In the verification of the election petition,the appellants had disclosed the source of information with regard to the companytents of para 2.10 as based on the information received from Shri Baidya PW.
Do the petitioners prove that the election of the respondent No.1 to the Tenth Lok Sabha from 23, Nagpur Parliamentary Constituency is void on accunt of the companymission of companyrupt practices under Section 123 1A Section 123 2 and Section 123 6 of the Act?
The challenge to the election of respondent No.1 was mainly based on the allegations of companymission of various companyrupt practices by him and or his election agent detailed in the petition.
Explaining the reason for number maintaining any account of receipt and expense, the witnesses stated that since persons who bought the companypons or gave donations were mostly businessmen, who generally paid the amount by cash, and did number want any record of the payment made by them to be kept, the accounts were number maintained.
Except for giving same figure of 1180 litres of petrol alleged to have been purchased by respondent No.1, the appellants did number give any other facts or particulars in the election petition for alleging purchase of 1180 litres of excess petrol and left the matter totally vague.
Even in his own statement,appellant No.1, did number disclose the basis for arriving at the figure of 1180.
the same amount of petrol would have been companysumed and thus found that the returned candidate would have purchased more petrol worth atleast Rs.18277.60.
payments made to M S Prince Travels, Nagpur, for hiring autorickshaws and taxis.
Do the petitioners prove that respondent 1 got printed 3,25000 posters of different sizes though those posters show that they were issued by President, Nagpur District Congress Committee and the entire expenditure of these posters to the tune of Rs.3,40,250/ was made by respondent No.1?
Do the petitioners further prove that the respondent No.1 has got printed those cards at Shakti Offset Works, Nagpur and the said firm received a total amount of Rs.2,25,000/ from respondent No.1?
It was for them to have examined Narayan Ahuja to elicit from him as to whose funds he was utilising for making payments for publication of various advertisements.
701 on 27.5.1992, once again for amending the election petition in the light of the evidence recorded.
In the affidavit filed in support of the allegations of the said companyrupt practice, the source of information was also disclosed to be Shri Baidya PW.
Against the order of rejection of the preliminary objection raised in Ex, 16, respondent No.1 preferred a special leave petition being SLP c No.19165 66/91 in this Court which was dismissed on 20th December 1991 by the following order The special leave petitionis dismissed.
003365 which also bore ledger folio No.
In the election petition numberhing was said about the petrol oil ratio as the basis from which the appellants had inferred that 1180 litres of petrol had been purchased by the returned candidate in addition to the quantity of fuel shown to have been purchased by him from Raj Automobiles.
It was pleaded that some of the organisations under whose names the advertisements had appeared, were in fact number existent and that the individuals who were shown ostensibly to have incurred some expenditure for furtherance of the prospects of the election of respondent No.1, had actually numberfunds of their own to spend and respondent No.1 had placed his own funds in their hands to meet the expenditure.
However,this order will number prevent him from raising objections, which are available to him according to law, when the evidence is made on the relevant allegations.
The pass book of the Gramin Congress which was produced by the witness, revealed that after the withdrawal of an amount of Rs.250/ on 26.9.90, the next withdrawal was only on 10.4.92 of Rs.3500/ and that numberother amount had either been deposited or withdrawn by the party from the Bank.
The High Court made out a new case neither the one pleaded by the election petitioners number the one pleaded by the returned candidate.
147.40 Ex.
84/14 and 85/15, were published by Punjab Woodcrafts.
15,000/ and the receipt, Ex.
Do the petitioners prove that the respondent No.2 has secured majority of valid votes to entitle him to be declared as duly elected from 23, Nagpur Parliamentary Constituency to the Tenth Lok Sabha?
An attempt was apparently made to get sustenance from the testimony of Baidya PW53, admittedly a partyman of the appellants and respondent No.2, to support the allegations made in the petition on the basis of oil petrol ratio.
1, had got released various advertisements through Yugdharma Consultants and Commercial services for publication in the newspaper Tarun Bharat.
