GYANDEV AHUJA Vs. JUBER KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJASTHAN Legislative Assembly Elections were held on 1. 12. 2003. Nine candidates, including petitioner and respondents, contested the election for Ramgarh (District-Alwar) Assembly constituency. The results were declared on 4. 12. 2003. Respondent No. 1-Juber Khan was declared elected to the above Ramgarh Assembly Constituency by a margin of 783 votes. Petitioner contested the election on behalf of Bhartiya Janta Party, whereas, respondent No. 1-Juber Khan contested the election as a candidate of Indian National Congress.

(2.) PRESENT election petition has been filed challenging election of respondent No. 1 mainly on the grounds of assistance been sought from the government officials, booth capturing and voters belonging to weaker sections of the society been deprived of casting their vote been threatened and intimidated by the supporters of the winning candidate affecting the above elections materially.

(3.) MR. S. R. Surana, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that every citizen of the country has a right to cast vote without fear and favour, however, in the present case, there have been large scale affray, assault and threatening to voters by respondent No. 1, his agents and supporters as well. It has been submitted that large number of voters belonging to weaker section of society in respective areas were deprived of casting their vote. It has further been submitted that in spite of repeated complaints been made by the petitioner before and during the course of election, sufficient preventive measures were not taken by the authorities concerned. As per evidence produced on behalf of petitioner, respondent No. 1 and his agents not only threatened voters but indulged in creating large scale chaos by throwing stones and giving beating by lathies and certain booths were almost captured by respondent No. 1 himself and his agents. Some of the witnesses sustained injuries and deprived of casting their vote have clearly named respondent No. 1 and his agents, however, no cross examination to that extent has been made of such witnesses on behalf of respondent No. 1, as such, the statements made by the witnesses have to be accepted. It has also been submitted that though the plea of alibi has been taken by respondent No. 1, however, it has not been proved at all in so far as the witnesses produced on behalf of the petitioner have not been cross examined on the point of presence of respondent No. 1 and his agents at particular place where booth capturing has been alleged. While relying on various judgments of Supreme Court, MR. Surana has submitted that apart from statements of witnesses, injury reports and complaints to the concerning authorities as also police have been submitted on behalf of the petitioner, however, the evidence so produced on behalf of the petitioner have not been properly rebutted by the respondent No. 1 at all.