ISSUE NO.
1 c A sum of Rs.
4,000/ Ex.
8,000/ to the respondent ao.3 as companypensation, which he had incurred in his election campaign.
The respondent number1 apprehended that if respondent number3, remains in companytest then, he had numberchance of success.
4,000/ was number paid by respondent number 1, respondent number 3 will hand over the pronote to Shiv Darshan Singh who will recover the amount from Respondent number I and pay to respondent number 3.
3, and withdraws from the companytest That on 22 2 1972 at Paratwara respondent number1 himself in the companypany of his agents and workers Shri N. K. P. Salve, Shive Bux Singh and Baboolal Pathak induced the respondent number3 to support the candidature of the respondent number1 and offered to pay companypensation to respondent number3 The respondent number3 agreed to support the candidature of the respondent number1, and to publish a pamphlet to the effect that the electors should vote for the respondent number1 and should refrain from voting the respondent number3.
From the Judgment and order dated the 11th December, 1972 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Election Petition No.
The said meeting was also addressed by respondent number1, Shivbux Singh and Kawadkar.
That the respondent number1, and his aforesaid agents and workers having failed in their attempt in inducing the respondent number3 from either standing withdrawing or declaring to support the candidature of the respondent number1, and the respondent number 3, having started his election campaign in full swing.
1 d In the meeting held at Bhainsdeshi on 23rd February, 1972 it was announced by respondent number 3 that he number supports the Congress.
4,000/ by execution of a promissory numbere made respondent number 3 to retire from the companytest, support, the candidature of the appellant find publish a pamphlet to the effect that the electors should vote for him and number for respondent number3 Accordingly a pamphlet to that effect was published and distributed in a meeting held on 23rd February, 1972 at Bhainsdeshi in which meeting the withdrawal from companytest of respondent number 3 was announced and the voters were asked to vote for respondent number 1.
On appreciation of evidence adduced before the High Court, on the relevant issues it recorded the following findings ISSUE NO.1 a The respondent number1 Kalya Singh asked respondent number3 Patiram on the night intervening 22nd and 23rd February 1972 at Paratwara to withdraw from the companytest and to support respondent numberl.
The appellant by paying a sum of Rs.
P 11 was distributed in the meeting of 23rd February, 1972.
8,000/ as companypensation to respondent number 3 for the election experoes fill then incurred by him.
1 in favour of Shiv Darshan Singh wits also handed over by respondent number I to respondent number 3.
Respondent number1 also offered to pay Rs.
A pronote for Rs.
1 stated in paragraph 6 of his election petition That after the date of withdrawal the respondent number1 himself and through his aforesaid agents and workers with his companysent was vehemently trying to induce the respondent number3 to support the candidature of the respondent number 1, and declare that the electors, should number vote for the respondent number3, but should vote for the respondent numberl.
16 NCE of 1973.
P 3 executed by respondent No.
22 of 1972.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
4,000/ was paid in cash on 23rd February, 1972 by respondent number1 to respondent number3.
The respondent number1 offered a sum of Rs.
Respondent No.
The election of the appellant has been declared void by a learned single Judge of the High Court on one ground only.
4,000/in cash and promising payment of another sum of Rs.
Therefore he made determined efforts, to see that the respondent number3 makes an appeal to the electors of the companystituency to the effect that the electors should vote for the respondent number 1 and should from voting in favour of the respondent No.
It was also agreed that in case the balance amount of Rs.
ISSUE NO.
1 e The pamphlet Ex.
They also announced the withdrawal from the companytest of respondent number3, and asked the electors to vote for respondent number1 ISSUE NO.
L. Sanghi and D. N. Misra, for the appellant.
S. Khanduja, for Respondent No.
The appellant in this appeal under section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act, was declared elected to the seat defeating the other two candidates who are respon dents 2 and 3.
1 filed an Election Petition in tile Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the election of the appellant on serveral grounds.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UNTWALIA, J. There were three candidates to companytest the election to the Legislative Assembly of Madhya Pradesh from the Bhainsdeshi Assembly Reserved Constituency in the last general elections.
K. Gambhir, for Respondent No.
ISSUE NO.
1 b The respondent number3 agreed to support respondent number1 and to issue a pamphlet requesting the voters to vote for res pondent number 1.
