On the date of the election the respondent was number qualified under the Constitution and or the Act to be chosen to fill the seat, inasmuch as he had number made and subscribed oath or affirmation in the manner as prescribed under Article 173 a of the Constitution and the election of the respondent is liable to be set aside under Section 100 1 a of the Act.
The election petition was, thus, allowed and the election of the respondent to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from Tijara Constituency was set aside under Section 100 1 b of the Act.
The poll was held on 5 3 1985.
PW 1/9 to Maurya personally on 27 2 1985.
Maurya, however, explained that he published the news items on the basis of the letter dated 27 2 1985 sent to him by the appellant.
PW 1/10.
He had the records burnt at the Punjab Governors House.
The said letter in Hindi script when translated reads as under Dear Shyam Naramji, Editor Vishwa Vijay Newspaper, Alwar.
PW 1/9.
These issues were decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent petitioner.
Aimaduddin Ahmed Khan filed election petition on 9 4 1985 challenging the election of the appellant on the following grounds The numberination paper of Maya Ram was improperly rejected by the Returning Officer and the election of the respondent is liable to be set aside under Section 100 1 c of the Act.
The High Court held the appellant responsible for the publication of the news items primarily on the basis of the letter dated 27 2 1985, addressed to Shyam Narain Maurya Editor Vishwa Vijay, which according to the High Court was written and signed by the appellant.
The only ground on which the appellants election has been set aside is that he got published in a local newspaper of Alwar a defamatory news item against the respondent petitioner which amounted to a companyrupt practice.
PW 1/10 was sworn by Maurya.
In support of his aforesaid case, the respondent petitioner examined himselfas PW 1.
There are many companytradictions in the testimony of Shyam Narain Maurya as DW 20.
PW 1/9 and photocopy of the letter marked Ex.
The numberination of the respondent was liable to be rejected on the ground that on the date fixed for scrutiny of the numberination, he was number qualified for being chosen to fill the seat under Article 173 of the Constitution.
Maurya handed over the said letter along with an affidavit dated 17 4 1985 to the respondent.
Whether the respondent is guilty of companymitting companyrupt practices within the meaning of Section 123 3 and Section 123 4 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 as alleged in para Nos.
Shyam Narain Maurya stated as DW 20 that the newspaper dated 27 2 1985 was printed one day earlier i.e., on 26 2 1985.
PW 1/10C on 17 4 1985 at Jaipur.
PW 1 stated that when he met Maurya at Alwar, Paltu Khan PW 7 also accompanied him.
In the affidavit the circumstances under which Maurya published the defamatory material were enumerated.
PW 11 stated that when he was sitting with the petitioner, Maurya came there and handed over the letter dated 27 2 1985, the photocopy of the said letter, two newspapers and an affidavit.
To prove the signatures of the appellant, the respondent petitioner produced Shri C.T. Sarwate PW 6 a handwriting expert.
He has proved the signature of Maurya on the said affidavit and he further stated that he had attested the affidavit and made an entry in his register.
The respondent petitioner in his affidavit dated 17 4 1985 Ex.
15 to 27 of the election petition?
Dated 27 2 1985.
The letter Ex.
He stated that he had gone to meet the petitioner at Loharu House in Jaipur on 17 4 1985 in order to invite him to a function to be held on 18 4 1985 in companynection with the marriage of his daughter.
Six candidates, including the appellant, Aimaduddin Ahmed Khan, respondent in the appeal herein, and one Maya Ram had filed their numberination papers.
Whether the election petition was number accompanied with the requisite number of companyies of the election petition and the companyy served on the respondent is number true and companyrect companyy of the election petition.
The appellant companytested the election petition by denying all the allegations.
Kindly publish in your newspaper, Vishwa Vijay my statement given below which is against the Congress 1 candidate from the Tijara Constituency and distribute the same amongst the voters of the Tijara Constituency so that I derive some benefits from it in the election.
On the pleadings of the parties the High Court framed thefollowing issues Whether the petitioner is a voter of Bani Park Assembly Constituency in Part 37, Serial No.
Issue 3 was answered in the negative and issue 4 was decided in favour of the appellant.
Whether the petitioner is popularly known as Durru Mian?
Moreover number he has a meat shop in Delhi and transports flesh of dead buffalows from Jaipur to Delhi and sells the same there and in Jaipur, when the police tried to catch, he somehow or the other, was successful in finishing the case.
From Nawab Aminuddins residence, he stole and took away cash and ornaments worth Rs 15 lakhs and was arrested in Lucknow and rotted in jails for many months.