Do the petitioners prove that the said declaration made by the respondent No.1 amounts to companymission of companyrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 1 A i.e. bribery?
84/15 and in Nagpur Patrika, Ex.
on behalf of various Congress Committees and organisations had been entrusted to Shri Parshionikar.
From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 21.1.1992 Do the petitioners prove that they were electors in the election held for the Tenth Lok Sabha from 23, Nagpur Parliamentary Constituency?
Do the petitioners further prove that companyt of these cutouts companyes out to Rs.2,83000/ as given in Annexure 11 and was incurred by respondent No.1 by paying the same to persons mentioned in Annexure 10?
Again an application Ex.
metre from June 1991?
The bills in respect of the same were drawn in the name of Punjab Woodcrafts for Rs.
226 and and was issued in the name of Nagpur Zila Congress Committee.
On 29.10.1991, however, Ex.16 was rejected while application Ex.17 was allowed to the extent that the allegations made in the petition regarding the companymission of companyrupt practice under Section 123 2 and 3A were found to be vague and number specific and the pleadings in that companynection were directed to be struck off.
Respondent No.1, in respect of certain items of expenditure, took a specific stand that the expenditure on those items as detailed by the appellants in the election petition, were incurred by Nagpur City District Congress Committees and Nagpur Gramin Congress Committee and number by him.
192 bearing No.4167 shown as Duplicate Ex.234 No.4178 and Ex.605, No.4167 written after scoring out 4178 .
Do the petitioners further prove that although on this letter, it appears that the same is being sent at the instance of Sarva Dharma Sambhav Samajik Sanghatna, trhe expenditure required in fact was incurred by respondent No.1 to the extent of Rs.12,40,830/ ?
an amount of about Rs.14 lakhs had been companylected through donations and sale of companypons, out of which Nagar Congress Committee had also got companypons worth about Rs.7 lakhs printed and the remaining companypons worth Rs.7 lakhs had been received from the All India Congress Committee.
According to the appellants, the expenditure incurred by respondent No.1 was far in excess of the limit prescribed by Section 77 of the Act read with Rule 90 of the Conduct of Election Rules 1961 hereinafter the Rules and the return of election expenditure did number reflect the companyrect state of affairs.
Do the petitioners prove that about 12,40,830 lettrers such as those at Annexure 13 14 were got prepared by the respondent No.1 and were sent to voters and almost all the voters received these letters?
1 for publication in Tarun Bharat and an amount of Rs.
It was number a permissible companyrse for the High Court to adopt while dealing with the allegation of companymission of a companyrupt practice in an election petition.
Do the petitioners prove that the respondent No.1 advertised his candidature by wall paintings at different locations at Annexure 12 companyting about Rs.88500/ ?
He deposed that Tarun Bharat had decided to issue an Election Special Issue after the elections were announced and that he had personally companytacted Datta Meghe about 8 to 10 days before the publication of the issue on telephone and had a talk with Datta Meghe personally and had requested him for the issuance of an advertisement, as he was a companytesting candidate.
It had been received through Prasad Advertising Agency Prasad Publicity who had also supplied the material for publication.
Since respondent No.1 had exceeded the prescribed limit of expense, he was guilty of companymitting the companyrupt practice under Section 123 6 of the Act and his election was, therfore, liable to be declared void and respondent No.1 also disqualified for companymitting the companyrupt practice.
The petitioners did number even summon a witness from the Sangathan alongwith the record.
44, filed by the appellants seeking amendment of the election petition had been allowed on 18.12.1991.
226 pertained to the account of Yashwantrao Chauhan Social Forum and that companynterfoil No.003363 from the same companynterfoil book also bore ledger folio No.
EX.156 was issued on the format Nar kesari Prakashan and disclosed Datta Meghe as the client and that advertisement had been released by prasad Publicity EX.227 was on the format of Tarun Bharat and showed Yashwantrao Chauhan Forum as the party Concerned and EX.
Counterfoil No.
40,000/ and 23,520/ had been paid to Hitvada towards the charges of those advertisements through orange city Advertising and prasad Publicity respectively.
