred to him in due course. Proceedings then commenced before the Tribunal. The respondent filed objections against the grant of leave to Amir Chand to prosecute the election petition. These objections were, however, dismissed on 17th August, 1957. The respondent then filed a reply to the election petition and raised some preliminary objections. Two preliminary issues were framed. The Tribunal held that the persons who were alleged to have committed the corrupt practice by making oral statements regarding the withdrawal of Smt. Gurcharan Kaur had not been specified in the petition. Amir Chand then applied for amendment of the petition by giving names of such persons to whom Shri Ranbir Singh had orally stated that Smt. Gurcharan Kaur had withdrawn from contest. The Tribunal dismissed this application for amendment by order dated 7th December, 1957. It then framed issues on merits and recorded part of the evidence. Shri Rameshwar Dayal then went on long leave and Shri Kartar Singh Campbellpuri was appointed single -member Tribunal. He recorded rest of the evidence and dismissed the election petition with costs.

(2.) THE election in this case is sought to be declared void under section 100(1)(b) of the Act, i.e., on the ground of corrupt practice. Four items of corrupt practice are alleged in the petition in paragraph 9. This paragraph is subdivided into four parts and each part describes a separate and distinct corrupt practice and full particulars thereof are given in four separate annexures. In substance these items of corrupt practice are as follows:

(3.) BEFORE considering the case on merits I may dispose of the appellant's objections to the dismissal of his application for amendment by the Tribunal. The election petition was originally made by Smt. Gurcharan Kaur. The particulars of the alleged corrupt practice relating to the retirement from contest were given in paragraph 9(a) of the petition and in annexure 'A' attached thereto. It was stated in paragraph 9(a), inter alia, that the alleged false statement had been circulated orally by Shri Ranbir Singh through the agents and canvassers of the returned candidate. The respondent raised various objections to the particulars given therein including the objection that the allegations regarding oral circulation did not give full particulars as laid down in section 83(b) of the Act. This objection was upheld by the Tribunal in its order dated 15th October, 1957, on the ground that the names of persons to whom Shri Ranbir Singh is alleged to have circulated the alleged false news have not been given in the petition. Thereupon Amir Chand applied under section 90(5) for amendment of the petition. This application was dismissed by order dated the 7th December, 1957. The appellant challenges the correctness of this order.