Bombay High Court
Adam Narsayya Narayan vs Praniti Shinde (Candidate Of The ... on 7 March, 2017
Bench: R.M. Savant
AEPL-1.2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
APPLICATION LODGING NO.1 OF 2016
IN
ELECTION PETITION NO.5 OF 2014
Adam Narsayya Narayan ]
34/260, Bapuji Nagar, ]
"Jodgala", Uttar Sadar Bazaar, ]
Solapur ]..... Petitioner.
V/s.
1] Praniti Shinde ]
Candidate of the Indian National Congress]
Jai Jui, 19, Ashok Nagar, ]..... Applicant
Vijapur Road, Solapur - 413004 ] (Org.Respondent No.1)
]
2] Shekh Taufik Ismail ]
Candidate of All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul ]
Muslimeen ]
145, Taj Hotel, Maingate Parisar, Railway]..... Respondent No.2
Lines, Solapur ]
]
3] Kothe Mahesh Vishnupant ]
Candidate of Shivsena ]
Radhashree, 20/26, Murarji Peth, ]
Solapur. ]..... Respondent No.3.
]
4] Chief Election Commissioner of India ]
Election Commission of India ]
Nirvachan Sadan, New Delhi ]..... Respondent No.4.
]
th
(Deleted vide Order dated 7 May 2015) ]
5] Chief Electoral Officer, Maharashtra, ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032 ]..... Respondent No.5.
]
(Deleted vide Order dated 7th May 2015) ]
6] Shahaji Pawar, ]
Sub-Divisional Officer, Solapur-1 ]
The Returning Officer, ]
Solapur City Central ]
lgc 1 of 36
::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2017 00:58:44 :::
AEPL-1.2016
Assembly Constituency No.249 ]
District Collector Office, ]
Solapur - 413003 ]..... Respondent No.6.
]
th
(Deleted vide Order dated 7 May 2015) ]
Mr. Satish Maneshinde a/w Mr. Saket Mone, Ms. Snehal Khairnar, Mr.
Vishesh Kalra, Mr. Subit Chakrabarti, Mr.Sadanand Shetty, Ms. Anandini
Fernandes, Ms. Lakshmi Pamar, Ms. Deepal Thakkar and Ms. Namita
Maneshinde i/by Saket Mone for the Applicant/Original Respondent No.1.
Mr. Abhishek Pungaliya for the Original Petitioner.
CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J.
Reserved on :- 10th February 2017
Pronounced on :- 7th March 2017
JUIDGMENT :-
1 The Respondent No.1 to the above Election Petition - Praniti
Shinde i.e. the returned candidate has filed the instant Application for the
following relief :-
(a) Summarily dismiss the above Election Petition in
view of the facts, circumstances and grounds set
out in the above application"
2 The dismissal of the above Election Petition is sought inter-alia on
the following grounds :-
i] Three copies of the Election Petition not duly attested;
ii] Photo copies of the court fees stamps affixed on the
original Election Petition are not reflected in the copies
served on the Respondent No.1.
iii] Official transcript of the Compact Discs (CDs) not
furnished to the Respondent No.1
lgc 2 of 36
AEPL-1.2016
iv] Date of verification not mentioned in the verification in
support of the Index and the synopsis
v] Allegations of corrupt practice made in the Election
Petition are vague and lacking in material facts and
material particulars. The Election Petitioner does not
have personal knowledge and the allegations are based
on hear-say.
vi] In the copies of the Petition served upon the Respondent
No.1, the court fees affixed on the original are missing.
vii] The copy served on the Respondent No.1 is not attested
by the Petitioner under his signature as true copy of the
Election Petition.
viii] The copy served on the Respondent No.1 cannot be said
to be true copy of the original Election Petition.
ix] The documents annexed to the Petition are neither
verified nor supported by any affidavit.
lgc 3 of 36
AEPL-1.2016
x] The affidavit in support of the allegations of corrupt
practice is not as per requirement of Rule 94A of the
Conduct of Elections Rules 1961.
3 In the context of the application filed by the Respondent No.1 it
would be apposite to briefly refer to the grounds averred in the Election
Petition. The above Election Petition has been filed by the Election Petitioner
questioning the election of the Respondent No.1 - Praniti Shinde from Solapur
City Central Assembly Constituency No.249 in the elections held to the
Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly in the year 2014. It has been averred
in the Petition that the Respondent No.1 has secured 46907 votes whereas the
Election Petitioner has secured 13904 votes. The election of the Respondent
No.1 has been challenged on the basis of the allegations of corrupt practice
particularly stated in paragraphs 12, 16 and 17 of the Election Petition.
In so far as paragraph 12 is concerned, the incident of the election
agent of the Respondent No.1 Mr.Prakash Yalgulwar being caught red-handed
by the flying squad of the Election Commission with cash of Rs.Six lakhs in
Room No.103 of Hotel Pratham which is located in Constituency No.249 has
been narrated.
lgc 4 of 36
AEPL-1.2016
In paragraph 16 the alleged incident which took place on
11.10.2014 in a Beedi factory called Langar Beedi factory within the
Constituency No.249, wherein 4 agents of the Respondent No.1 were caught
red-handed distributing cash to persons to induce them to vote in favour of the
Respondent No.1 find a place. It is further averred in the said paragraph 16
that the said 4 persons were caught by the members of the flying squad No.6 of
the Election Commission possessing cash of Rs.2.21 lakhs and the election
posters/pamphlets of the Respondent No.1 which they were distributing to
persons.
In so far as paragraph 17 is concerned, in the said paragraph the
alleged incident which took place on 14.10.2014 in a sweet factory called
Sharma Sweets located in Constituency No.249 in which it has been averred
that the activists/workers of Shiv Sena caught the agents of the Respondent
No.1 red-handed, distributing cash to persons to induce them to vote in favour
of the Respondent No.1. It was further averred that despite complaining about
the same to the police as well as the Returning Officer, no action was taken.
