The allegation of companyrupt practice which has been found against the appellant is companytained in paragraph 9 of the election petition which reads as follows The petitioner further, states that the 1st respondent and or his election agent and or his son Somabhai Ramanbhai Patel with she companysent of the 1st respondent or the companysent of his election agent had paid Rs 500/ , by way of gift or gratification to the Sarpanch and or the Gram Panchayat of Moti Abdoli with the object of inducing the Sarpanch, the members of the Gram Panchayat and other voters of the said village under their influence to vote for the 1st respondent.
It is difficult to found the charge of companyrupt practice on the bans of the receipt which has a close companynection with the suspicious entry in the Rojmel.
The School building required repair and re construction.
The extra expenditure alleged to have been incurred by the appellant n paragraph 6 of the election petition companysisted of 21 items the total of which was Rs.
501/ by the appellant.
Respondents 2 to 6 were respondents 2 to 6 in the election petition also.
P.W. 9 admitted in his deposition that the sum of Rs.
The election petitioner field an affidavit in support of the allegations made in the election petition and vis a vis the statement in paragraph 9 the assertion was that the particulars of companyrupt practice given in paragraph 9 are true to my information.
The 1st respondent and or his election agent and or his son above named with the companysent of the 1st respondent and or his election agent has companymitted companyrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 1 of the Act.
If the entry Ext.
1 filed Election Petition No.
3 was a candidate set up by the Congress Party then known as the Ruling Congress.
Election Petition No 7 of 1975 was tiled by one Ramabhai Punjabhai.
There were several allegations in the election petition alleging companymission of several companyrupt practices by the appellant.
Shortly thereafter, he took the Sarpanch of Moti Abdoli aside and paid him a sum of Rs.
The election petition to all intents and purposes seems to have been Bled at the instance and for the bent tit of respondent No 3.
Thereupon the appellant is said to have promised before the persons present in the chora that he would try to get the work done if he was elected.
The results were declared on the 12th June, 1975.
The original receipt is said to have been sent to the appellant by post under a certificate of posting.
Ia evidence the election petitioner who was examined as P.W. 1 stated that he had received this information from Ramabhai Punjabhai who had filed the other election petition.
The appellant was declared elected to the Gujarat Assembly from the Constituency aforesaid.
8 of 1975 on the 28tb of July, 1975.
It was signed by P.W. 9 as also by the Sarpanch of Moti Abdoli P.W. 9 made an entry an 5.6.1975 in the Rojmel, which entry also was signed by she Sarpanch.
The said Sarpanch in the afternoon passed on that money to the Talati of the village, examined as P.W. 9, P.W. 9 prepared a receipt for Rs.
1 in the election petition.
7/1 12 dated 5.6.1975 companytained in Ext.
But this election petition was number proceeded with Respondent No.
The appellant is said to have gone in a motor car and reached Mani Abdoli at about numbern.
We shall, therefore, deal with these two point only in this appeal.
The appellant companytested the election as an Independent candidate and out of the unsuccessful candidates, respondent No.
The carbon companyy of the receipt Ext.
The persons present companyplained to him that numberbody was taking care for the welfare of the village after the election was held.
31 companyld be signed by the Sarpanch of Moti Abdoli, an entry which has been held to be very suspicious by us, is it possible to place any reliance upon the receipt said to bear the signature of the Sarpanch, part from the signature of P.W. 9?
The polling took place on the 8th of June, 1975.
In evidence, it was sought to be proved that the appellant visited Moti Abdoli on 5.6.1975 alongwith P.W. 10, Sarpanch of Mani Abdoli another village situated at some distance from Moti Abdoli.
7/1 12 dated 5.6.1975 companytained in Ext.
Since numberbody was present there, he proceeded to Moti Abdoli in the companypany of P.W. 10 On reaching the chora of Moti Abdoli, he found about 15 persons including some voters present there.
Respondents 2 to 6 are the unsuccessful candidates at the said election.
Ramabhai was number examined in this case.
First the suggestion was that it was in the handwriting of the appellant himself.
15/ over the permissible limit.
501/ , the carbon companyy of which was produced and marked as Ext.
The first respondent in this appeal is the election petitioner at whose instance the election of the appellant was set aside by the Gujarat High Court.
Bat all were decided in his favour except the one which will be alluded to hereinafter.
501/ on 5.6.1975 for the purpose of the School.
The appellant was impleaded as respondent No.
The High Court has number numbericed and attached due importance to these discrepancies.
It is number signed by him.
The said entry was marked Ext.
The said certificate of posting was number produced number the entry relating to the expenses of sending the letter said to have been made by P.W. 9 in the Rojmel was got exhibited.
