He does number involve the first respondent and he filed numberwritten companyplaint.
1, Abdulrahim Tajjuji Kundiwala, to the Gujarat State Legislative Assembly from Jamalpur companystituency.
Secondly, according to police Inspector Ansari, Mohmad Shariff did number make any allegation against the first respondent and the only allegation made was against P.S.I. Jhala.
a.m., when he again visited Mahajanvanda Polling Station, the companyplaint was by Mohmad Shariff and one boyish looking person.
First, Police Inspector Ansari had denied that Farid, W.5, had companyplained, to him.
On issue No.
Under issue No.
Does the petitioner prove that the respondent No1 incurred expenses beyond the limit of Rs.
Police Inspector Ansari has stated that when he went to Saiyadwada, he asked this witness to give him a written companyplaint or to allow him to take down the companyplaint in writing, but the witness declined to give a written companypliant or to permit Police Inspector Ansari to reduce the companyplaint into writing.
A few preliminary facts may be set out in order to appreciate the points raised before us.
3233/17 p. has been debated.
The appellant, a Congress candidate, was defeated by the first respondent, a Swatantra Party candidate, the appellant securing 13600 votes and the first respondent securing 14023 votes.
1 filed his statement of election expenses amounting to Rs.
P. W. 5 Mohmad Shariff Kasamji Ravata wala, P. W. 7 Police Inspector Ansari, P. W. 6 Deputy Superintendent Police Saiyad, P. W. 8 and Jamalbhai Suleman Kakkuwala, P. W. 9.
According to Police Inspector Ansari, it was Mohmad Shariff Raviawala who had companyplained to him at the time of his visit to Mahajanvanda polling Booth at about 10.30 a.m. Similarly, at about 11.30.
The appellant produced five witnesses, Farid Jamalji Rolhvala.
The learned companynsel has taken us through their evidence and we are unable to agree with him that the High Court has companye to a wrong companyclusion.
A. number of points were raised in the election petition.
Whether the said police officer in the presence of and within the hearing of respondent No.
1 companytinuously made propaganda and asked voters to vote in favour of the symbol of Star as alleged ?
1 and had number been entered in his account books or mentioned in the statement filed by him.
1 the case of the appellant is that P. S. I. Jhala was on duty at the Polling Booth at villages Mahajanvanda and Saiyadvada on February 21, 1967, and he canvassed voters to vote for respondent No.
On March 24, 1967, respondent No.
In brief, it is alleged that this expenditure was incurred or authorised by respondent No.
The evidence of P. W. 5, in brief, was that he went to the Polling Booth at Mahajanvanda at about 10.30 or 10.45 a.m. and joined the queue of voters while he was in the queue he saw the first respondent and P. S. 1.
5 only one item of Rs.
8000/ prescribed by Rule 90 of the Conduct of Election Rules read with Section 11 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as alleged ?
Jhala there canvassing votes he companyplained to P. S. I. Jhala who told him You attend to your own, affairs, go away from here he then went back to the queue but P. S. I. Jhala again carried on the propaganda and he again protested to P.S.I. Jhala who gave the same reply as before he then left the Polling Booth and met Mohmad Shariff Kasamji Ravtawala, P.W. 7, to whom he narrated the entire incident in the meantime Police Inspector, Ansari, P.W.6, came near the Polling Booth whereupon he narrated to him all that had happened Ansari went up to Jhala and told him something and then told them that he had asked Jhala and the first respondent number to carry on propaganda in the manner in which they had been carrying on in spite of the instructions given by Ansari, Jhahj.
Although six issues were framed by the High Court on the allegations in the petition and two on the allegations in the Recriminatory Statement, we are number only companycerned in the appeal with two issues, issues Nos.
1 and 5, as the learned companynsel for the appellant has only pressed these issues before us They read as follows Does the petitioner prove that P.S.I. Madhavsing Jalamsing Jhala, was on duty as Police Officer at the polling booth in Jamalpur Constituency on the date of election as alleged ?
5255/20 p. On April 7, 1967, the election petition was filed.
On January 13, .1967, a numberification was issued calling upon the voters of this Constituency to elect a candidate on February 21, 1967, polling took place in the Constituency and the result was announced on February 23, 1967.
Some of those points were number pressed before the High Court and were number the subject matter of issues framed by the High Court.
Sikri, J. This appeal Under Section 116 A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Gujarat dismissing the election petition filed by the appellant against the election of respondent No.
companytinued to carry on the propaganda as before and thereupon Ansari told, him something again.
The High Court found various difficulties in accepting this version.
