INDER LALL Vs. LAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of the Election Tribunal Pratapgarh, dated 1st December, 1959.

(2.) THE election petition in this case under section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act No. XLIII of 1951) hereinafter referred to as "the Act" was filed on the 23rd of April, 1957, by the appellant Inder Lall, an elector in the Chittorgarh Constituency praying that the election of the respondent Shri Lal Singh to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly should be annulled and declared void on account of illegal and corrupt practices which vitiated the election. THE elections in the various constituencies took place in February and March, 1957. THEre appear to have been three contesting candidates at the election. Shri Lal Singh, the first respondent, who was the successful candidate, secured 7272 votes; the second respondent Shri Lakshman Singh, the Maharawal Dungarpur, secured 7261 votes, while the third respondent Shri Chhoga Lal only 569 votes. THE result of the election was declared on the nth of March, 1957, and notified in the Rajasthan Rajpatra on 14th March, 1957, and Shri Lal Singh was returned.

(3.) IT is also to be remembered that these local Muslim voters are largely Chhipa Musalmans and most of their names appear to be common. Mohammed Yusuf (A. W. 44) says that the name of his Bare Bap is Ismail son of All Mohammed and he admits that there may be others of that name. According to the witness their identification can be by Attak or surname. The evidence, however, is not very clear whether even by Attak there can be convincing identification, because Aziz Mohammed (A. W. 49) admits that some people may have several Attaks. Any way, the evidence is clear that there were several people in the locality of the same name and, therefore, there was nothing surprising if different persons bearing the same name had been entered in the voters' list in respect of different houses. In this state of the evidence we are inclined to accept the conclusion of the Tribunal that the petitioner has failed to establish that there was any reception of invalid votes or any such reception of invalid votes as to materially affect the result of the election and enable the Tribunal to declare the elect on void.