On February 8, 1967 he went with Shambhu Maharaj to the meeting at Ikbalgadh 1 1969 S.C.E. 499.
22 of 1967.
P.W. 9 Bhogilal spoke about the meeting at Ikbalgadh.
On the same date, respondent No.
1 was examined as P.W. 5.
On March 6, W. 14 and P.W. 15 were examined.
The judgment was delivered on April,22 and 23.
1 and 2.
His companynsel companyld number thereafter take the stand that the reports had been fabricated at the instance of the companygress party , Respondent No.
On that date W. 4 said that at the Amirgadh meeting Shambhu Maharaj told the electors that he had brought a mandate from Jagadguru Shankracharya.
R. Gokhale, K. G. Vakharia, K. L. Hathi and Atiqur Rahman, for respondents Nos.
W. 4, Ram Swarup was a witness with regard to the meeting at Amirgadh.
On that footing the appellants companynsel adopted a definite line of cross examination.
Barot proved that he, took shorthand numberes of the speeches of Shambhu Maharaj at Ikbalgadh, Amirgadh, Bhabhar, Laxmipura, Wav and Tharad and sent reports of the speeches to S. P. Pandya.
Thereafter the trial proceeded and 11 more witnesses were examined on the footing that respondent No.
Between April 8 and April 15, P.W. 17, P.W. 18, D.W. 1 and, D.W. 2 were examined.,
The procedure in appeal is regulated by s. 116C. All the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure including s. 105 apply to the appeal, and any error in an order of the Trial companyrt affecting the decision of the case may be taken as a ground of objection in the appeal.
The application, for amendment was filed on March 5 and was allowed on March 7.
Assuming that he companyld number get certified companyies of the reports, he companyld set forth in the petition the substance of the charge with regard to the companymand of Sri Shankracharya from the information supplied by his informants.
The High Court found that the aforesaid practice was companymitted by Shambhu Maharaj with the Consent of one Punambhai, the election agent of the appellant, and declared the appellants election to be void.
Respondent No.
2, the Congress party candidate secured 1,05,621 votes.
1 to amend the petition, by adding the charge that certain persons were threatened that they would companymit the sins of go hatya, Brahma hatya and Sadhuhatya, if they worked for the companygress candidate.
The examination of Barot was companycluded on March 6.
On March 4, P.W. 10 and W. 11 were examined and spoke, about the meetings at Wav and Laxmipura.
The Judgment of SIKRI and BACHAWAT, JJ.
The election petition was filed on April 10, 1967.
He deliberately refrained from taking the new charge earlier.
1, an elector in the companystituency.
In the petition the charge was that several persons with the companysent of the appellant or his election agents induced or attempted to induce the electors to believe that if they voted for the companygress party candidate they would become the objects of divine displeasure and spiritual, censure.
P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 spoke about the meetings at Palanpur and Bhabhar.
was delivered by BACHAWAT, J. HEGDE, J. delivered a separate opinion.
No explanation is given as to why respondent No.
On the same day, P.W. 12 S. P. Pandya, a sub inspector of police at Palanpur, and P.W. 13, C.B. Barot, a short hand writer were examined.
The appellant challenges the legality of the order passed by the High Court on March 7, 1968 allowing the amendment.
The order allowing the amendment has resulted in manifest injustice to the appellant.
On March 2, P.W. 6, P.W. 7, P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 were examined.
The appellant filed his additional written statement on October 19.
1 filed his list of witnesses on January 11, 1968.
If Shambhu Maharaj had told the electors that Sri Shankracharya had companymanded them number to vote for the companygress candidate and that disobedience of his companymand would be sinful, P.W. 4 and Chotaji Bhattji must have informed respondent No.
Respondent No.
All the meetings are referred to in the election petition.
1 filed, an application for leave to amend the petition by adding portions of the speeches which referred to the companymand of Shankracharya number to vote for the companygress and the companysequences of number obeying the companymand.
Respondent No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The, trial companymenced on February 29, 1968.
1 withheld this information in the petition.
In an appeal under s. 116A the whole case is within the jurisdiction of this Court.