Except the said paragraphs 12, 16 and 17, other paragraphs of the
Election Petition do not concern the Respondent No.1. In the said paragraphs
general statements have been made, as also the allegations made against the
other Respondents find a place. However, as indicated herein above the
lgc 5 of 36
AEPL-1.2016
Election Petition has been filed challenging the election of the Respondent No.1
and seeking the reliefs which are sought vide prayer clauses (a) and (b) in
paragraph 29 of the Election Petition which are to the following effect :-
(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold that the
agents and the election agent of the Respondent No.1
have committed corrupt practices within the meaning
of section 123 of the Representation of People Act, with
the consent of and at the behest of Respondent No.1.;
(b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare as null
and void and be pleased to set aside, the election of
Respondent No.1 to the Maharashtra State Legislative
Assembly (Vidhan Sabha), held on 15.10.2014 and
declared elected on 19.10.2014, from Solapur City
Central Assembly Constituency No.249; due to
commission of corrupt practices by the agents and the
election agent of Respondent No.1 with the consent of
and at the behest of Respondent No.1; and due to non-
compliance of the provisions of the Constitution of
India and the Representation of the People Act, 1951
and the Rules and Order made under the said Act.
4 A reply has been filed to the above Application by the Election
Petitioner. It is denied that there are any incurable defects in the Election
Petition. It is stated that the Election Petitioner has paid the requisite court fees
at the time of filing of the Election Petition. It is further stated that he has
obtained copies of the CDs from the Election Commission and that he would
produce the original CDs at the evidence stage. It is further denied that the
allegations of corrupt practice are not supported by any documents. It is stated
that the copies of the Election Petition have been stamped as "true copies"
under the signature of the Election Petitioner and therefore the copy served
lgc 6 of 36
AEPL-1.2016
upon the Respondent No.1 has been attested by the Election Petitioner under
his own signature to be a "true copy" of the Election Petition. It is stated that
the Election Petition has been verified in compliance with all the applicable
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is denied that there is any mis-
joinder of parties. It is asserted in the said reply that the Election Petition
contains sufficient and detailed averments which disclose the corrupt practice
committed by the Respondent No.1 and her election agents. Lastly it is stated
in the said reply that in the alternative if for some reason this Court comes to a
conclusion that there is a defect in the original Election Petition filed by the
Election Petitioner along with the copy of the Election Petition, this Court be
pleased to permit the Election Petitioner to cure the said defects.
5 Though the Respondent No.1 has filed the above Application
seeking dismissal of the above Election Petition inter alia on the grounds which
have been adverted to herein above, the learned counsel for the Respondent
No.1 restricted the grounds on which dismissal of the above Election Petition is
sought to two grounds, viz. that the allegations made in the Petition are vague
and the Petition lacks in material facts and material particulars, and the 2 nd
ground was that the affidavit filed in support of the allegations of corrupt
practice was not as per requirement of Rule 94A, Form 25 of the Conduct of
Elections Rules 1961.
lgc 7 of 36
AEPL-1.2016
The learned counsel for the parties were heard in respect of the
said two grounds.
6 SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT-RESPONDENT
NO.1 BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL SHRI SATISH
MANESHINDE :-
A] That the allegations of corrupt practice are bereft of any material
facts and particulars and the relevant paragraphs of the Election
Petition only contain vague statements of the alleged corrupt
practice committed by the Respondent No.1. The Election Petition
as filed does not satisfy the requirements of Section 83 of the
Representation of the People Act and is therefore required to be
dismissed at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of
Civil Procedure. Reliance is sought to be placed on the following
judgments :-
(1) Azhar Hussain V/s. Rajiv Gandhi reported in 1986 Supp
SCC 315
(2) Jagabandu Bahera V/s. Subrat Tarai and ors. reported in
(2016) 6 SCC 256
(3) L.R.Shivaramagowda and ors V/s. T.M.Chandrashekhar
(dead) by LRs and ors reported in (1999) 1 SCC 666
(4) Jeet Mohinder Singh V/s. Harminder Singh Jassi reported
in (1999) 9 SCC 386
lgc 8 of 36
AEPL-1.2016
(5) Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat and Anr. V/s. Dattaji Raghobaji
Meghe and ors reported in (1995) 5 SCC 511
(4) F.A. Sapa and ors V/s. Singora and ors reported in
(1991) 3 SCC 375 and
(6) Unreported decision of a learned Single Judge sitting at
Aurangabad dated 18/07/2016 in the matter of Annarao
Govindrao Patil V/s. Amit Vilasrao Deshmukh and ors
B] That the affidavit filed in support of the allegations of corrupt
practice is not in terms of Rule 94A in Form 25.
C] That the affidavit especially having regard to paragraphs 12, 16
and 17 states that the statements made therein are true to the
information of the Election Petitioner, but does not state the
source of information and therefore the affidavit filed is defective
and in view thereof, the Election Petition is liable to be dismissed
at the threshold. Reliance is sought to be placed on the following
judgments of the Apex Court and this Court :-
(1) L.R.Shivaramagowda and ors V/s. T.M.Chandrashekhar
(dead) by LRs and ors reported in (1999) 1 SCC 666
(2) Jeet Mohinder Singh V/s. Harminder Singh Jassi reported
in (1999) 9 SCC 386
lgc 9 of 36
AEPL-1.2016
(3) Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat and Anr. V/s. Dattaji Raghobaji
Meghe and ors reported in (1995) 5 SCC 511
(4) The judgment of this Court in Application No.5 of 2016 in
Election Petition No.4 of 2014 dated 21/09/2016 in the
matter of Narayan Govindrao Patil V/s. The Maharashtra
Election Commission and ors.
