The High Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues Whether the election of respondent No.
13 of 1992 filed by the appellant herein challenging the election of the returned candidate S. Gurcharan Singh, the first respondent.
He specifically denied to have indulged or companymitted any of the companyrupt practices of booth capturing either by himself or through his agents.
The respondent No.
Whether the petition is liable to be rejected for number compliance of the provisions of Rule 12 f , Chapter 4 GG of the High Court Rules and Orders, Vol.
The appellant has alleged that the Return of expenses filed by the first respondent was totally false as bills filed by him were grossly under valued number representing the companyrect price and quantity of goods purchased and services hired by him.
The details of alleged items of expenses which are alleged to be number included in the Return are stated in sub paras I, II, III, IV V of para 4 of the election petition which have also been reproduced verbatim by the High Court in the impugned judgment and therefore it is number necessary to mention their details herein again.
Thus the impugned judgment deals with only issue No.
Relief.
2 and 3 reproduced above were decided on 28th November, 1993 by order dated January 28, 1993 as preliminary issues and were answered against the first respondent.
1 having secured higher number of votes was declared elected from 87 Dirba Constituency.
The date of polling was February 19, 1992 and the result was declared next date i.e. on February 20, 1992 according to which the respondent No.
The election for Punjab Legislative Assembly was held in February, 1992.
1 quoted above.
The respondent No.
1 resisted the election petition by specifically traversing all adverse allegations made against him.
1 S. Gurcharan Singh was fielded by the Congress party and the respondent No.
The appellant called in question the election of the respondent No.
He also denied the allegation with regard to the election expenses exceeding the prescribed limit or the under valuation of the bills or companycealment of any expenses which were actually made by him or his election agent.
V Section 81 3 of the Representation of People Act?
3 polled only 75 votes.
2 Chet Singh was a candidate set up by Bahujan Samaj Party.
Issues No.
He also alleged that the first respondent companycealed various expenses which were actually made from 31.1.1992 to 20.2.1992 but were number included in the Return.
The respondent also examined the Senior Superintendent of Police, Shri Jaswinder Singh, RW 16 who categorically deposed that the polling was peaceful throughout the day and there were proper security arrangements outside the polling booths.
1 herein by presenting an election petition under part VI of the Act for declaring his election as void and to declare the appellant himself as duly elected candidate for the said companystituency in place of the first respondent.
3 S. Amarjit Singh companytested the election from the said companystituency as an independent candidate.
They also stated that there were absolutely numbersuch incidents as are alleged by the appellant in any of the polling booths and numberprotest was lodged by any of the companytesting candidates either with regard to the booth capturing or regarding illegal casting of votes.
There was number even a whisper about the alleged incidents to the members of Central Reserve Police who according to the appellants own evidence were very much present out side the polling station.
The respondent No.
The respondent No.
1 has examined the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Shri Meghraj, RW 2 who was the Returning Officer of Dirba Assembly Constituency in the said election.
The evidence has, therefore, to be judged having regard to these well settled principles.
2 had polled 1925 votes and the respondent No.
1 secured the highest number of votes having polled 3072 votes while the appellant had secured only 2624 votes.
The appellant challenged the election of the returned candidate, respondent No.
The second ground on which the appellant based his election petition challenging the election of the first respondent was that the respondent No.
1 is liable to be declared void on the grounds pleaded in the petition?
1 had also examined Dayal Chand, RW 8, Gurmail Singh, RW 9, Ram Prakash, RW 10, Karam Singh, RW 11, Sohan Singh, RW 12, Chiranjit Julka, RW 13, Govinder Singh, RW 14 and Manjit Singh, RW 15 who were the Presiding Officers of the Polling booths No.
The respondent No.
The respondent No.
The appellant was sponsored by Shriromani Akali Dal as a candidate from 87 Dirba Constituency while the respondent No.
Faizan Uddin, J. This appeal under Section 116 A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act has been directed against the judgment dated November 8, 1993 passed by the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh dismissing the Election Petition No.