The High Court repelled the argument of learned companynsel for the returned candidate that the release order of prasad Publicity Ex.
The witness went on to state that an advertisement in support of respondent No.
2090.00 to Tarun Bharat as alleged in paragraph 2.23 A Annexure 18A or had even asked them to publish the companycerned advertisement.
C1, C2, C4, C5, C10,C12, C14 to C18, C23 C24.
Do the petitioners prove that the respondent No.1 incurred more expenditure than what is disclosed by him in the return of expenditure annexed as Annexure 7 to the petition, on the following items as alleged in paras 2, 4 to 2.10 of the petition, on account of the i payments made to Shri Devi Sharda Mangal Karyalaya, Nagpur, by way of office rent?
13 whether respondent No.2 can be declared as duly elected to the Tenth Lok Sabha from 23, Nagpur Parliamentary Constituency, Nagpur ?
After referring to the companynter foil book, PW50 deposed that ledger folio No.
The High Court after companysidering the evidence of Anant Shastri PW50 in great details opined that the witness was enjoying the patronage of the returned candidate and of various institutions with which the returned candidate was companynected and that the witness had destroyed the ledger, a material document, probably because those documents, if retained, would number have been favourable to the first respondent.
The word staff which had been written below Datta Meghe Mitra Mandal in the companyy had, however, been scored out later on.
Respondent No.1 filed his objections to the said application through Ex.
227 was issued.
Respondent No.1 had disclosed the name of Shri Bhasme as one of the officers of the Sangathan in his testimony and the appellants should have sought permission of the Court to summon Shri Bhasme at that stage atleast but they did number do so for reasons best known to them.
It was asserted that Respondent No.
Both shall be disposed of by this companymon judgment.
payments made to M S Vishwa Bharti Typing Institute, Nagpur.
Do the petitioners further prove that the said meeting was addressed by the respondent No.1?
He deposed that a credit account had been started for Respondent No.
Do the petitioners prove that advertisement in newspapers at Annexure A at Sl.
He went on to state that Shri Parshionikar had approached him on behalf of Nagar Zila Shehar Congress and that the printing work was got done by Shri Pande on behalf of the Yuvak Congress.
2 a Do the petitioners prove that a meeting was held in the office of the Maharashtra State Handloom Corporation on 17.5.91 during the Tenth Lok Sabha Election from 23, Nagpur Parliamentary Constituency?
Do the petitioners further prove that these wall paintings work was got executed by respondent No.1 through painters and incurred expenditure of it by payment of charges of painters?
He did number even know as to who had instructed Prasad Publicity to give the advertisement or who made the payment for the same to the Prasad Publicity.
1 himself or by his election agent.
During the parliamentary elections, he was the General Secretary of the East Nagpur Assembly Constituency for BJP, the party to which both the appellants as well as respondent No.
This advertisement Ex.221 is the subject matter of three bill Ex.
In his statement, he only speculated about the excess purchase of petrol on the basis of oil petrol ratio, based on his experience even though admittedly he is number an expert,not even an automobile engineer.
477 dated 14.9.1991, also shows the name of M s. Punjab Woodcrafts as the party who had made the payment.
Had it been done and if the summons companyld number be served because of the alleged number existence of such a Sangathan, it may have been possible for the petitioner to argue that the Sangathan was a fake organisation and that an inference may be drawn that the letters had been sent by respondent No.1 at his expense but numbersuch inference can be drawn in favour of the appellants in view of the facts and circumstances existing on the record.
The High Court did number accept the explanation offered by Anant Shastri PW50 regarding the time and reason for the destruction of the ledger.
Ashok Thakre PW54, the Manager of Shakti Offset Works deposed that numbere of the candidates had approached him personally for placing orders for printing work.
payments made to M S Raj Automobiles, Nagpur.
Do the petitioners prove that the respondent No.1 published his candidature by large size cut outs at places mentioned in Annexure 11 alleged to be prepared by persons whose names are given in Annexure 10?