7 SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE ELECTION PETITIONER BY
THE LEARNED COUNSEL SHRI ABHISHEK PUNGALIYA :-
i] That the Election Petition in so far as the allegations of corrupt
practice are concerned, and especially with reference to paragraphs
12, 16 and 17 contain material facts and particulars especially the
date, time place and the persons who are alleged to have committed
the corrupt practice and therefore it cannot be said that the Election
Petition is lacking in material facts and particulars.
ii] That the averments in the Election Petition would have to be read
along with the documents which have been filed in support of the
case which is averred in the Election Petition, the documents which
are appended to the Petition would ex-facie show that the amount
found in Hotel Pratham was being used for bribing the voters and
therefore it cannot be said that the Election Petition lacks in material
lgc 10 of 36
AEPL-1.2016
facts or particulars. Reliance is sought to be placed on the judgment
of a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Tilak Raj
Bhagat v/s. Ranjit Kaur in IA Nos.4895 of 2010 and 4894 of
2010.
iii] That the affidavit in support of the Election Petition filed under Rule
94A in Form 25 the source of information having been stated in the
concerned paragraphs of the Election Petition itself which in the
instant case are the CDs obtained from the Election Commission,
mere non-mentioning of the source of information in the affidavit
would not make the affidavit defective so as to result in the Election
Petition being dismissed on the said ground. Reliance is sought to be
placed on the following judgments of the Apex Court and this
Court :-
(1) Prabhu Narayan v/s. A.K.Srivastava reported in AIR
1975 SC 968
(2) Kamalnath v/s. Sudesh Verma reported in (2002) 2 SCC
(3) Anantrao Narayan Thopte V/s. Shri Kashinath Parvati
Khutwad and others reported in 2000(4) Bom. C.R.254
iv] That in so far as the judgments in L.R.Shivaramagowda's case and
Jeet Mohinder Singh's case (supra) are concerned, the judgment in
lgc 11 of 36
AEPL-1.2016
Krishan Chander V/s. Ram Lal reported in AIR 1973 SC 2513 was
not brought to the notice of the Benches of the Apex Court which
heard the said cases. The said judgment in Krishan Chander's case
(supra) being prior in point of time would operate as a precedent
rather than the judgment in Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat's case (supra).
In support of the said contention, reliance is sought to be placed on
the judgment of the Apex Court in Sundeep Kumar Bafna V/s. State
of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2014 SC 1745.
v] That in so far as the judgment in Jeet Mohinder Singh's case (supra)
is concerned, the issue of the affidavit in support of the corrupt
practice being defective was not an issue before the Apex Court in
the said case and therefore the said judgment cannot be said to be a
judgment for the proposition that the Election Petition is required to
be dismissed if the affidavit in support of the allegations of the
corrupt practice does not mention the source of information.
vi] That there being discrepancy in the statements made by the election
agent of the Respondent No.1 in the matter of accounting for Rs.
Eight lacs withdrawn from the joint account of the Respondent No.1
and her election agent, a case for trial is made out.
lgc 12 of 36
AEPL-1.2016
8 In the context of the Application filed by the Respondent No.1 for
dismissal of the Election Petition it would be necessary to refer to the
judgments cited by the learned counsel Shri Maneshinde for the
Applicant/original Respondent No.1.
In Azhar Hussain's case (supra), the defect in the Election Petition
on account of the material facts being not pleaded was in contention. The
Apex Court held that since the Code of Civil Procedure applies to the trial of an
Election Petition by virtue of Section 87 of the Representation of People Act,
the Court trying the Election Petition can act in exercise of the powers of the
Code including Order VI Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code. The
Apex Court held that an Election Petition can be summarily dismissed if it does
not disclose a cause of action. Hence the Apex Court held that failure to
comply with Section 83 in the matter of pleading material facts relating to the
alleged corrupt practice, can result in the dismissal of the Election Petition
under Section 86. The Apex Court held that the Election Petition without
material facts relating to corrupt practice being pleaded is not an Election
Petition in the eyes of law.
The Apex Court has in the said judgment further held that no
amount of evidence could cure the basic defect in the pleadings. The said
observation was made by the Apex Court in the context of the facts in the said
lgc 13 of 36
AEPL-1.2016
case wherein the allegation was that the pleadings were vague.
In Jagabandhu Behera's case (supra) the Apex Court, in the
context of the pleadings in Para 7(B) of the Election Petition in the said case,
held that Para 7(B) even if proved would not be sufficient to establish corrupt
practice as detailed particulars about the time, place and persons to whom
bribe of cash and gift of other articles were given and the amount of cash and
the nature of articles given by way of gifts have not been pleaded.
In L.R. Shivaramagowda's case (supra), the Apex Court held that
failure to plead material facts is fatal to the Election Petition and no
amendment of the pleadings could be allowed to introduce such material facts
after expiry of time limit prescribed for filing the Election Petition.
In Jeet Mohinder Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court held that
material facts and particulars must be furnished in the Election Petition itself
and cannot be set out for the first time in the replication.
In Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat's case (supra) the Apex Court
observed the election law insists that to unseat a returned candidate, the
corrupt practice must be specifically alleged and strictly proved to have been
committed by the returned candidate himself or by his election agent or by any
lgc 14 of 36
AEPL-1.2016
other person with the consent of the returned candidate or by his election
agent.
The Apex Court thereafter held that suspicion, however strong,
cannot take the place of proof, whether the allegations are sought to be
established by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. The Apex Court
further held that since, pleadings play an important role in an Election Petition,
the legislature has provided that the allegations of corrupt practice must be
properly alleged and both the material facts and particulars provided in the
Petition itself so as to disclose the complete cause of action.
In F.A.Sapa's case (supra) the rationale of pleading the material
facts as contemplated by Section 83 has been set out by the Apex Court. The
Apex Court held that the underlying idea in requiring the Election Petitioners
to set out in a concise manner all the "material facts" as well as the "full
particulars", where commission of corrupt practice is complained of, is to
delineate the scope, ambit and limits of the inquiry at the trial of the Election
Petition.