M. Nanavati, P. M. Raval, D. N. Mishra and J. B. Dada chanji, for the appellant.
Immediately after filing the election petition he companyld subpoena the reports and under orders of the Court he companyld inspect them long before the trial started.
The appellant was declared elected.
Respondent No.
At the last general election to the Lok Sabha from the Banaskantha companystituency in Gujarat there were three companytesting candidates.
1 alleged a number of companyrupt practices on the part of the appellant or his election agents, but at the trial, he pressed only the charge of companyrupt practice under s. 123 2 proviso a ii of the Representation of the People Act, 195 1.
1 number says that on April17, 1967 he applied for certified companyies of the reports of C. B. Barot to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.I.D., Ahmedabad but the application was rejected on May 14, 1967.
3, an independent candidate secured 14,265 votes.
The appellant, the Swatantra party candidate, secured 110,028 votes.
The appellant filed his written statement on June 1 on September 9, the High Court gave leave to respondent No.
The order disallowed amendments seeking to introduce, charges of appeal to voters in the name of religion under S. 123 3 .
On February 21, the trial started and P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 were examined.
The trial was, then adjourned and started again on April 8.
At a late stage of the trial on March 7, 1968, the High Court gave leave, to respondent No.
Bachawat, J. This appeal is directed against a judgment of single judge of the Gujarat High Court setting aside the election of the appellant from the Banaskantha Parliamentary companystituency.
The election petition was filed by respondent No.
The application was allowed on March 7, 1968.
Issues were framed on November 30.
1438 of 1968.
1 Shambhu Maharaj companymitted companyrupt practice at election meetings held at Ikbalgadh where P.W. 9 was present, Amirgadh where P.W. 4 Was present and at Wav where.
The issues were amended on March 1, so as to make it clear that there was numbercharge of any companyrupt practice under S. 123 3 .
Counsel adopted this line of cross examination because he took, the stand that the speeches did number prove the companyrupt practice alleged in the petition.
He was aware that the charge of telling the electors that they would companymit the sin of go hatya was quite different from the charge of telling them that they would companymit the sin of Brahma hatya or the sin of disobeying the companymand of their religious leader Sri Shankracharya.
one Chotaji Bhattji was present and that he came to know of the, companyrupt practices from those persons.
Under s. 116A an appeal lies to this Court on any question whether of law or fact from the order of the High Court.
1 moved the application for amendment in bad faith at a very late stage of the trial.
On September 25, 1967, he obtained an order giving him leave to amend the petition by adding the charge with regard to the sins of Brahma hatya and Sadhu hatya, but he deliberately refrained from adding the charge with regard to the sin of disobeying the companymand of Sri Shankracharya.
1, agreed that the statement of P.W. 4 would number be treated as part of the evidence on the record.
On February 9, he went with Shambhu Maharaj to the meeting at Wav.
In the particulars of this charge it was alleged that in the public meetings held at Amirgadh, Ikbalgadh, Wav, Laxmipura, Tharad Bhabhar and other places one Shambhu Maharaj told the electors that if they voted for the companygress candidate they would companymit the sin of company slaughter and urged them in the name of mother company to take a vow number to vote for the companygress candidate with the result that several members of the audience publicly took the vow.
He knew of the reports of C. B. Barot before April 17, 1967.
On March 4, he companysented to the marking of the full reports of the speeches of , Shambhu Maharaj as exhibits and on March 5, he extracted an admission from Barot that the witness had taken verbatim numberes of the speeches of Shambhu Maharaj.
and thereafter went to Amirgadh.
Respondent No.
1 of this companyrupt practice before April 10, 1967 when the election petition was filed.
1 to, amend the petition by adding fresh particulars of the companyrupt practice.
On an objection being raised by the appellants companynsel Mr. Mehta, companynsel for respondent No.
1 would number rely on the charge with regard to the, companymand of Jagadguru Shankra charya.
On March 5, respondent No.
Appeal under s. 116 A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 from the judgment and order dated April 22, 23, 1968 of the Gujarat High Court in Election Petition No.