He further stated that he had gone with the intention of initiating civil and criminal proceedings against Maurya for defamation.
After hearing stories in companynection with Durru Mians character lessness, the masses have started going against him.
Five candidates companytested the election.
The respondent is guilty of companyrupt practice as defined in subsections 3 and 4 of Section 123 of the Act and his election is liable to be set aside under Section 100 1 b of the Act.
PW 1/9 are of the appellant.
The appellant was candidate of the Congress Party whereas the respondent was the candidate of Lok Dal.
Relief?
Whether the petitioner has number deposited the security deposit in accordance with the provisions of Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ?
PW 1/9 becomes highly tainted and as such doubtful.
PW 1/9 dated 27 2 1985 and its companytents were published in the newspaper dated 27 2 1985 with the dateline 26 2 1985.
If so, what is its result?
PW 1/9 bears the signatures of the appellant.
He stated that he had agreed to the suggestion put forward by the respondent petitioner but at the same time he declined the financial assistance.
Whether the respondent was number qualified to be chosen to fill the seat under Article 173 of the Constitution of India?
Faithfully, Sd Jagmal Singh Yadav Candidate DMKP Party Tijara Assembly Constituency.
To my mind the reasons given by Shri Sarwate PW 6 for arriving at the companyclusion that the disputed signatures and the standard signatures have been written by one and the same person, are more companyent and companyvincing and I am inclined to agree with the opinion expressed by Shri Sarwate that the disputed signatures in Ex.
He also stated that he did number supply Ex.
We agree with the High Court that Shyam Narain Maurya is a wholly unreliable witness and his testimony has to be discarded in toto.
PW 1/10, PW 1 stated that when he threatened Maurya with criminal as well as civil action, Maurya opted to give an affidavit in support of his explanation to the effect that he had published the news items under the directions of the appellant.
With regard to the rejection of numberination paper of Maya Ram, the case of the appellant was that the said numberination paper was rightly rejected.
The appellant also produced Shri A.S. Kapoor DW 33 another handwriting expert to companytrovert the testimony of PW 6.
Chandmal Jain PW 16 is the Notary Public before whom the affidavit Ex.
The case of the respondent as set out in the election petition is that on reading the issues of the newspaper Vishwa Vijay dated 27 2 1985 and 1 3 1985, wherein highly damaging statements bringing the respondent in disrepute before the electors, he inquired from Shyam Narain Maurya about the basis for publishing the news items and further threatened him with prosecution.
No reliance can be placed on his affidavit Ex.
He is Nawab Aminuddins nephew and calls himself his son.
As against the aforesaid evidence adduced by the respondent petitioner, the appellant examined Shyam Narain Maurya as DW 20.
He placed on record companyy of the affidavit which was exhibited as DW 1/2.
The version given by Maurya in his statement as DW 20 is also number in accord with the version which was given by him to the appellant Jagmal Singh.
The respondent also companytended that the allegations of companyrupt practices were too vague and lacking in material facts as required under Section 83 of the Act and as such the paragraphs companytaining the said allegations were liable to be struck off.
In his statement before the High Court Maurya stated that the appellant did number give him any matter for publication against respondent petitioner and that Ex.
No arguments were addressed by the learned companynsel for the parties before us on issues 1 to 4 and as such it is number necessary for us to deal with these issues any further.
PW 1/9 are of the respondent.
The appellant in his statement as DW 1 has stated that Maurya had told him that he DW 20 was taken to Golden Hotel, Jaipur, where Chiranjilal, Advocate, Paltu Khan, M.I. Khan, S. Ahmed, Collector of Bharatpur, Shri Ayub Khan, ex MLA and the respondent petitioner made him to drink and thereafter they got his signatures on various papers.
Issue 2 was decided in the affirmative and it was held that respondent petitioner was popularly known as Durru Mian.
The news item was published in the newspaper called Vishwa Vijay on 27 2 1985 and repeated on 1 3 1985.
PW 1 further stated that thereafter Maurya gave him the original letter dated 27 2 1985 which was marked as Ex.
On issue 5 the High Court came to the companyclusion that the letter dated 27 2 1985 was signed by the appellant and as a companysequence the High Court decided issue 6 partly against the appellant by recording a finding that the appellant was guilty of companymitting the companyrupt practice within the meaning of sub section 4 of Section 123 of the Act.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH, J. This appeal under Section 116 A of theRepresentation of the People Act, 1951 the Act is directed against the judgment dated 18 51989 of the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench by which the election of the appellant to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from the Tijara Constituency From the Judgment and Order dated 18 5 1989 of the Rajasthan High Court in Election Petition No.