In the order in Election Petition No.13 of 2014 in the matter of
Annarao Govindrao Patil v/s Amit Vilasrao Deshmukh's case (supra), a
learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the Election Petition on the
ground of pleadings being vague and lacking in material particulars.
lgc 15 of 36
AEPL-1.2016
The aforesaid judgments are on the issue of dismissal of the
Election Petition on the ground of non-compliance of Section 83 of the
Representation of People Act.
9 In so far as the ground of material facts being not pleaded and the
Election Petition containing vague pleadings is concerned, the relevant
paragraphs of the Election Petition are Paragraphs 12, 16 and 17. The
paragraphs antecedent to the paragraphs 12, 16 and 17 are concerned, the
averments contained therein are relating to the facts antecedent to the
election, the Election Petitioner's credentials, number of votes each candidate
secured from the said Constituency No.249. The said paragraphs contain
general statements relating to the alleged smear campaign against the Election
Petitioner by other candidates contesting from the said Constituency No.249
including Respondent No.1. The allegations against the Respondent No.3 is in
respect of the alleged publication/circulation of a false message on the mobile
application "Whats-app", the alleged morphed photographs of the Election
Petitioner being circulated so as to create an impression about the Election
Petitioner in a particular manner. The same was done, according to the Election
Petitioner to adversely affect and prejudice the Election Petitioner prospects in
the election and the allegation that the said amounted to a corrupt practice
and has had a prejudicial effect on the election prospects of the Election
lgc 16 of 36
AEPL-1.2016
Petitioner and explains why the Election Petitioner lost the said election despite
all the meritorious work done by him to uplift the poor in Solapur.
10 Hence as indicated above in so far as the Respondent No.1 is
concerned, the allegations of corrupt practice against her are found in
paragraphs 12, 16 and 17. The said paragraphs are reproduced herein under
for the sake of ready reference :-
"Para (12) :- The Petitioner states that on
13.10.2014, Respondent No.1's election agent, Mr.
Prakash Yalgulwar, who is also Indian National
Congress's Solapur City chief, was caught red-handed
by the Flying Squad of the Election Commission with
cash of Rs.six lakhs in room no.103 of hotel Pratham
which is located in constituency no.249. The report of
the said Flying Squad states that even before they
reached there, the police as well as some journalists
had already reached the said location where the said
cash was recovered. The said Mr. Yalgulwar initially
claimed that the cash belonged to him. However, while
giving interviews to the journalists present, he stated
that the said cash belonged to Respondent No.1 and
that he had been entrusted with the said cash for
Respondent No.1's election expenses. The Petitioner
states that undue influence was exerted by the father of
Respondent No.1 who is an ex-Cabinet minister to
ensure that the said incident was not diligently pursued
by the police. The report of the said Flying Squad
records that several of its members had been
threatened by members of the Indian National
Congress. In the statement given to the police to
explain his possession of Rs.six lakhs worth of cash, the
said election agent of Respondent No.1 claimed to have
withdrawn the said cash from a bank. As per the bank
statement of Bank of Maharashtra No.60184863924,
the joint account of Respondent No.1 and her said
lgc 17 of 36
AEPL-1.2016
election agent, opened specifically for the purposes of
Respondent No.1's election expenses, over a period
ranging from 26.9.2014 to 11.10.2014, Rs.18.75 lakhs
had been withdrawn. In a statement submitted to the
Election Commission, the said election agent showed
election expenses of Rs.10.63 lakhs as having been
incurred as on 12.10.2014. Instead of showing a
balance of unused withdrawals of Rs.8.12 lakhs, the
said election agent, in his said statement showed
unused withdrawals of Rs.six lakhs in a malafide
attempt to match the amount recovered from him
during the said raid that occurred on 13.10.2014. As
per the said statement, Rs.2.12 lakhs has not been
unaccounted for. Despite this fact, no further action
was taken against the Respondent No.1 and her
election agent. It is also pertinent to note that the tag
on the bundle of currency notes recovered was not of
the Bank of Maharashtra. Hence, the entire
explanation provided by the said election agent of the
Respondent No.1 is false. The Petitioner states that the
above facts prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the
said amount of Rs.2.12 lakhs had been utilized by the
said election agent of Respondent No.1, with the
consent of Respondent No.1, to distribute among voters
as bribes/gifts/gratification to induce them to vote in
favour of Respondent No.1 and to refrain from voting
for other candidates including the Petitioner. In fact,
even the 6 lakhs recovered would have been utilized for
the same purpose had the said election agent of
Respondent No.1 not been caught red-handed. The
said facts show that the said election agent of
Respondent No.1 is guilty of having indulged in a
corrupt practice, with the consent of Respondent No.1,
within the meaning of section 123(1) r/w section
123(1)(A)(b) and section 123(1)(B)(b) of the
Representation of the People Act 1951. The statement
given by a member of the Indian National Congress to
the said Flying Squad No.6, Constituency No.249,
records that he had booked the room in which the said
cash was recovered and further records that the said
election agent of Respondent No.1 had stated that the
said amount belonged to him and that he had forgotten
it in the room when he left. Another statement by
another member of the Indian National Congress, given
lgc 18 of 36
AEPL-1.2016
to the said Flying Squad No.6, Constituency No.249,
records that the said cash of Rs.6 lakhs was recovered
from the said room in his presence while waiting for
the election agent of Respondent No.1 to return. The
statement by the manager of the hotel where the said
cash had been recovered, given to the said Flying
Squad No.6, Constituency No.249, confirms that the
room had been booked by the person whose statement
records that Respondent No.1's election agent admitted
that the said cash belonged to him and that he had
forgotten it in the said room when he left. The
statement of the bell-boy of the said hotel records that
several police personnel and members of the said Flying
Squad had visited the room from which the said cash of
Rs.6 lakhs was recovered. A letter was written by
Respondent No.1's election agent to the Returning
Officer, Constituency No.249, in wich he maliciously
attempts to provide a false explanation for his
possession of Rs.six lakhs. It is pertinent to note that
while he falsely states that the six lakhs represents
unutilized election expenses, he fails to account for
Rs.2.12 lakhs which he withdrew from the said election
expenses account. Hereto annexed and marked as
Exhibit D is a copy of the certified copies, obtained
from the Code of Conduct department of the Election
Commission, of the case papers in respect of the
complaint filed by the said Flying Squad No.6 in respect
of the raid conducted on the said hotel Pratham.