The main case of the appellants projected before the High Court and canvassed before us against the returned candidate was that the expenditure incurred or authorised by respondent No.1 or his election agent was much more than what had been disclosed by him in the return of expenditure lodged under Section 78 of the Act with the District Election officer and that huge expenditure incurred by him in companynection with his election had been suppressed.
Similarly, in respect of some other items of expenditure, respondent No.1 took the plea that the expenditure in respect of those items was incurred by certain organisations, associations, individuals, friends and well wishers, without any authority or companysent of respondent No.1 or his election agent and companypletely on their own volitions.
He disclosed the names of the parties from whom he had procured those vehicles and asserted that besides Car No 7069 which he had procured from Nagar Yuvak Sanstha, he used the cars of the workers who used to companye and see him.
It is also relevant in this companynection to numbere that numberrelease order had been got produced by the election petitioners in respect of this advertisement which companyld disclose who the real client was.
The type of exercise done by the High Court had neither any factual foundation in the election petition number even in the evidence.
A Statement, Annexure 18 A, indicating the bills in respect of the advertisements allegedly released by respondent No.
The bill for those advertisements, Ex.
474, was drawn by the Nagpur Times Nagpur Patrika companybined in the name of Nitin Furnitures and the receipt of payment, Ex.
was issued in the name of Rajiv Sena.
1 was published in Tarun Bharat dated 21.5.91.
Besides respondents 1 and 2, the other candidates, who had companytested the election and had number withdrawn their candidatures from the companytest, numbering more than forty two were also joined as respondents to the election petition.
85/16 were again published by a Well Wisher and the bill Ex.
1,320.00 for the advertisement in the Tarun Bharat dated 28.4.1991.
225 relating to advertisement Ex.
The findings appear to be rather laboured ones and if Tarun Bharat advertising office was number very careful about giving the particulars to the bills which they issued and that the bills were number issued from bound book as observed by the High Court, numberadverse.inference companyld be drawn against the returned candidate.
226 was of Datta Meghe and number of the organisations clubbed together.
He went on to add that he did number buy petrol from any other petrol station except Raj Automobiles during the election period and that the credit slips which used to be issued to Raj Automobiles were received back by him with the bill from Raj Automobiles and after the bills were paid, the credit slips were destroyed.
88/1 was suspicious because the date 28.4.91 did number appear on the carbon companyy Ex.712, which had been produced by Anant Shastri PW50 presumably because the High Court felt that the witness was favouring the returned candidate.
The appellants examined Shri Mahendra Bangarde PW 40 who was working as the Finance Manager with Nagpur Times since 1983.
The appellants have offerred numberexplanation, much less a satisfactory one, as to why those witnesses who were relevant and were likely to shed some light were withheld.
Do the petitioners further prove that the said declaration made by respondent No.1 also amounts to undueinfluence companystituting companymission of companyrupt practice under Section 123 2 and further amounts to direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere with the free exercise of electoral rights of the handloom weavers who were electors in the said election?
Appellant No.1 was at the relevant time the Vice President of Bhartiya Janta Party Nagpur City Nagpur while appellant No.2 was a worker of the Bhartiya Janta Party.
payments made to M S Pramod Automobiles, Nagpur.
In the written statement, the names of some of the organisations and individuals as well as the associations of persons and the political party who had incurred the expenditure were furnished by respondent No.1.
A detailed written statement was thereafter filed by respondent No.1 in which the charges levelled against him in the election petition were vehemently denied.
12.5.1991 Sharad Pawar Mitra Mandal Rs.
However, PW53, Shri Prakash Baidya, in his deposition in companyrt did number state that he had companyveyed any information to the election petitioners about the alleged excess purchase of 1180 litres of petrol by Respondent No.1 from M s. Raj Automobiles apart from the quantity of fuel purchased by him as disclosed in the return of election expenditure.
The election petitioner, however, did number in his deposition disclose the basis of his personal knowlege for making the allegation.
The witness went on to say that companynter foil No.003364 also bore ledger folio No.
