Menaka Gandhi and the Sikh companymunity and made statements amounting to companyrupt practice within the meaning of Sub sections 3 and 3A of Section 123 of the Act iii Sri Murali Mohan, at the instance of first respondent, declared Sri N.T. Ramarao, Telugu Desam leader, as the incarnation of God, Lord Krishna, Lord Rama, etc.
The respondent No.l, who was elected as the successful candidate, denied specifically the allegations made against him.
The petitioner has attempted to prove his case by his oral evidence P.W. 1 and that of Alluri Raja Reddy P.W.9 .
1 to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly in 1985 from Metapally companystituency.
The High Court, by the impugned judgment, rejected the petitioners election petition.
Menaka Gandhi who toured the companystituency and addressed public meetings in support of the candidature of the peritioner, the respondent No.
The petitioner made following allegations in support of his charge of companyrupt practiccs The respondent No.1 was guilty of spending in companynection with the said election a sum exceeding the amount prescribed under Section 77 of the Act ii With a view to companynterweigh the impact created by Smt.
Admittedly Sri Murali Mohan did address the meeting in which the respondent No.
and exhorted the electors to vote for the first respondent on that basis iv A large number of booklets companytaining the photographs of Sri N.T. Ramarao in the roles of Lord Krishna, Lord Rama, etc.
The learned companynsel relied on the evidence of P.W.1, 7 and 8 for proving the story.
The respondent No.
Besides the appellant and the respondent No.
Menaka Gandhi belonged to the Sikh companymunity which was secessionist in character and was responsible for the murder of Smt.
The poll was held on 5.3.1985, the result in favour of the respondent number 1 announced on 6.3.1985 and the present election petition was filed by the appellant on 9.4.1985 alleging companyrupt practices.
1 in the election did number exceed the prescribed limit.
1 were also disbelieved.
Some entries in certain documents relied upon by the petitioner were held to be forgeries.
On the other hand when a companyplaint was lodged with the Election Observer on the 1st of March, 1985, this incident was number mentioned.
P.W.7 was number mentioned as a witness on this point in the election petition.
According to the further story, when the vehicles were seized on the 4th of March, 1985, election materials belonging to the respondent No.1 were found therein, but the officers omitted the name of the respondent No, 1 from F.I.R. and permitted his people to escape.
The petitioner has number filed any supporting document to show that any representation was actually sent to the Excise Superintendent as claimed.
1 invited Sri Murali Mohan, a popular Telugu cinema actor, who in the afternoon of February 26, 1985 made a speech unjustly critising Smt.
With respect to the petitioners case about the companytents of the speech of Sri Murali Mohan in the public meeting on February 26, 1985, it was held that the petitioner failed to lead sufficient evidence to sustain a finding in his favour.
1, the electors were asked to vote for the respondent No.l.
The learned companynsel for the petitioner referred to paragraph 15 of the election petition in this companynection which alleges distribution of Arrack by the respondent No.
On these grounds and on the further plea that N.T. Ramarao, was an incarnation of God who was helping the respondent No.
However, since the learned companynsel for the petitioner appearing before us has bot challenged the High Courts findings on this issue, it is number necessary to discuss the point any further.
1 attacked the jeep of the petitioner and caused damage thereto with a view to prevent him from companyvassing.
After a companysideration of the evidence, the High Court has held that the total expenditure incurred by the respondent No.
A representation is said to have been sent by the petitioner to the Excise Superintendent.
The allegations regarding the distribution of Arrack and capture of booths by and on behalf of the respondent No.
P.W.I is the petitioner himself and as stated earlier his evidence is discrepant and uninspiring.
The depositions of P.Ws.Indira Gandhi.
It is alleged that the cinema actor was telling the audience that Smt.
According to their story they along with another person Abdul Qayyum were proceeding on a jeep, and were held up on the road on account of the public meeting which was being addressed by Murali Mohan.
1 was the candidate of the Bharatiya Janatha Party, which was in alliance with the Telugu Desam Party.
1 was also present but, he examined as R.W.8 , as well as, the respondent No.
Menaka Gandhi was the leader and the respondent No.
On the question of distribution of booklets, companytaining the photographs of N.T. Ramarao in the roles of Lord Rama, Lord Krishna and others, the High Court agreed with the petitioner that the booklets were, in fact, distributed in the said meeting with an object to appeal to the religious faith of the voters but, rejected his further case that the distribution was done by or with the companysent of the respondent No.1.
Mrs. Menaka Gandhi was also personally companydemned as being unfaithful to her husband during his lifetime.
The registered numbers of the vehicles seized by the police have been mentioned as being in the service of the respondent.
The petitioner also accused the Returning Officer in the matter of companynting of the votes but, since this point has number been pressed before us, it is number necessary to mention the details.
The appellant was a member of the Rashtriya Sanjay Manch of which Smt.
and the last page photograph with a caption Telugu Desam Vijay Sarathi meaning a man who leads Telugu Desam to victory was distributed in the said meeting.
7 The learned companynsel appearing in support of the appeal has placed before us the evidence relating to the meeting addressed by Sri Murali Mohan and the distribution of booklets, and companytended that the petitioners case is fit to be accepted.
1, there were several other companytestants at the said election.
1 on 28.2.1985.
1 thus indulged in the companyrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 4 of the Act The first respondent resorted to false impersonation of the electors, captured booths and got false voted polled vi The first respondent distributed Arrack amongst the voters with a view to companytrol the votes and vii The respondent No.
Lalit Mohan Sharma, J. This appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is directed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Section 98 of the said Act dismissing the election petition filed by the appellant, challenging the election of the respondent No.
1 R.W.I denied to have made the above statements.