Annexed hereto as Exhibit D1 is a copy of the CD
recording by the said flying squad of the said raid
which is handed over to the Learned Prothonotary and
Senior Master at the time of filing of the captioned
Petition."
Hence in the above paragraph 12 the allegations in respect of the
election agent of the Respondent No.1 one Prakash Yalgulwar found with cash
of Rs.six lakhs in Room No.103 of Hotel Pratham which is located in the said
Constituency No.249 are found. In the said paragraph the explanation given
by the said Prakash Yalgulwar for possessing the said amount is also
lgc 19 of 36
AEPL-1.2016
mentioned. Thereafter the discrepancy between the amount withdrawn by the
said Prakash Yalgulwar from the joint account held by him with the
Respondent No.1 for meeting election expenses is mentioned. Thereafter the
allegation of the amount of Rs.2.12 lakhs for which the election agent could
not account for. being utilized by the election agent of the Respondent No.1
with the consent of the Respondent No.1 to distribute among the voters as
bribes/gifts/gratification to induce them to vote in favour of the Respondent
No.1 is made. It is thereafter stated that the amount of Rs.Six lakhs recovered
from the election agent would have been utilized for the said purpose is made.
It is on the said basis the allegation that the election agent is guilty of corrupt
practice within the meaning of section 123(1)( r/w section 123(1)(A)(b) and
section 123(1)(B)(b) of the Representation of the People Act is made. The
Election Petitioner in support of the said allegation relied upon the CD
obtained by the Election Petitioner from the Election Commission.
A reading of the said paragraph 12 therefore discloses the alleged
recovery of Rs.Six lakhs from room No.103 of Hotel Pratham from the election
agent of the Respondent No.1. However, the recovery of the amount by itself
cannot amount to a corrupt practice as long as the person from whom it is
recovered can explain for its possession. In so far as the amount being sought
to be distributed is concerned, the allegations are lacking in material facts and
can be said to be vague and speculative. In fact it is the Election Petitioner's
lgc 20 of 36
AEPL-1.2016
own case that the amount would have been utilized for inducing the voters to
vote in favour of the Respondent No.1. The said allegation is probably based
on the statement of the complainant wherein the complainant has also stated
that the amount was likely to be used for inducing the voters to vote in favour
of the Respondent No.1. Hence there is no allegation that the amount
recovered from Room No.103 of Hotel Pratham was in fact being used to bribe
the voters in the said Constituency No.249, but the allegation is that it was
likely to be used. Hence the averments made in paragraph 12 fall short of the
standards for even an enquiry to be caused in the allegations of corrupt
practice. The judgment of the Delhi High Court in Tilak Raj Bhagat's case
(supra) would therefore be of no assistance to the Election Petitioner.
"Para (16) :- The Petitioner states that on
11.10.2014, in a Beedi factory called Langar Beedi
factory, within constituency assembly no.249, in
Gandhi Nagar, Division 6, Akkalkot Road, Solapur, 4
agents of Respondent No.1, namely Vadibhai Manilal
Patel, Nandkumar Narsingh Naik, Devidas Govind
Bugde, Malinath Basanna Teli, were caught red-handed
distributing cash to persons to induce them to vote in
favour of Respondent No.1. They were caught by
members of the Election Commission's Flying Squad
No.6 pssessing cash of Rs.2.21 lakhs and election
posters/pamphlets of Respondent No1 which they were
distributing to persons. The statement of the
complainant, i.e. the chief of the said Flying Squad,
gives the details of the said raid on the said factory. On
the basis of the said complaint, an FIR was filed. The
Petitioner states that the said money was being
distributed by the agents of Respondent No.1 as
bribes/gifts/gratification within the meaning of section
123(1)(A)(b) and section 123(1)(B)(b) of the
lgc 21 of 36
AEPL-1.2016
Representation of the People Act 1951, at the behest of
and with the consent of Respondent No.1 and her
election agent in order to induce persons to vote in
favour of Respondent No.1. As such, the said 4 agents
of Respondent No.1, acting with the consent and at the
behest of Respondent No.1 and her election agent and
caught red-handed with the said cash, are guilty of
having indulged in a corrupt practice within the
meaning of section 123(1) r/w section 123(1)(A)(b)
and section 123(1)(B)(b) of the Representation of the
People Act 1951. The said corrupt practice has had a
prejudicial effect on the election prospects of the
Petitioner and explains why the Petitioner lost the said
election despite all the meritorious work done by him
to uplift the poor in Solapur. The report of the MIDC
Police Station to the Assistant Police Commissioner,
confirms the details of the said raid on the said factory.
The report of the complainant, i.e. the chief of Flying
Squad No.6, to the Police Commissioner's office gives
details of the material recovered in the said raid as well
as the details of the said complaint. Here to annexced
and marked as Exhibit I is a copy of the certified
copies, obtained from the Code of Conduct department
of the Election Commission, of the case papers in
respect of the said incident in which the said 4 agents
of Respondent No.1 were caught red-handed,
distributing cash to persons. Annexed hereto a Exhibit
I1 is a copy of the CD recording by the said flying
squad of the said raid which is handed over to the
Learned Prothonotary and Senior Master at the time of
filing of the captioned Petition.
In the so far as Paragraph 16 is concerned, it is alleged in the said paragraph
that 4 election agents of the Respondent No.1, who are named in the said
paragraph were caught red-handed distributing cash to persons in a Beedi
factory called Langar Beedi Factory by the Flying Squad No.6 of the Election
Commission. It is further alleged that they were found possessing cash of
Rs.2.21 lakhs and election posters/pamphlets of the Respondent No.1 which
lgc 22 of 36
AEPL-1.2016
they were distributing to persons.
