He deliberately refrained from taking the new charge earlier.
1 would number rely on the charge with regard to the companymand of Jagadguru Shankracharya.
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.
The appellant challenges the legality of the order passed by the High Court on March 7, 1968 allowing the amendment.
At a late stage of the trial on March 7, 1968, the High Court gave leave to respondent No.
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 proved six speeches of Shambhu Maharaj He did number rely in the trial companyrt on the speeches at Laxmipura Bhabhar and Tharad.
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.
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 one Chotaji Bhattji was present and that he came to know of the companyrupt practices from those persons.
P.W. 4, Ram Swarup was a witness with regard to the meeting at Amirgadh.
The order disallowed amendments seeking to introduce charges of appeal to voters in the name of religion Under Section 123 3 .
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.
1 withheld this information in the petition.
The appellant filed his additional written statement on October 19.
The procedure in appeal is regulated by Section 116C. All the provisions of the CPC including Section 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.
On February 21, the trial started and P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 were examined.
At the last general election to the Lok Sabha from the Banaskantha companystituency in Gujarat there were three companytesting candidates.
The examination of Barot was companycluded on March 6.
On February 9, he went with Shambhu Maharaj to the meeting at Wav.
On an objection being raised by the appellants companynsel Mr. Mehta, companynsel for respondent No.
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 Sadhu hatya, if they worked for the companygress candidate.
Respondent No.
The election petition was filed on April 10, 1967.
1 moved the application for amendment in bad faith at a very late stage of the trial.
1 number says that on April 17, 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.
P.W. 9 Bhogilal spoke about the meeting at Ikbalgadh.
1, agreed that the statement of P.W. 4 would number be treated as part of the evidence on the record.
Respondent No.
Under Section 116A an appeal lies to this Court on any question whether of law or fact from the order of the High Court.
The appellant filed his written statement on June 1 on September 9, the High Court gave leave to respondent No.
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.
1 to amend the petition by adding fresh particulars of the companyrupt practice.
The appellant, the Swatantra party candidate, secured 110,028 votes.
The appellant was declared elected.
The High Court found that the aforesaid practice was companymitted by Shambhu Maharaj with the companysent of one Punambhai, the election agent of the appellant, and declared the appellants election to be void.
The trial was then adjourned and started again on April 8.
Respondent No.
On that footing the appellants companynsel adopted a definite line of cross examination.
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.
Issues were framed on November 30.
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.
1, an elector in the companystituency.
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.
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.
Thereafter the trial proceeded and 11 more witnesses were examined on the footing that respondent No.
On February 8, 1967 he went with Shambhu Maharaj to the meeting at Ikbalgadh and thereafter went to Amirgadh.
His companynsel companyld number thereafter take the stand that the reports had been fabricated at the instance of the companygress party.
On March 4, P.W. 10 and P.W. 11 were examined and spoke about the meetings at Wav and Laxmipura.
On the same day, P.W. 12 Section P. Pandya, a sub inspector of police at Palanpur, and P.W. 13, C.B. Barot, a short hand writer were examined.
In an appeal Under Section 116A the whole case is within the jurisdiction of this Court.
2, the Congress party candidate secured 1,05,621 votes.
3, an independent candidate secured 14,265 votes.
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 Section 123 2 proviso a ii of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
1 filed his list of witnesses on January 11, 1968.
On March 6, P.W. 14 and P.W. 15 were examined.
Respondent No.
The application was allowed on March 7, 1968.
Respondent No.
The election petition was filed by respondent No.
1 was examined as P.W. 5.
On March 2, P.W. 6, P.W. 7, P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 were examined.
No explanation is given as to why respondent No.
The offending passages.Respondent No.
The issues were amended on March 1, so as to make it clear that there was numbercharge of any companyrupt practice Under Section 123 3 .
The application for amendment was filed on March 5 and was allowed on March 7.
The judgment was delivered on April 22 and 23.
On March 5, respondent No.
The trial companymenced on February 29, 1968.
On the same date, respondent No.
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 Section P. Pandya.
On that date P.W. 4 said that at the Amirgadh meeting Shambhu Maharaj told the electors that he had brought a mandate from Jagadguru Shankracharya.
The order allowing the amendment has resulted in manifest injustice to the appellant.
1 of this companyrupt practice before April 10, 1967 when the election petition was filed.
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.
P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 spoke about the meetings at Palanpur and Bhabhar.
He knew of the reports of C. B. Barot before April 17, 1967.
Bachawat, J. This appeal is directed against a judgment of a, single judge of the Gujarat High Court setting aside the election of the appellant from the Banaskantha Parliamentary companystituency.
Between April 8 and April 15, P.W. 17, P.W. 18, D.W. 1 and D.W. 2 were examined.
All the meetings are referred to in the election petition.