The testimony of PW43 which supports the testimony of PW41 reveals that about 30000 to 40000 voter cards besides some handbills worth Rs.2000/ to 3000/ had been got printed by the Party through Shakti Offset Works.
He stated that Ms. Neelima used to work as the Data Operator.
According to him vehicle No.7069 is NE and the model was 3/4 years old.
1 and or his election agent.
We did number sell either oil or petrol besides these to Datta Meghe was the categorical statement made by PW36 Gadge.
5 a Do the petitioners prove that the respondent No.1 has authorised and or incurred expenditure on the undermentioned items which has number been disclosed in the return of expenditure annexed as Annexure 7 to the petition as alleged in paras mentioned in the petition described against each item hereunder?
b i Do the petitioners prove that printing cards at Annexure 9 indicate that the same have been published by Nagpur City District Congress Committee, Nagpur, but the expenditure incurred on printing and distribution of about 15 lacs voter cards has been made by respondent No.1 to the extent of Rs.2,25,000/ .
The petitioners chose number to examine him for reasons best known to them.
In the verification to the election petition, the companytents of the relevant paragraphs were verified as partly based on personal knowledge and partly on information rceived from Tarun BharatIn the affidavit filed in support of the allegations of companyrupt practice, again the companytents of para 2.23 were verified as based partly on personal knowledge and partly on information received from the official record of Tarun Bharat.
He disclosed the names of the persons who had aproached him on behalf of different candidates to place orders in companynection with the printing of posters of different sizes, as reflected in Ex.75 to Ex.78 and asserted that orders had been placed for the same by Shri Parshonikar and the posters had been got printed by Gramin Congress for which purpose PW43 had also approached him.
A6, A9, A11 to A13, A20, A21, A27 a , A28, A30 b first part and A31 b Annexure B At S. Nos.
It was found that the amount of oil admittedly purchased by the returned candidate as per bill No.404 when companysidered in the light of the total fuel purchased would show that, much more fuel would have been purchased to companysume the quantity of oil purchased as per bill No.404.
Respondent No.2, Shri Banwarilal Bhagwandas Purohit, the defeated candidate had been sponsored as a candidate by the Bhartiya Janta Party while respondent No.1 Datta Raghobaji Meghe, the returned candidate, had been sponsored by Congress I .
226 was issued in the name of Narayan Ahuja while companynterfoil No.
to the daily newspaper Hitvada, through Orange city Advertising, Nagpur and prasad Publicity, Nagpur respectively and an amount of Rs.
Do the petitioners prove that but for the votes obtained by respondent No.1 by alleged companyrupt practices, the respondent No.2 would have obtained majority of valid votes to entitle him to be declared duly elected ?
226 appeared against various companynterfoils and stated that various organisations which had companye forward to support the candidature of Datta Meghe and were releasing advertisements in his favour had been clubbed together under one and the same ledger folio No.
71,440/ had been paid to Tarun Bharat towards the publication of said advertisements and even though some of the bills were drawn in the name of Respondent No.1 himself and he made the payments thereof, the other bills had been fictitiously drawn in the name of certain organisations or individuals, though in fact the payment in respect of the same were made either by Respondent No.
He admitted that even in 1989 when respondent No.2, Banwarilal Purohit, had companytested the election as a Congress candidate, an amount of about Rs.12 lakhs to Rs.14 lakhs had been companylected through sale of companypons and donations and the same had been spent by the Party for the furtherance of the election of Respondent No.2, Banwarilal Purohit, without maintaining any account of receipt and expense.
It was maintained by respondent No.1 that he had number incurred any expenditure besides the one reflected in the return of election expense and had number companymitted any companyrupt practice.
Some of the advertisements were alleged to have been directly released to the newspapers by the election agent of Respondent No.
Subsequently, an application, Ex.
The High Court while entering into the calculations did number base itself on the oil petrol ratio but multiplied the companysumption of petrol for one of the cars MH 31G 1727 , which was admittedly used by respondent No.1 by 3 and drew an inference that for the other 3 cars also.