A reading of the said paragraph therefore discloses that though the
incident is alleged to have taken place in Langar Beedi Factory, no details of the
time when the incident took place or the names of the persons who were
allegedly given cash by the election agents of the Respondent No.1 are
mentioned. The said paragraph is therefore also lacking in material facts and
therefore no enquiry can be held in respect of such vague allegations.
"Para (17) :- The Petitioner states that on
14.10.2014, in a sweet -factory called Sharma Sweet,
located in constituency no.249, activists/workers of
Shivsena caught the agents of Respondent No.1 red-
handed, distributing cash to persons to induce them to
vote in favour of Respondent No.1. Despite
complaining about the same to the police as well as the
Returning Officer, no action was taken. Thereafter, the
evidence of the said distribution of cash was submitted
to the Collector, Solapur. On basis of the said evidence
presented to him, he directed the police to take action.
However, no further investigative steps were
undertaken by the police. Annexed hereto and marked
as Exhibit J is copy of the CD recording by the said
activists/workers of Shivsena of the said raid which is
handed over to the Learned Prothonotary and Senior
Master at the time of filing of the captioned Petition.
The agents of Respondent No.1 have committed a
corrupt practice within the meaning of section 123(1)
r/w sections 123(1)(A)(b) and 123(1)(B)(b) of the
Representation of the People Act 1951 by distributing
cash persons as bribe/gratification/gift to induce those
persons to vote in favour of Respondent No.1. The said
corrupt practice has had a prejudicial effect on the
election prospects of the Petitioner and explains why
the Petitioner lost the said election despite all the
meritorious work done by him to uplift the poor in
Solapur.
lgc 23 of 36
AEPL-1.2016
In so far as paragraph 17 is concerned, the averments therein
relate to an incident which has allegedly taken place in a Sweet factory called
Sharma Sweets located in the said Constituency No.249. It is alleged that the
activists/workers of Shiv Sena caught the agents of Respondent No.1 red-
handed, distributing cash to persons to induce them to vote in favour of
Respondent No.1.
A reading of the said paragraph 17 therefore discloses that the
names of the activists/workers of the Shiv Sena have not been mentioned as
also the names of the persons who were allegedly the recipients of the cash
from the agents of the Respondent No.1. Hence the said paragraph 17 is also
lacking in material facts and particulars in respect of the alleged incident and
the averments can be said to be vague. The allegations of corrupt practice
therefore in the said paragraph are such that they also do not warrant an
enquiry into them in the above Election Petition.
Hence in so far as the allegations of corrupt practice are
concerned, the pleadings do not satisfy the tests laid down by the judgments
(supra) of the Apex Court. It would therefore have to be held that the Election
Petition lacks in material facts in so far as the allegations of corrupt practice
are concerned and are also vague. Hence applying the well settled dictum that
lgc 24 of 36
AEPL-1.2016
the election of a returned candidate should not be interfered with lightly, the
above Petition would have to be dismissed on the application of Order VII Rule
11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the allegations made
do not make out a cause of action.
11 Now coming to the second ground of challenge namely that the
affidavit filed under Rule 94A in support of the allegations of corrupt practice
does not mention the source of information and is therefore defective, and the
Election Petition is therefore required to be dismissed on the said ground.
As indicated in the earlier part of this judgment the allegations of
corrupt practice against the Respondent No.1 are found in paragraphs 12, 16
and 17 of the Election Petition. The relevant paragraphs of the affidavit filed
under Rule 94A are paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) which for the sake of ready
reference are reproduced herein under :-
"(e) that the statements made in paragraph 12 of the
accompanying Petition about the commission of the
corrupt practice within the meaning of 123(1) r/w
Section 123(1)(A)(b) and Section 123(1)(B)(b) of the
Representation of the People Act 1951, of distributing
cash among voters as bribes/gifts/gratification by the
election agent of Shrimati Praniti Sushilkumar Shinde
with the consent and at the behest of Shrimati Praniti
Sushilkumar Shinde, to induce those voters to vote in
favour of Shrimati Praniti Sushilkumar Shinde
(Respondent No.1 in the said petition) and to refrain
from voting for other candidates including me, and the
particulars of such corrupt practice mentioned in
paragraph 12 of the same petition are true to my
lgc 25 of 36
AEPL-1.2016
information.
(f) that the statements made in paragraph 16 of the
accompanying Petition about the commission of the
corrupt practice within meaning of 123(1) r/w Section
123(1)(A)(b) and Section 123(1)(B)(b) of the
Representation of the People Act 1951, of distributing
cash among voters as bribes/gifts/gratification by 4
agents of Shrimati Praniti Sushilkumar Shinde with the
consent of and at the behest of Shrimati Praniti
Sushilkumar Shinde, to induce those voters to vote in
favour of Shrimati Praniti Sushilkumar Shinde
(Respondent No.1 in the said petition) and to refrain
from voting for other candidates including me, and the
particulars of such corrupt practice mentioned in
paragraph 16 of the same petition are true to my
information.
(g) that the statements made in paragraph 17 of the
accompanying Petition about the commission of the
corrupt practice within meaning of 123(1) r/w Section
123(1)(A)(b) and Section 123(1)(B)(b) of the
Representation of the People Act 1951, of distributing
cash among voters as bribes/gifts/gratification by the
agents of Shrimati Praniti Sushilkumar Shinde with the
consent of and at the behest of Shrimati Praniti
Sushilkumar Shinde to induce those voters to vote in
favour of Shrimati Praniti Sushilkumar Shinde
(Respondent No.1 in the said petition) and to refrain
from voting for other candidates including me, and the
particulars of such corrupt practice mentioned in
paragraph 17 of the same petition are true to my
information."
