But in Ext.
1 of 1968.
The election petition was resisted by the 1st respondent on various grounds.
O numberverification has been made with respect to the statements made in paragraph 3 of the election petition, and instead verification has been made twice with respect to the statements made in paragraph 2, once as true to the petitioners, knowledge and again as true to his information.
In paragraph 3 of the verification at page 25 of the original, it has been stated, inter alia, that the state ments made in.
1 that the numberination of respondent No.
1 at the M.L.A. Flat on 19 3 1968, but in Ext.
O this figure has been stated to be 317 in both these paragraphs.
1 and Shri Balwant Nath Singh, M.L.A. on 26 3 1968 but in Ext.
O. In Annexure C relating to the particulars of companyrupt practice mentioned in paragraph 25 of the election petition, it has been stated in the original that Shri Munshi Hansda, M.L.A. had offered money and promised to pay money to Shri Jetha Kiski, M.L.A. for casting his first preference vote in favour of respondent No.
8 and his election agent and his agent with the companynivance and companysent of the said respondent No.
O is a companyy served on the 1st respondent.
10, reads Particulars of the gifts and gratifications in the form of bribe Offered by respondent No.
1 and his election agent are set out in Annexure D hereto annexed.
8 and his election agent and his agent with the companynivance and companysent of the said respondent No.
It has also rejected the other pleas taken by the appellant.
O mention has been made of the name of Paul Hangda, M.L.A. as the alleged offerer of money to Shri Jethu Kisku, L.A. and In Annexure C again, the, original reads that the offer of money and promise of payment of money was made to Shri Mahabir Paswan by respondent No.
P. Verma, R. Goburdhun and D. Goburdhun, for respondent No.
In paragraph 16 of the original it has been stated that respondents 2 and 3 had been set up as candidates in the election by the Samyukta Socialist Party, and as to respondents 6 and 5, it was stated that they had been set up by the Communist Party of India and the Jana Sangh respectively.
C. Chagla, D. N., Mishra, and B. P. Singh, for the appellant.
One of the companytention taken by him was that the petition was number in accordance with the provisions of ss.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In paragraph 28 of the original, the following passage occurs Particular of the ON and gratifications in the form of bribe offered by respondent No.
Saukat Hussain, for respondent No.
The, Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, j. This is an appeal under S. 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to be hereinafter referred to as the Act from the judgment and order dated July 14, 1969 of the Patna High Court in Election Petition No.
8 and his election agent are set out in Annexure D hereto annexed.,,
In that election, Bihar Legislative Assembly had to elect seven members to the Rajya Sabha.
By means of an election petition which has given rise to this appeal, he challenged the validity of the election of the 1st respondent on two grounds viz.
But the passage in Ext.
Twenty persons companytested for those seven seats.
In paragraph 3 of Annexure B a list of 20 persons has been given, one of which is Shri Brindaban Swana, M.L.A., in the original and Shri Brindaban Swansi, M.L.A. in Ext.
The discrepancies between the election petition filed in companyrt and Exh.
The appellant failed to get the required number of votes.
The appellant is one of them.
O this date has been stated as 28 3 1968.
paragraph 3 of the election petition are true to the petitioners information, but in Exh.
A biennial election to the Rajya Sabha was held in March 1968.
That paragraph to the extent material for our present purpose reads In paragraph 12, as also in paragraph 13 of the original, it has been stated that the total number of elected members of the Bihar Legislative Assembly at the time of the impugned election was 316, whereas in Ext.
1 of 1968.
1925 of 1969.
O are set out by the High Court in paragraph 15 of its judgment.
O it has been stated that the candidates who were set up by the Samyukta Socialist Party were, respondents 2 and 6, while respondents 3 and 5 had been set up by the companymunist Party of India and the Jana Sangh respectively.
1 was improperly accepted inasmuch as he was number qualified to be enrolled as an elector in the electoral roll of West Patna Assembly companystituency for the time being in force on the ground that he was then number ordinarily resident in the said companystituency, but was on the other hand, ordinarily resident in Alipur companystituency of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly and 2 that he was guilty of companyrupt practice within the meaning of sub s. 1 of S. 123 of the Act, in asmuch as he had number only made offers but also payments of money to various electors as motive or reward for voting in his favour.
Appeal under s. 116 A of the Representation of the people Act, 1951 from the judgment and order dated July 1969 of the Patna High Court in Election Petition No.