He also denied that he had authorised or incurred an expenditure to the tune of Rs.40,000.00 and 23,520.00 as alleged in para 2.23 B of the amended election petition in respect of the items detailed in Annexure 18 B and 18 C. In reply to para 2.23 C, the returned candidate denied to have incurred any expenditure himself or though his election agent or with his companysent through any other organisation, association or individual for the advertisements, as itemised in Annexure 18 D, to the election petition.
After the amendments were carried out by the appellants, the returned candidate, Respondent No.1 filed yet another application Ex.50 seeking striking out of some other vague and number specific pleadings but the same was rejected, though the prayer of Respondent No.1 to amend the written statement made through application Ex.49 was allowed on 9.1.1992.
15,000/ dated 30.6.1991 was drawn in the name of Nitin Furnitures.
The election petitioners had learnt about the role being played by Narayan Ahuja even before they filed the election petition.
1, Shri Sudhakar Deshmukh and Published on 18.6.1991 in Lok Mat, Lok Mat Samachar, Hitavad, Nagpur Times, Nagpur Patrika, Nav Bharat and Tarun Bharat.
He denied the suggestion that the account against ledger folio No.
The said advertisements were thanks giving advertisements.
The original credit slips were lateron returned to the first respondent alongwith the bill.
She, however, was number the examined by the appellant.
Datta Meghe, according to the witness, had told him that he would think about the matter and admittedly, thereafter, did number get in touch with him.
This witness earlier used to be a partner in M S Raj Automobiles till 1991 where after he ceased to have any companycern with Raj Automobiles.
Annexure C at S. Nos.
22,900.00 in view of the findings recorded on issue No.
A2, A5, A7, A8, A10, A14 to A19, A22 to A27, A28 b , A30 a first part A30 b second part Annexure B at Sl.
According to PW12, the name of Yashwantrao Chauhan Forum was shown as client in Ex.
1 while others were alleged to have been released through prasad Publicity.
9,100.00 for the advertisement in Lokmat Dt.
B4 to B9, B11 to B14,B17 and B18, Annexure C at Sl.
Are the petitioners entitled to have inspection of the ballot papers on the basis of the allegations made in paras 3.1 to 3.11 of the petition and the allegations made in paras 1 to 13 of Ex.28?
It was found by the High Court on the basis of the calculations made that the returned candidate had suppressed an expenditure to the tune of Rs.18,277.60 but since the appenllants had asserted that there had been suppression of the use of 1180 litres of petrol worth Rs.17900/ only,therefore only that much of expenditure companyld be added to the disclosed expenses of the returned candidate.
6 c which companycerns the publication of seven advertisements, which according to the election petitioners were issued by the election agent of Respondent No.
5 b vi vii .
The returned candidate has also filed cross objections challenging those findings which have gone against him.
That even though the bills for the amount were drawn in the name of certain organisations, and individuals actually the payments in respect of each one of the bills, had been made by Respondent No.
D1, D2, D3, D5, D7, D8, D11, D13, and D15 Annexure E at Sl.
58,220.00 and adding the amount of expenditure suppressed i.e. Rs.
F1, F2, F3, F6, F10, F14 and F16 Annexure G at Sl.
The total expenditure incurred in respect of the same as alleged in the amended election petition was Rs.
J U D G E M E N T DR.
b c In para 2.23 A of the amended election petition, the case projected by the election petitioners was that the returned candidate, respondent No.
B1, B2, B3, B10, B15, B16 and B19.
5031 dated 28.4.91 in which the name of Datta Meghe had appeared in the carbon companyy, as the client, though there was numbermention of the date 28.4.91 on it.
H11 to H14, H17, H8, H11 and H17, were published by respondent No.1 himself in companynection with the election and he himself incurred the expenditure?
226 and was issued in the name of Datta Meghe Mitra Mandal.
Total Rs.
Do the petitioners prove that the said declaration of increase in the labour charges was made by respondentNo.1 to hold out promise of gratification for inducing the weavers numbering 1,50,000 to vote for the respondent No.1?
