RAJENDRA PRASAD JAIN Vs. SHEEL BHADRA YAJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been placed before me under Clause 28 of the Letters Patent of this Court, for hearing upon the points of difference between two learned Judges of this Court, namely, Mahapatra and Ramratna Singh, JJ. By their judgments, dated the 3rd December 1965, they have differed on two points, which have been mentioned in the ordersheet thus: "The difference that has arisen between us, according to the judgment delivered now is about the reliability or/and sufficiency of the evidence on the record in regard to the allegation of the offer of bribe by the appellant to Shri Shah Mustaque Ahmad and Sri Ram Narain Chaudhary"

(2.) The appellant, Sri Rajendra Prasad Jain, was elected to the Parliament (Rajya Sabha) from the constituency of the Bihar Legislative Assembly, in 1964, against which a election petition was presented before the Election Commission by one of the unsuccessful candidates. Sri Sheel Bhadra Yajee who is respondent No. 1 in this appeal Sri Yajee had asked for the election of Sri Jain to be declared void, and Sri Yajee had also asked for a declaration to the effect that he had been duly elected. Sri Jam had filed a recriminatory petition against Sri Yajee, Both the petitions were heard together by the Election Tribunal, and by judgment and order, dated the 31st May 1965, it was held that some of the corrupt practices alleged against Sri Jain had been proved. With respect to the recriminatory petition, none of the allegations were held to nave been established. In the result, the election of Sri Jain was declared to be void, but the Tribunal refused to declare Sri Yajee to have been duly elected.

(3.) The appeal filed in this Court by Sri Jain under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act XLIII of 1951) was placed for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Mahapatra and Ramratna Singh, JJ., and all the points decided against the appellant were contested and the learned Judges have decided these points by two separate judgments. As indicated above, the learned Judges have differed on two points, mentioned in their order.