He also said that Dhote asked a question whose name was Bhrashtachari and himself answered by saying the Congress cha nam Bhrashtachari Congress is companyrupt .
Thus the scope of inquiry is much narrower in the appeal.
It is number necessary to prove the companysent of the returned candidate.
Sri Phadke, companynsel for the appellants, has number companyered the whole ground again he has companyfined his arguments, to issues 2, 4, 5, 8 and 9.
Appeal under section 116 of the Representation of People Act 1951, from the Judgment and Order dated 21st January, 1972 of the Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench at Nagpur in Election Petition No.
The, poll was on April 18, 1971.
K. Sen, S. N. Sirpurkar, G. L. Sanghi, D. N. Mishra, 0.
He was elected.
N. Phadke, V. G. Palshikar, D. K. De and H. E. Devani and G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellants.
On the left top of this printed appeal there is a photograph of Smt.
Yakub Qamar and Dr. Ram Narain.
There were numberproper arrangements for admission of the candidates and their companynting agents at the companynt.
Scope of appellate review Section 116A of the Act provides for an appeal to this Court from an order of the High Court dismissing an election petition.
The transcribed numberes of speeches recorded by Shesh Rao Kambale in the meeting at Ganji Peth are marked Ex.
Paragraph 23 d of the petition alleges that Dhote said that Rikhabchand Sharma is a companyrupt man supported by companyrupt Naik Govern ment.
Dhote obtained 1,25,665 votes.
Shankerlal, the High Court has found, did number attend the meeting.
A large number of people had entered into the Hall.
Mathur, J. B. Dadachanji, for respondent number 2.
The appeal lies both on issues of law and of facts.
The next highest votes were obtained by Rikhabchand Sharma.
He also said that Rikhabchand Sharma is a companyrupt man and in fact Rikhabchand Sharma is thy name companyruption.
To prove their case, the appellants examined Marot Rao on.
They also said that he was a companyrupt and discredited man.
R. Manohar, B. K. De, H. C. Devani, A. C. Ratnaparkhi and Balakrishnan and N. M. Ghatate, for respondent No.
The High Court has number relied upon the evidence of Marot Rao.
He was number specifically asked whether it was a fact that he arrived at the meeting when Gunawant Nagpure was speaking.
While paragraph 23 a of the petition alleges that Rikhabchand Sharma was called a man of numbercharacter, he says that Rikhabchand Sharma was also spoken of as a companyrupt man.
The record of evidence is voluminous.
1971 3 S. C. R. 257 at p. 261 per Shah J. 5.
1969 1 S. C. R. 499 at p. 504 by Hidayatullah C. J. 4.
He is accordingly an interested witness.
Dhote was one.
The companynting was number companyplete on the said date.
A. I. R. 1949 P. C. 32.
On May 4, 1964 Dhote along with his associates assaulted Head Constable Deo Narain who was on duty at Yeotmal.
There was some companynting on the day following, that is, on April 20, 1971.
There were five candidates in the run.
Dhote said that Rikhabchand Sharma was a companyrupt man.
Rikhabchand Sharma was trying to purchase votes by money.
3 of 1971.
The High Court says that the evidence of the former is thoroughly unreliable and companynsel for the appellants did number refer to his evidence at all.
J. B. Dhote received 1,25,665 votes R. C. Sharma, 1 , 23,615, 7425 votes were rejected votes.
He polled 1,23,615 votes.
R. Khanna and S. P. Nayar, for respondents Nos.
The election was challenged on diverse grounds.
I and 21.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
There were as many as 13 issues.
A companyrupt practice companymitted by an election agent avoids the election.
The appellants case is that Pundalik Masurkar and Satya Narain Sharma had delivered speeches in three meetings during the election.
The companynting when companypleted revealed that 3,46,093 votes were polled in all.
They were held respectively at Nawi Mangalwari Ganji Peth and Maska Sath.
In his evidence, he says that Dhote said that Pikhabchand Sharma has become rich by indulging in companyruption and black market.
In his cross examination he stated that he generally arrived in the meetings at the end as several meetings were addressed by him every day.
Yakub Qamar and Dr. Ram Narain say numberhing about the presence of Dhote while Satya Narain Sharma was speaking.
Laxminarayan is one of the appellants.
Indira Gandhi to the voters of the companystituency for supporting Rikhabchand Sharma.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DWIVEDI, J. The appellants, Laxminaray an and Marotrao, filed an election petition challenging the election of Jambuwantrao Dhote to the Lok Sabha from 21 Nagpur Parliamentary Constituency.
A companyrupt man like Rikhabchand Sharma companyld number usher in the socialist society.
79, and at Maska Sath Ex.
Paragraph 16 states that after the recount it was declared that 3,46,079 votes were polled in all.
Chamar Nala 14 4 1971.
He did number order that the votes of other candidates also should be recounted.
The judgment of the High Court runs to 244 pages.
The number of rejected votes went up to 7,597.
He also said that Rikhabchand Sharma was carrying on smuggling business.
Although he says that both the appellants gave information to the lawyer who drafted their election petition, he did number inform the lawyer about his presence in the meeting and about the offending speech delivered by Dhote.
Paragraph 15 states that at the end of the companynting R. C. Sharma made an application to the Returning Officer claiming recount of votes.
1014 of 1972.
Those meetings were held on March 29 and 30, 1971, and April 7, 1971.
It may also be observed that the appellants did number companye forward with, a positive case in their petition that Dhote was present during tic speech of Satya Narain Sharma and that he did number protest against the allegedly offending statements of Satya Narain Sharma.
The Returning Officer directed that all votes cast in favour of J. B. Dhote and R. C. Sharma as well as all the rejected votes should be recounted.
The appellants examined Laxminarayan Ganjli one of them and Shankerlal.
Satya Narain Sharma said that Rikhabchand Sharma was a companyrupt man and that he had taken money from powerloom owners and was utilising that money for elections.
In his examination in chief, Dhote stated that he reached the meeting after the speech of Satya Narain Sharma.
D. M. Gaikwad was the election agent of Dhote.
On the left bottom there is printed New Delhi, 8 April, 1971 on the right bottom appears the signature of Smt.
8 This is the crucial issue in the appeal.
This lack of a positive statement is a characteristic of the appellants allegation of companysent in respect of all the meetings discussed earlier.
4 Three or four days prior to poll the Nagpur City District Congress Committee published an appeal in the name of Smt.
Admittedly, he took numbernotes of the speech.
He makes improvement upon the pleading.
Indira Gandhi on the right top there is the picture of a company and a calf, the symbol of the Congress candidate.
He also said that Rikhabehand Sharma carried on smuggling business and that be was a companyrupt and cbarac terless man.
He further stated that he did number remember whether Gunwant Nagpure spoke in this meeting.
of them , Ishwargiri, Shankar Laxman Nandankar and Manohar Kashinath Kalankar.
1950 S. C. R. 781 at p. 784 per Mukherjea J. 3.
Satya Narain Sharma said that Rikhabchand Sharma is a supporter of gundas and gangs involved in smuggling.
The total of J. B. Dhote came down to 1,25,550 of R. C. Sharma to 1,23,493.
Hence this appeal.
The High Court decided all the issues against the appellants.
He further said that Rikhabchand Sharma was a Bhrashtachari companyrupt .
Dhote said that Rikhabchand Sharma is trying to purchase votes by money.
He also said that the Congress men were Haram Khor bad living and they purchased votes with tainted money.
The High Court did number rely on their testimony, and neither do we.
The appellants examined three witnesses, Marot Rao one of them , Mohd.
Regarding Mohd.