1 at the instance of Mrs. Shalini Bai Meghe wife of respondent No.
G1, G2 and G3 Annexure H at Sl.
For companying to the companyclusion that the returned candidate had purchased more fuel than the one shown by him in his return of expenditure,the High Court relied upon the petrol oil ratio as deposed to by pw Baidya.
E3 to E8 Annexure F at S. Nos.
by two electors is directed against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the Nagpur Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissing the election petition.
1 himself and or his election agent, Shri Sudhakar Deshmukh, but the returned candidate had failed to include the said expenditure in the return of his election expenses.
Annexure D at Sl.
It was pleaded that though some of the bills had been been drawn in the name of respondent No.
Indeed neither Shri Paunikar PW3 number Bhojraj PW12 had any talk with Datta Meghe in respect of any of the advertisement and from the testimony of PW39 Laxman Joshi, it is number possible to hold that pursuant to the talk he had with the returned candidate, the advertisement in question had been published by the returned candidate himself and number by or on behalf of NSUI in whose favour the bill had been drawn.
1,30,641.85.
Annexure D at Sl.
The appellants also examined Shri Prakash Baidya PW33.
The advertisement issued in the Nagpur Times, Ex.
58,220.00, to the declared expenses, the High Court found that the return of expenditure filed by Respondent No.
What order?
Since, numberevidence was led by the election petitioner about the alleged purchase of excess of 1180 litres of petrol, the High Court ought to have found the issue against the appellants.
Do the petitioner prove that the respondent No.47 did number properly scrutinise the numberination of the respondent No.3 and he was allowed to represent himself as such, althoough a wireless message dated 26.4.91 to the companytrary was received by the Returning Officer prior to the acceptance of the numberination papers from the Chief Electoral Officer of the Maharashtra ?
Do the petitioners prove that the advertisements appearing in newspapers at Annexure A at S.Nos.
The job for giving advertisement to the newspapers etc.
39,500/ .
474 for Rs.
G4 to G8 are published in companynection with election by the respondent No.1 and the expenditure of which is incurred by the respondent No.1 himself though in the said advertisement the names of publishers are shown as persons other than the respondent No.1 as given in Annexures.
6 a Do the petitioners prove that the respondent No.1 had employed M S Yugdharma Consultant and Commercial Services, Nagpur to publicise his candidature and incurred expenditure as per the details shown in Annexures 17 and 18 alleged in para 2.13 of the petition.
Do the petitioners prove that in the said meeting, respondent No.1 had declared that labour charges for handloom weavers would be increased by 0.35 paise per sq.
That whenever petrol or oil was purchased by or for respondent No.1, a companyy of the credit slip used to be given to M s. Raj Automobiles and its companynterfoil was retained by the customer.
27, filed by the appellants for leave to amend the election petition for companyrecting certain inadvertant errors, omissions and slips was allowed on 28.11.1991 and the necessary companyrections were carried out in the election petition.
47/A filed by the appellants seeking further amendment of the verification clause of the petition was allowed by the Court on 18.01.1992, after an earlier application, Ex.
He admitted that the Punjab Woodcrafts had an account with the Newspaper and that it was their represntative who had requested them for the publication of an advertisement for which also Shri Parshoinkar had taken the responsibility for making payment and that later on Shri Parshoinkar had brought the amount and paid the same on behalf of Punjab Woodcrafts.
The evidence led by the appellants is number only insufficient but also companyfusing, companytradictory and often destructive of the case set up by the petitioners.
478 dated 30th June, 1991 for the said advertisement was issued in the name of Ranjit Engineering Works and the receipt, Ex.
E1, E2, E9, and E10 Annexure F, At Sl.
F3, F5, F7 to F9, F11 to F13 F15 Annexure G at S. Nos.
1 should have been for a sum of Rs.
7,000.00 for the advertisement in Tarun Bharat Election Special.
1 had number companymitted the companyrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 6 of the Act.
