PRIYABRAT NARAIN SINGH Vs. BRIJMOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of the Election Tribunal, Gaya, by one of the candidates from the Aurangabad Assembly Constituency No. 244 for election as a member of the Bihar Legislative Assembly. Polling was hold in that constituency on the 21st of February, 1962, and the result of the election was announced on the 26th of February, 1962. Respondent No. 1, Brijmohan Singh, secured 10,421 votes and the appellant was able to poll 7,529 votes. Accordingly, respondent No. 1 was declared duly elected to the Bihar Legislative Assembly. Out of the eight candidates who filed their nomination papers, which were found to be valid, four withdraw and (he appellant along with the three respondents, Brijmohan Singh, Sarjoo Singh and Nagendra Singh, alone remained in the field. As a result of the election, apart from the votes polled by the appellant-petitioner and respondent No. 1, respondent No. 2 secured 4,052 votes and respondent No. 3 secured 968 votes.

(2.) After the result of the election was declared, the appellant filed a petition for setting aside the election of respondent No. 1, Brijmohan Singh on a number of grounds which were set out in the election petition, all of which, however, it is unnecessary to mention here inasmuch as only a few of them have been pressed before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The petitioner also prayed that he might be declared duly elected in place of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1, however, controverted all the allegations made against the validity of his election. The learned District Judge of Gaya, who is the Election Tribunal, recorded evidence in the case and has held substantially against the appellant and dismissed his petition against which he has preferred this appeal.

(3.) The main question argued before us relates to the fact that respondent No. 1 was below the age of 25 years on the date the nomination paper was filed by him and, as such, he was not competent to be a candidate under Article 173 of the Constitution. Secondly, it has been urged that respondent No. 1, the successful candidate, published a pamphlet, described also as leaflet, in the nature of a parody -- which has been so characterised by the Election Tribunal -- as containing aspersions against the personal character of the appellant which is a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 (4) of the Representation of People Act, 7951 (hereinafter called the Act) and renders the election of respondent No. 1 invalid, As regards the various other corrupt practices, apart from the above, reference has also been made to the provisions of Clauses 2, 3 and 5 of Section 123 of the Act, relating to appeal to voters in the name of religion and utilising the services of the Block Development Officer, Aurangabad South, for furthering his prospects, The Election Tribunal, as I have said, has held on a consideration of the evidence led by the parties that it was not established by the appellant by reliable evidence that respondent No. r was below 25 years of age on the date of filing his nomination paper. The parody (exhibit 10) contained in the pamphlet was not established to have been issued and circulated by Brijmohan Singh and even if that were so upon which the finding is general and inconclusive, the parody which was the subject-matter of exhibit 10 was not shown to relate to the personal character of the appellant but that it related to his political character which is not a corrupt practice in terms of Section 123 of the Act. He has also negatived the charges of corrupt practices of other kinds including the one relating to respondent No. 1 holding two subsisting contracts in his individual and personal capacity for execution of work for construction of a community hall and also a health centre at Naugarh, Aurangabad.