Hence it is clear from the said paragraphs of the affidavit that
though the Election Petitioner has stated that what is stated in paragraphs 12,
16 and 17 is as per his information, the Election Petitioner has not mentioned
the source of his information. In the said context the judgments cited by the
learned counsel for the parties would have to be referred to.
lgc 26 of 36
AEPL-1.2016
The judgments cited on behalf of the Applicant/Original
Respondent No.1 :-
In L.R.Shivaramgowda's case (supra) a three judge bench of the
Apex Court held that the grounds or source of information are to be set out in
the affidavit whether the Code applies or not. Section 83 of the Act states that
an election petition shall be verified in the manner laid down in the Code. The
verification is as to information received. The Affidavit is to be modelled on the
provisions contained in Order XIX of the Code. Therefore, the grounds or
source of information are required to be stated prior thereto. The Apex Court
has impressed upon the importance of setting out the source of information in
affidavit. The Apex Court has referred to the judgment in State of Bombay
V/s. Purushottam Jog Naik reported in AIR 1952 SC 317.
In Jeet Mohinder Singh's case (supra), a three judge bench of the
Apex Court referred to the well settled legal principles in the field of election
jurisprudence which according to it were relevant for the purposes of the case
before it. In clause (iv) of para 40 of the said judgment, the Apex Court
referred to the judgment in Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat's case (supra) and held
that the Election Petitioner is obliged to disclose his source of information in
respect of the commission of the corrupt practice so as to bind him to make
lgc 27 of 36
AEPL-1.2016
such a charge with full responsibility and to prevent any fishing and roving
enquiry, and save the returned candidate from being taken by surprise.
In Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat's case (supra), the Apex Court in the
said judgment impressed upon the need of setting out the source of
information in the affidavit and held that the absence of the source of
information in the affidavit makes the affidavit defective.
In Narayan Govindrao Patil's case (supra), this Court relied upon
the judgments of the Apex Court in L.R.Shivaramgowda's case (supra), Jeet
Mohinder Singh's case (supra) and Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat's case (supra) to
hold that if the source of information is not set out in the affidavit, then the
said affidavit is defective.
Per contra on behalf of the Election Petitioner reliance is placed on
the judgments of the Apex Court and the judgment of a learned Single Judge of
this Court mentioned herein under to contend that the non-mentioning of the
source of information is not fatal to the maintainability of the Election Petition.
It would therefore be necessary to consider the said judgments :-
In Krishan Chander's case (supra) the Appellant i.e. Krishan
Chander had filed an affidavit in which he stated that paragraphs 11 and 12
lgc 28 of 36
AEPL-1.2016
amongst other paragraphs were based on information received and were
believed to be true. A contention was raised that the Election Petition ought to
be dismissed on the ground of non-compliance of Section 83 of the
Representation of People Act. The Apex Court held that there is nothing in
Form 25 which required the Petitioner to state under clause (b) of Form 25 the
source of his information. Since reliance in the said case was placed on Order
11 Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules as also to Rule 12(a) of the Punjab High
Court Rules, under which the deponent has to state the source of information.
The Apex Court observed that when there are specific Rules made under the
Representation of People Act which govern the election petitions, no other
Rules are applicable, nor is the disclosure of the source of information a
requisite under Order VI, Rule 15(2) of the C.P.C. The Apex Court went on to
hold that non-mentioning of the source of information does not make the
affidavit defective.
In Prabhu Narayan's case (supra) the Apex Court relied upon its
judgment in Krishan Chander's case (supra). The Apex Court having regard
to Section 83 of the Representation of People Act observed that though the
section mandates an affidavit to be filed in support of the corrupt practice in
the prescribed form 25, it does not say that the allegation of corrupt practice
and the particulars thereof shall be given in the affidavit. This according to the
Apex Court was the intention of the legislature.
lgc 29 of 36
AEPL-1.2016
In Kamalnath's case (supra) the Apex Court once again referred
to the requirements of Section 83 of the Representation of People Act. In the
facts of the said case wherein the corrupt practices mentioned in paragraphs 2
to 21 were said to be true to the information received from authorities/persons
concerned, the Apex Court held that it was unable to persuade itself to accept
the submission made by the learned counsel that the election petition is
required to be rejected on account of infraction of Section 83(1) of the
Representation of People Act.
In Anantrao Narayan Thopte's case (supra), a learned Single
Judge of this Court R.M.Lodha, J. (as his Lordship then was) in the facts of the
said case held that the affidavit filed under Rule 94A and in Form 25 meets the
requirements since in the Election Petition the Petitioner had disclosed the
source of information and therefore he is not obliged to disclose the same in
the affidavit.
The learned counsel for the Election Petitioner in support of his
contention that the judgment in Krishan Chander's case (supra) would hold
the field, notwithstanding the judgment in L R Shivaramgowda's case (supra),
Jeet Moh Jeet Mohinder Singh's case (supra) and Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat's
case (supra) has relied upon the judgment in Sundeep Kumar Bafna's case
lgc 30 of 36
AEPL-1.2016
(supra). In the said judgment the Apex Court was concerned with the per
incuriam rule. The Apex Court held that a decision or judgment can also be per
incuriam if it is not possible to reconcile its ratio with that of a previously
pronounced judgment of a Co-equal or Larger Bench, or if the decision of a
High Court is not in consonance with the views of the Supreme Court. The
Apex Court observed that it is often encountered in High Courts that two or
more mutually irreconcilable decisions of the Supreme Court are cited at the
Bar. The Apex Court observed that the inviolable recourse is to apply the
earliest view as the succeeding ones would fall in the category of per incuriam.
12 In so far as the ground of the affidavit filed in support of the
allegations of corrupt practice being defective, the said ground is sought to be
dealt with by the Learned Counsel for the Election Petitioner by making two
fold submissions. The first submission is that the judgments of the Apex Court
in L R Shivaramgowda's case (supra), Jeet Mohinder Singh's case (supra) and
Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat's case (supra) would have no application in view of
the judgment of the Apex Court in Krishan Chander's case (supra), which
judgment has not been cited before the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, and
since the said judgment Krishan Chander's case (supra) is earlier in point of
time than the aforesaid 3 judgments and therefore in terms of the law laid
down in Sundeep Kumar Bafna's case (supra), the said judgment in Krishan
Chander's case (supra) would hold the field and cover the issue in question.
lgc 31 of 36
AEPL-1.2016
Another limb of the said submission was that in Jeet Mohinder Singh's case
(supra) the issue of the affidavit being defective and therefore the election
petition was required to be dismissed was not an issue before the Apex Court
in the said case.
