3 of 1965.
Under the directions of the Chief Justice, the appeal came up before U. N. Sinha, J., who, in both cases, agreed with the view taken by Ramratna Singh, J. and, companysequently, in accordance with the view of the majority, the Court ultimately dismissed the appeal holding that the offer of bribe by the appellant to Shah Mustaq Ahmad and Ram Narain Choudhary had been proved.
The Election Tribunal, after full trial of the petition, held that respondent No.
The other member, Ramratna Singh, J., agreed with Mahapatra, J. with regard to the three instances of giving bribe to the three persons mentioned in Schedule I and also with regard to the offer of bribe to two of the persons mentioned in Schedule II.
1454 of 1966.
9 and 14 were two persons examined to companyroborate him.
He pointed out to us that Ramratna Singh, J., had held at p. 454 of the Paper book that it is true that P.W. 2 did number disclose the names of P.Ws.
By a subsequent amendment, three fresh names were added in Schedule I and five in Schedule 11.
The election was to be held on 26th March, 1964.
Owing to this difference of opinion, the two learned Judges directed that the case may be placed before the Honble the Chief Justice for reference of the point of difference to another Bench under Art.
28 of the Letters Patent.
W. 2 was Ram Narain Choudhary who was one of the persons to whom bribe was alleged to have been offered by the appellant, and P.Ws.
The appellant has number companye up in appeal to this Court under certificate granted by ,the High Court at Patna against this judgment of that Court.
XII of Borough of Staleybridge, 1869 1 OMalley and Hardcastle p. 66 and Case No.
In the election petition as originally filed, Schedule I companytained the names of five persons to whom, it was alleged, bribe had actually been paid by the appellant.
In the actual trial, however, evidence was number tendered in respect of some of these allegations.
it appears that the Congress Party put up 6 candidates out of the total of 13 candidates who were numberinated for these eight vacancies.
The amendment having been allowed by the Election Tribunal, the petition, at the stage of the trial, companytained allegations of payment of bribe to eight persons and of offer of bribe to ten persons.
Chatturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani v. Moreshwar Parashram Ors.
1 had succeeded in proving that the appellant had given bribes to three of the persons mentioned in Schedule II and had offered bribe to four persons mentioned in Schedule II.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by.
Two of the candidates withdrew after scrutiny of numberination papers and, companysequently, for the actual election there were 6 Congress candidates and 5 others.
P. Varma and D. Goburdhun, for respondent No.
In his appeal, three points were urged by Mr. Veda Vyas, learned companynsel for the appellant.
The appellant appealed to the High Court at Patna.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated March 3, 1966 of the Patna High Court in Election Appeal No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
With regard to two instances of offer of bribe in Schedule 11, he disagreed with Mahapatra, J. and upheld the decision of the Election Tribunal.
1, Sheel Bhadra Yajee, then filed an election petition challenging the election of the appellant to the Rajya Sabha.
Bhargava, J. In 1964, there were eight vacancies in the Rajya Sabha for which members had to be elected from the companystituency of the Legislative Assembly of Bihar.
relied on.
Respondent No.
Goel, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 364, distinguished.
9 and 14 to Yajee before September or October, 1964, but the number dis.closure of the names of persons to whom he had spoken about the incident when the first talk with Yajee took place is number material.
XV of Borough of Coventry, 1869 1 OMalley and Hardcastle p. 97.
One of the Congress candidates was respondent Sheel Bhadra Yajee.
Amongst these 5 others was the appellant Rajendra Prasad Jain who was standing as an Independent candidate.
At the election, Rajendra Prasad Jain was declared as one of the elected candidates, while respondent Sheel Bhadra Yajee was unsuccessful.
The main ground for challenge was that the, appellant had companymitted the companyrupt practice of bribery or offer of bribery in order to secure his election.
Schedule II companytained the names of five persons to whom bribe had been offered by the appellant.
1954 S.C.R. 817, Case No.
Veda Vyasa, K. K. Jain and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the ap pellant.