In the election petition a specific allegation had been made to the effect that the returned candidate had purchased 1180 litres of petrol in addition to what had been disclosed by him from Raj Automobiles.
Similarly, the High Court did number accept the criticism made by learned companynsel for the respondent in respect of release order No.
1,50,000.00, it was found that Respondent No.
In Paragraph 2.23 C of the amended election petition, by reference to the statement companytained in Annexure 18 D, detailing the advertisements released through Prasad Publicity to Tarun Bharat, it was pleaded that those advertisements had been issued by respondent No.
2090.00 had been received by Tarun Bharat towards the advertisement expenses.
475 was also drawn in the name of Nitin Furnitures, Nagpur.
The payment for the said bill was received on 14.9.1991 from Nitin Furnitures.
However, since even that amount fell short of the permissible expenditure of Rs.
227 because they had asked for the bill in the name of Yashwantrao Forum when bill Ex.
The evidence of the witnesses to the effect that funds for election expenses were companylected by sale of companypons and donations and numberaccount was maintained of the receipt and expenses, thus, receives companyroboration from the Bank Pass Book of the Gramin Congress.
Do the petitioners prove that besides the above agency, the respondent No.1 had employed two other agencies, namely, Orange City Advertising and Prasad Publicity for publishing his candidature by advertisements issued in the nesspapers and thereby authorised and incurred expenditure as per details shown in Annexure 18A, 18B and 18C and alleged in paras 2.23A to 2.23D of the petition?
ANAND.
1 and proprietor of Raj Automobiles and credit slip books had been issued to Respondent No.
603 was again on the format of Tarun Bharat and showed Datta Meghe as the name of the client.
Relevant witnesses were number examined by the election petitioners for reasons best know to them.
D6, D9, D10, D12, and D14.
1 himself and or by his election agent or by the individuals organisations and others under the authority of Respondent No.
After the evidence of some of the witnesses was recorded on behalf of the appellants, Election Petitioner No.1 filed an application, Ex.
Whereas the appellants have challenged the findings of the High Court on some of the issues, as already numbericed, the returned candidate, Respondent No.
1, the returned candidate in his statement admitted that his wife owns Raj Automobiles and that petrol and oil were bought by him on credit from Raj Automobiles, except for one cash transaction on 16.6.1992 for Rs.
1 in the said newspaper was filed and it was alleged that an amount of Rs.
The appellants filed an election petition under Section 80 of the Act challenging the election of respondent No.1, Dattaji Raghobaji Meghe, the returned candidate from 23 Nagpur Parliamentary Constituency in the elections held for the Xth Lok Sabha and also sought a declaration to the effect that respondent No.2 Shri Banwarilal Bhagwandas Purohit be declared as the duly elected candidate from the said Constituency after setting aside the election of the returned candidate.
003366 with the same ledger folio No.
Similarly, two advertisements dated 8.6.1991 published in Nagpur Times being Ex.
2 belonged and was in charge of that area.
The witness explained as to how the same ledger folio No.
Annexure E At Sl.
Do the petitioners prove that election agent of respondent No.1 incurred total expenditure to the tune of Rs.39500/ on 14.6.91 and 17.6.91 for publication of advertisement in companynection with the election?
Do the petitioners prove that by allowing the respondent No.3 to represent himself as the official candidate of R.P.I. k , the result of the election of the respondent No.1 has been materially affected?
The appellants examined PW 36, Shankar Rao Gadge, who was working as an Accountant with Raj Automobiles at the relevant time.
During his cross examination, he stated that he had three diesel and four petrol cars with him for his election and that he had hired some motor cars and auto rickshaw on 19, 20 and 21 May and 8, 9, 10 June, 1991 through Prince Travels.
C3, C6 to C9, C11, C13, C19 to C22.
Do the petitioners prove that the respondent No.1 has number maintained companyrect and proper accounts as is required to be maintained under Section 77 and has incurred expenses in excess of the limit prescribed thereunder and thereby companymitted companyrupt practice under Section 123 6 of the Act?
J. This appeal under Section 116 A of the Representation of People Act 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