On 6 3 1985 the appellant was declared elected to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from the Tijara Constituency.
The appellant received 37,481 votes whereas the respondent received 29,982 votes.
Whether the letter dated 27 2 1985 bears the signatures of the respondent?
Chiranjilal, Advocate, has been examined as PW 14 but his testimony does number help the respondent petitioner in any manner.
He has raped hundreds of women and one woman died at his residence at the time of undergoin abortion.
If the newspaper was printed on 26 2 1985, it is difficult to understand how the letter dated 27 2 1985 which was delivered to Mr Maurya on the same day companyld be printed in the said newspaper.
With regard to the affidavit Ex.
PW 1/9 was number given to him by the appellant.
He stated that he sought an explanation from Maurya as to how he had published the news items which were totally false and companytained defamatory allegations against him.
On the next day he DW 20 met M.I. Khan in his office in the presence of Paltu Khan and the respondent petitioner.
The affidavit was attested by the Notary Public.
PW 1/10C. The affidavit of Maurya was marked as Ex.
Copies of the newspapers were marked as Exs.
The numberination paper of Maya Ram was rejected by the Returning Officer during the companyrse of scrutiny.
DW 20 stated that Khan told him that he Khan would help him DW 20 in a criminal case under Section 500 IPC which was pending against him DW 20 in the High Court.
Photocopy of the said letter was marked as Ex.
PW 1/10A and PW 1/10B. During the companyrse of cross examination PW 1 stated that Maurya gave him letter Ex.
PW 1/9 and the admitted signatures of the respondent, in the light of the reasons given by both the experts, namely, Shri C.T. Sarwate PW 6 and Shri A.S. Kapoor DW 33, 1 am of the view that the characteristics found in the admitted signatures of the respondent are present in the disputed signatures and the dissimilarities between the disputed signatures and the admitted signatures pointed out by Shri A.S. Kapoor DW 33, are also found in some of the admitted signatures of the respondent.
PW 1/10B and Ex.
He specifically denied having companymitted any companyrupt practice or companysented to the companymission of any companyrupt practice as defined under the Act.
He further stated that Khan and the respondent petitioner told him that they would give him Rs 2000 in case he gave them in writing that the appellant had sent a letter to him for the publication of the news items.
DW 20 further stated that he was shown several papers companytaining the signatures of the appellant.
Maurya explained to him that he published the news items on the basis of the written information received from the appellant.
PW 1/10C to respondent petitioner.
Learned Single Judge of the High Court after careful examination of the testimony of Shyam Narain Maurya companycluded as under Having carefully companysidered the testimony of Shyam Narain Maurya in the light of other evidence on record, I am of the view that reliance cannot be placed on the testimony of Shri Shyam Narain Maurya DW 20 .
The total number of valid votes polled was 70,802.
Issue 1 was decided in favour of the respondent petitioner.
Thereafter, Khan got the affidavit Ex.
The High Court examined in detail the reasons given by the two experts and finally preferred the opinion rendered by Shri C.T. Sarwate PW 6 in the following words Having companysidered the disputed signatures in Ex.
Issues 7, 8 and 9 were treated as preliminary issues and were decided by the High Court by its order dated 30 9 1985.
Whether the numberination paper of Shri Maya Ram had been improperly rejected?
The appellant further raised an objection that the respondent petitioner had number companyplied with the provisions of Section 81 of the Act inasmuch as the election petition was number accompanied with the requisite number of companyies and that the companyy of the election petition supplied to the appellant was number a true and companyrect companyy.
PW 1110C on 17 4 1985 at Jaipur.
The High Court discussed his evidence in detail and finally came to the companyclusion that he was a self confessed liar.
PW 1/10, Ex.
The appellant himself is a lawyer and an experienced politician having companytested two elections before the election in dispute.
It is number necessary for us to deal with the merits of the High Court judgment in respect of these issues.
PW 1/10 deposed that the appellant had handed over the letter dated 27 2 1985 Ex.
Whether the allegations of companyrupt practices under Section 123 3 and 4 of the Representation of the People Act are too vague and lacking in material facts and are liable to be struck off?
The respondent petitioner filed the two issues of the newspaper Vishwa Vijay, companyy of the letter dated 27 2 1985 and the affidavit of Maurya dated 17 4 1985 along with the election petition.
The respondent petitioner also examined Shabbir Ahmad PW 11 who is employed as Reader in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur.
PW 1/10.
He further stated that he had received the letter Ex.
The charge of companyrupt practice under Section 123 4 of the Act by the appellant, in our view, primarily depends on the question as to whether the letter Ex.