The second submission is that though the source of information is
not stated in para (e), (f) and (g) of the affidavit, however, since the
paragraphs of the Petition, especially paragraphs 12 and 16 of the Petition,
make a reference to the CDs which the Election Petitioner has procured from
the Election Commission, the averments in the said paragraphs would be
attributable to the information provided by the CDs. In so far as para 17 is
concerned, it is stated in the said paragraph that activists/workers of Shiv Sena
caught the agents of Respondent No.1 red-handed, distributing cash to persons
to induce them to vote in favour of Respondent No.1. Hence the paragraphs of
the Election Petition themselves contain the source of information and
therefore the affidavit even if it does not specifically contain the source of
information cannot be said to be defective.
Now dealing with the first submission urged on behalf of the
Election Petitioner as regards the applicability of the judgment in Krishan
Chander's case (supra). No doubt the judgment in Krishan Chander's case
(supra) was not cited before the benches of the Apex Court in L R
Shivaramgowda's case (supra), Jeet Mohinder Singh's case (supra) and
lgc 32 of 36
AEPL-1.2016
Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat's case (supra). However it would have to be noted
that the judgments in L R Shivaramgowda's case (supra), Jeet Mohinder
Singh's case (supra) are rendered by a three judge bench of the Apex Court
whereas the judgment in Kishan Chander's case (supra) is rendered by a two
judge bench of the Apex Court. Hence as per the law of precedents the
judgment of a three judge bench is required to be followed, hence it is the
judgments in L R Shivaramgowda's case (supra), Jeet Mohinder Singh's case
(supra) case that would be required to be followed.
Now coming to the next contention that the issue of the affidavit
being defective was not an issue which was before the Apex Court in Jeet
Mohinder Singh's case (supra). As indicated in the earlier part of this
judgment the Apex Court in Jeet Mohinder Singh's case (supra) had culled
out the broad principles which have developed in election jurisprudence one of
the principles which the Apex Court has referred to is that an Election Petition
is required to be dismissed on the ground of the affidavit which is required to
be filed under Rule 94A and in Form 25 being defective. The Apex Court has
referred to it's judgment in Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat's case (supra). Hence
the ratio laid down in Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat's case (supra) has been
referred to with approval by the three judge bench of the Apex Court in Jeet
Mohinder Singh's case, and hence assuming that the issue of the affidavit
under Rule 94A being defective did not directly fall for consideration, the same
lgc 33 of 36
AEPL-1.2016
would not make any difference as the ratio in Gajanan Bapat's case (supra)
has been quoted with approval by the Apex Court in Jeet Mohinder Singh's
case (supra).
Now coming to the next contention that since paragraphs 12 and
16 of the Election Petition make a reference to the CDs provided to the Election
Petitioner by the Election Commission, the averments in the said paragraphs
would have to be attributed to the CDs, and therefore, the non-disclosure of
the information in the affidavit under Rule 94A would not make the affidavit
defective.
In so far as paragraph 17 is concerned, the averments in the said
paragraph contain a reference to the activists/workers of Shiv Sena and
therefore the non-mentioning of the source of information in the affidavit does
not make the affidavit defective.
In so far as paragraphs 12, 16 and 17 of the Election Petition are
concerned, this Court has already held in the earlier part of this Judgment that
the pleadings in the said paragraphs are bereft of material facts and are also
vague and the Election Petition is required to be dismissed on the said ground.
No doubt the said paragraphs 12 and 16 make a reference to the CDs provided
to the Election Petitioner by the Election Commission, however, the Election
Petitioner has not stated in the said paragraphs that the averments made
lgc 34 of 36
AEPL-1.2016
therein are on the basis of the information gathered from the CDs. Hence the
reference to the CDs would not extricate the Election Petitioner from the
situation where he has failed to mention the source of information in the
affidavit which he has filed in support of the allegations of corrupt practice.
Applying the rules of strict construction of the pleadings in an Election Petition,
the Election Petitioner's case cannot be accepted.
In so far as paragraph 17 is concerned, the Election Petitioner has
merely mentioned that activists/workers of Shiv Sena caught the agents of
Respondent No.1 red-handed, distributing cash to persons to induce them to
vote in favour of Respondent No.1. No names etc. have been mentioned.
Hence the mere mention of "Shiv Sena" in the said paragraph would not save
the Election Petitioner from the obligation of giving the source of information
in support of the facts stated in the said paragraph. The judgment in
Kamalnath's case (supra) of the Apex Court and the judgment of a learned
Single Judge of this Court in Anantrao Narayan Thopte case (supra) would be
of no assistance to the Election Petitioner as it is in the facts of the said cases
where the paragraphs of the Election Petition specifically referred to the source
of information, that the affidavit in those cases was found not to be defective.
However as indicated herein-above in the instant case no such
specific averment is found in paragraphs 12, 16 and 17 of the Election Petition
attributing the source of information to a particular person or authorities.
lgc 35 of 36
AEPL-1.2016
Hence in the facts of the present case the affidavit under Rule 94A and in Form
25 would have to be held to be defective.
13 The upshot of the above discussion would be that the above
Election Petition would have to be dismissed on the twin grounds urged on
behalf of the Applicant i.e. the material facts being not pleaded and the
affidavit in support of the allegations of corrupt practice being defective. The
above Application is accordingly allowed and made absolute in terms of prayer
clause (a). Resultantly the above Election Petition would stand dismissed.
[R.M.SAVANT, J]
lgc 36 of 36
