The respondent secured 10,705 votes more than the appellant.
Other candidates secured less votes than the appellant.
40 of 1967.
The appellant challenged the election of the respondent on various grounds, most of which were given up either in the trial companyrt or in this Court.
The High Court dismissed the election petition.
Against that order the appellant has companye up in appeal.
The second objection was that the petition ceased to be maintainable as a result of the dissolution of the U.P. Legislative Assembly as per the Presidents Proclamation of April 15, 1968 under Art.
The first objection taken was that the petition was number maintainable as it was number properly presented.
That Proclamation was issued during the pendency of this election petition before the High Court.
Veda Vyasa, K. K. Jain, H. K. Puri, G. N. Dikshit, R. N. Dikshit, S. N. Sinha, K. C. Sharma and M. K. Garg, for the respondent.
Even as the election was going on he appears to have been preparing for the election petition.
1 9, Common Pleas p. 117.
It is number definitely established and that evidence was.
the third election petition filed by him.
On his own showing he can be a stooge.
who were examined are P.Ws.
In support of the evidence of P.W. 16 reliance was placed on Exh.
1564 of 1968.
That voucher relates to the printing of two pamphlets on behalf of the respondent.
40 of 1967 on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
Large number of witnesses were examined to show that either respondent himself distributed pamphlets like Exh.
D 23, one of the vouchers submitted by the respondent along with his return of election expenses.
It shows that one of the pamphlet mentioned therein was printed on both sides of the paper.
Further he deposed that he hired that truck from Achaltar truck operators Union Hathras.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. This appeal under s. 116A of the Representation, of the People Act, 1951 arises from the decision in Election Petition No.
Their evidence has been companysidered by the High Court in detail and rejected.
37, 40, 41, 45 and 48.
Among them the most important witness is P.W. 45 Sukhbir Singh.
He claims to have worked for the respondent and transported voters to the polling station in the truck in question.
In that election the appellant, the respondent and four others companytested.
Danial Latifi, S. J. Hyder, Rajindra Singh and M. I. Khowaja, for the appellant.
7 or he got them distributed through others.
was number spoken to by any witness.
In that petition the appellant challenged the election of the respondent to the U.P. Legislative Assembly from Iglas Constituency in the general election held in February 1967.
The evidence of P.W. 7, Narayan Singh Bodh throws a great deal of light on this aspect.
Appeal under s. 116 A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 from the judgment and order dated May 23, 1968 of the Allahabad High Court in Election Petition No.
