5 p.m. for three months only during Election days, simply because they happened to be voters in the said Constituency, vide letter No.
On behalf of the appellant, the learned AttorneyGeneral raised two companytentions 1 The finding that the appellant was guilty of bribery was reached in disregard of the mandatory provisions of section 83, and that it was besides open to other legal objections and 2 the finding recorded under section 99 of the Act was bad, because numbernotice was given to the appellant, and numberenquiry held as required by the proviso to section 99.
It is stated on behalf of the appellant that he objected to the reception of the evidence on the question of bargain, as it was number pleaded.
On the first question, the companyplaint of the appellant is that in the election petition the allegations relating to bribery were vague and wanting in particulars, and that the petition should accordingly have been dismissed under sections 83 and 85 of the Act that the charge that was sought to be proved at the hearing was at variance with the charge as alleged in the petition, and that the Tribunal had erred in giving a finding of bribery on the basis number of the allegations in the petition but of the evidence adduced at the trial.
But this is denied by the petitioner in his affidavit filed in the High Court dated 3 12 1953.
Even apart from this, the witnesses on behalf of the petitioner gave evidence on this point on the 8th and 11th November, 15th and 16th December, 1952, and on the 2nd February, 1953.
It further recorded a finding in terms of section 99 1 a of the Representation of the People Act No.
ST/1 4 /52/20702 dated 7th December, 1951.
By order dated 12 1 1954 the High Court upheld the findings of the Tribunal, and dismissed the application, and by order dated 7 6 1954 granted a certificate for appeal to this Court under Article 133 1 c .
This is to put too technical and narrow a companystruction on the averments.
Appeal under Article 133 1 c of the Constitution of India against the Judgment and Order dated the 12th January 1954 of the Pepsu High Court in Civil Misc.
The Tribunal accepted the evidence on the side of the petitioner that the appellant offered to increase the salary of the sweepers in 1951, and held that the order dated 7 12 1951, granting good work allowance for the election period was the outcome of the bargain companye to in November 1951, and that the charge of bribery had been established.
12, 13, 14, 39 and 40, and their evidence was that sometime in November 1951 the appellant came to Dhuri, enquired about the number of sweepers in the service of the Committee, and offered to raise their pay if they would vote for him, that the sweepers thereupon held a meeting and companysidered the suggestion of the appellant, and then decided to vote for him, if the pay was increased.
Such companycessions were also shown to other employees of the various Small Town Committees and Municipal Committees in Pepsu before and after this case.
The Appellant thereupon filed in the High Court of Patiala and East Punjab States Union an application under Article 227 attacking the finding of the Tribunal that he was guilty of bribery.
On these averments, the following issue was framed Whether the sweepers of Small Town Committee, Dhuri, were granted good work allowance at Rs.
The representation was forwarded to the Secretariat.
This was an official act done in the routine and number to induce the sweepers to vote for respondent No.
5 p.m. for three months only during the election days in order to induce them to vote for the Respondent No.
XLIII of 1951 that the appellant was proved to have companymitted the companyrupt practice of bribery as mentioned in section 123 1 of the Act.
The order of the Tribunal in so far as it set aside his election was number challenged.
The Tribunal held that both these grounds were made out, and accordingly set aside the election.
Objection to the order was taken by the Department, and thereupon, the appellant passed the modified order dated 7 12 1951 granting good work allowance for a period of three months from December 1951 to February 1952.
21 of 1955.
At the trial, the petitioner first adduced evidence, and his witnesses spoke to the bargain in November, 1951.
At the trial, the petitioner examined the Darogba of the Small Town Committee P.W. 28 , and five sweepers, P.Ws.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It is companytended for the appellant that in the petition there was numbermention of the bargain on which the finding of bribery by the Tribunal was based, that the charge in the petition related only to the order dated 7 12 1951, and that accordingly it was number open to the petitioner to travel beyond the petition and adduce evidence in proof of a bargain which had number been pleaded.
That is how the appeal companyes before us.
The allegations in the petition relating to this charge are as follows The sweepers of Small Town Committee, Dhuri were each granted good work allowance at Rs.
On 28 11 1951 he passed an order on a memorial sent by the sweepers that their pay would be increased by Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AYYAR J. The appellant was a candidate for election to the Legislative Assembly of the State of PEPSU from the Dhuri Constituency, and having secured the largest number of votes was declared duly elected.
This point was number taken in the application under Article 227, and was sought to be raised at the time of the argument in the High Court but the learned Judges declined to entertain it.
The first respondent who is one of the electors in the Constituency filed the petition out of which the present appeal arises, for setting aside the election on the grounds, inter alia, 1 that the numberination of one Mali Singh had been wrongly rejected by the returning officer, and 2 that the ap pellant was guilty of the companyrupt practice of bribery.
182 of 1953.
September 15.
The respondents did number appear.
1, The allowance was against the Rules, The reply of the appellant to this charge was as follows The sweepers of Small Town Committee represented to me in writing that their pays should be increased, and they also quoted the pays that the employees of other Small Town Committees and Municipal Committees were getting.
The Secretariat examined it on merits, passed legal orders.
All this was done to induce these sweepers to vote for the respondent No.
It must be stated that the appellant was then Minister for Health, and was in charge of Local Administration.
5 per mensem.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General of India, Veda Vyas and Jagannath Kaushal, Naunit Lal, with them ,for the appellant.
