EMPEROR Vs. BADAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by one Chaudhari Badan Singh, who was convicted by a Magistrate of the first class for an offence punishable under Section 171-F, I.P.C., and was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 500, and the conviction and sentence was upheld by the learned Sessions Judge on appeal. There is a connected criminal revision by the Local Government (Revn. No. 529 of 1927) for enhancement of sentence passed on Badan Singh. The facts that led to the prosecution of Badan Singh are as follows:

(2.) Badan Singh was a candidate in a District Board election that was held on 9th December 1925, at Khandowa polling station in the district of Budaun. One Thakur Chandan Singh was his rival candidate. 232 votes were polled at the said election out of which Badan Singh secured 141 and Chandan Singh 91 votes, and as such Badan Singh was declared elected by a majority of 50 votes. Chandan Singh filed an election petition in the Court of the District Judge praying that the election of Chaudhari Badan Singh be declared invalid and he (Chandan Singh) be declared duly elected. The election petition was based on the allegation that Chaudhari Badan Singh was guilty of "corrupt practice" inasmuch as he had induced one Salik to personate his brother Behari at the said election and to vote for Badan Singh, though Behari had died prior to the date of the election. Chaudhari Badan Singh asserted in the election case that Behari was not dead on 9 December 1925, and that Behari himself voted at the polling station and contested the election petition inter alia on the following grounds: That the practice in force at the Khandowa polling station with regard to the identification of voters was that after the names and numbers of the voters were filled on slips prescribed therefor, they were handed over to a member of the staff who obtained their thumb-impressions or signatures as the case may be and distributed them amongst the voters to obtain identification who in their turn presented it to the patwari, or the candidates whoever might be present at the time for the same. That at times when there was rush of voters, it became impossible for those who identified them to ascertain that the slip which they presented for identification was the same which bore their thumb mark, although the voter may have been thoroughly familiar to them.

(3.) On being directed by the learned Sessions Judge to plead further and better particulars in regard to the point of who had affixed his thumb-impression to the signature slip, Ex. P, issued in the name of Behari deceased,