HARIHAR SINGH Vs. SINGH GANGA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is brought on behalf of Sardar Harihar Singh alias Singh Sardar Harihar, against the judgment of the Election Tribunal of Shahabad, dated 26-7-1957, in Election Case No. 356 of 1957, dismissing the election petition of the appellant for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It appears that the respondent No, 1 was elected to the Bihar Legislative Assembly From the electoral constituency of Dumraon on 14-3-1957 and the result was published in the Bihar Gazette of 25-3-1957. On 28-3-1957, the election petition along with the treasury chalan was presented on behalf of the petitioner to the Election Commission at New Delhi. In its order dated 16-5-1957, the Election Commission pointed out the defect in the chalan, namely, that the deposit was not in favour of the Secretary of the Election Commission. The petition was not dismissed by the Election Commission under Section 85 of the Representation of the People Act. On the other hand, the petition was admitted and orders were made for the publication of the petition in the official Gazette and also For issue of notice on the respondent. Subsequently Sri Sachchidanand, District Judge of Shahabad, was appointed the sole member of the Election Tribunal for hearing the election petition. A preliminary objection was raised before the Election Tribunal on behalf of the respondent, Sri Ganga Prasad Singh, that the petition should be dismissed on the ground that the mandatory provision of Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act, had not been complied with. This contention of the respondent was accepted by the Election Tribunal and the election petition was dismissed on the ground that the treasury chalan was defective and the requirements of Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act, had not been complied with. The election petition was dismissed by the Tribunal under Section 90 (3) of the Representation of the People Act.

(2.) In support of this appeal, the argument put forward by Mr. Baldeva Sahai on behalf of the appellant is that there was compliance with the provisions of Section 117 and the Election Tribunal was wrong in dismissing the election petition on the ground that the provisions of Section 117 had not been complied with. It is necessary at this stage to reproduce the language of Section 117 of the Statute:

(3.) the Tribunal shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 81, Section 82 or Section 117 notwithstanding that it has not been dismissed by the Election Commission under Section 85". The chalan which was filed by the appellant along with the election petition is printed at page 13 of the paper-book and the columns of the chalan have been filled up as follows :