P L HANDOO Vs. SHAMAS-UD-DIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an election petition which was filed on 30th of March 1972. It may be mentioned here that the polling took place on 11 -3 1972, the result was announced on 12 -3 -1972, and the time for filing the petition therefore, was until 27 -4 -1972. On 11 -8 -1972 which was the date on which after service respondent No: 1 appeared, a petition was filed on behalf of the peti ­tioner for amendment of the main petition. This amend ­ment is sought to be in respect of the recitals made in para 14 of the main petition. Para 14 of the aforesaid petition is as follows: - "14. That the respondent incurred expenses in con ­travention of Sec: 85 of the Representation of People Act, thus committing a corrupt practice as envisaged by sub -section (6) of Section 132 of the Representa ­tion of People Act. Particulars in this behalf shall be submitted after the respondent duly files his state ­ment of expenditure to the District Election Officer. The same has not been done upto date."

(2.) IN the petition for amendment, it has been sub ­mitted that the election petition was filed in Jammu on 30th Mach 1972 and it was only on return from Jammu that the statement of election expenses filed by the respondent was examined. The petitioner prays that the particulars in this application may be allowed to be incorporated in the main petition by way of an amendment.

(3.) THIS prayer has been strongly resisted by the res ­pondent and an objection petition to this effect has also been filed. Amongst other grounds which have been taken, the main grounds of objections are that there is a bald state ­ment referring to certain provisions of the Act but no parti ­culars therein have been mentioned and by amendment the petitioner, therefore, seeks to introduce particulars which cannot be permitted under sub -section 5 of Section 94 of the J & K Representation of People Act, 1957 ("hereinafter referred to as the Act). It has also been submitted that the particulars which are now sought to be included are such, which were within the knowledge of the petitioner before the polling and also before the submission of the election expenses by the respondent to the District Elec ­tion officer, and as such there could not have been any diffi ­culty in the petitioners way in mentioning those parti ­culars in the main petition. It has also been submitted that this prayer is very belated and it is after the expiry of the statutory period during which the election petition can be filed.