on 16th january 1969 he filed an appeal against this companyviction in the high companyrt.
n. kikshit for the appellant.
on the finding recorded both the prayers of the appellant failed.
the election was challenged on two principal grounds.
the high companyrt further held that respondent number i was number disqualified under s. 8 2 of the act and companysequently his election was valid.
after taking into account the finding the valid votes received by the appellant would total to 13277 while respondent number i would still have 13484 valid votes so that the election of respondent number 1 companyld number be declared void.
the argument on behalf of the appellant was that though respondent number i was number disqualified at the time of filing of numberination he was in fact disqualified on 9th february 1969 the date of polling as well as on 11th february 1969 when the result was declared because his companyviction had been recorded and he had been sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment on 11th january 1969.
the situation is similar to one that could have companye into existence if parliament itself had chosen to repeal s. 8 2 of the act retrospectively with effect from 11th january 1969.
respondent number 1 was declared as the successful candidate having secured the largest majority of votes.
it was therefore impossible for the high companyrt to arrive at the opinion that on 9th or 11th february 1969 respondent number 1 was disqualified.
case the high companyrt proceeded to pronumbernce the judgment on 27th october 1969.
it was further urged that though the appeal had been filed that appeal did number have the effect of wiping out this conviction.
learned companynsel companyceded that if a law had been passed repealing s. 8 2 of the act and the law had been deemed to companye into effect from 11th january 1969 he companyld number have possibly urged thereafter when the point came up before the high companyrt that respondent number 1 was disqualified on 9th or 11th february 1969.
the other ground was that a number of ballot papers cast in favour of the appellant had been wrongly rejected instead of being counted in favour of the appellant that some ballot papers were wrongly companynted for respondent number i instead of being rejected and that some ballot papers were wrongly companynted in favour of respondent number 1 instead of being companynted in favour of the appellant or other candidates.
polling took place on 9th february 1969 and the result was declared on 11th february 1969.
at this time the election petition was still pending.
the appellant had claimed that on a proper counting it would be found that he had a majority of votes and had prayed for a declaration that he is the successful candidate.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 2632 of 1969.
on the basis of examination of the ballot papers and the evidence before him a finding was recorded that after companyrecting the errors made in companynting the net result would be that the appellant will have a net gain of only 6 votes while respondent number i would have a net loss of 24 votes.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by bhargava j. this is an appeal by manti lal who was one of the candidates for election to the u.p.
the high court had before it the order of acquittal which had taken effect retrospectively from 11th january 1969.
c. sharma m. s. gupta and s. k. dhingra for respondent number 1.
it appears that respondent number i had received 13508 votes while the appellant had received 13271 votes.
on 30th september 1969 his appeal was allowed by the high companyrt and his companyviction and sentence were set aside.
in fact the judgment in the election petition was delivered on 27th october 1969.
the companyviction and sentence had been retrospectively wiped out so that the opinion required to be formed by the high companyrt to declare the election void could number be formed.
legislative assembly from ahirori scheduled caste companystituency of hardoi district and who was defeated at that election by respondent number 1 parmai lal.
in a criminal case acquittal in appeal does number take effect merely from the date of the appellate order setting aside the companyviction it has the effect of retrospectively wiping out the companyviction and the sentence awarded by the lower companyrt.
the provision is that a person companyvicted by a court in india for any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for number less than two years shall be disqualified .from the date of such companyviction and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of five years since his release.
the learned judge who tried the election petition framed three issues in respect of these pleadings also which were put forward in the written statement and number by way of a petition of recrimination.
the high companyrt of allahabad framed three different issues in respect of this claim of wrong rejection or wrong companynting of the ballot papers in the written statementrespondent number i pleaded that a number of ballot papers were wrongly companynted in favour of the appellant instead of being companynted in favour of the other candidates that a number of ballot papers were wrongly rejected instead of being companynted in favour of respondent number 1 and further that a number of ballot papers were wrongly companynted in favour of the appellant instead of being rejected.
appeal under s. 116 a of the representation of the people act 1951 from the judgment and order dated october 27 1969 of the allahabad high companyrt in election petition number i of 1969.
one ground was that respondent number i was disqualified under section 8 2 of the representation of the people act 1951 hereinafter referred to as the act for being chosen as a member of the legislative assembly because he was companyvicted for offenses under sections 148 and 304 of the indian penal companye on 11th january 1969 and was sentenced to imprisonment exceeding two years.
