Karnataka High Court
Sri A Manju vs Sri. Prajwal Revanna @ Prajwal R on 1 September, 2023
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
ELECTION PETITION NO.1 OF 2019
CONNECTED WITH
ELECTION PETITION NO.2 OF 2019
IN E.P. No.1 OF 2019
BETWEEN
1 . SRI A. MANJU
S/O LATE ANNAIAH GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/AT HANYALU VILLAGE,
ANANDUR POST,
ARKALGUD TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 102.
...PETITIONER
(SRI. S. SREEVATSA, SENIOR ADVOCATE
FOR SRI. M.R. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE
AND SRI. SUNIL M.V., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SRI. PRAJWAL REVANNA @ PRAJWAL R.
S/O H.D. REVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT NO.43, PADAVALAHIPPE
VILLAGE AND POST,
KASABA HOBLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573211.
2
2. SRI K.H. VINOD RAJ
S/O HANUMANTHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT NO.562/2, AMBEDKAR NAGAR,
KONANURU, ARKALGUD TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 102.
3. SRI H.M. CHANDREGOWDA
S/O SRI MALLALIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
NO.54, HONASHATTIHALLI,
SRINIVASAPURA POST,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 211.
4. M. MAHESH @ LOKESH
S/O LATE SRI H.C. MANJAPPA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT DOOR NO.349,
SAISADANA,
HEMAVATHINAGAR,
NEAR CHANNAMBIKA THEATRE,
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 211.
5. SRI R G SATISHA
S/O LATE SRI GOWDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT RAMADEVARAPURA VILLAGE,
YELGUNDA POST,
SALAGAMI HOBLI,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 219.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE
FOR SRI. M. KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1
MS. AKKAMAHADEVI HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2
SRI. A. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3
SRI. MAHESH R. UPPIN, ADVOCATE FOR R5
NOTICE TO R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
3
THIS ELECTION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
81 OF REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLES ACT, 1951,
CHALLENGING THE ELECTION OF RESPONDENT NO.1,
RETURNED CANDIDATE SRI.PRAJWAL REVANNA @ PRAJWAL
R. FROM 16 HASSAN (GENERAL) PARLIAMENTARY
CONSTITUENCY HELD IN THE YEAR 2019 AND PRAYING TO:
(A) CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINS TO THE ELECTION
OF 16 HASSAN (GENERAL) PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCY
HELD ON 18.04.2019 AND DECLARED ON 23.05.2019. (B)
DECLARE THE ELECTION OF THE RETURNING CANDIDATE
NAMELY 1ST RESPONDENT TO 16 HASSAN (GENERAL)
PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCY HELD ON 18.04.2019
DECLARED ON 23.05.2019 BY RETURNING OFFICER VIDE
ANNEXURE-F AND F1 AS NULL AND VOID ON ACCOUNT OF
FILING FALSE AFFIDAVIT. (C) DECLARE THE PETITIONER
AS DULY ELECTED IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED ELECTION
FORM 16 HASSAN (GENERAL) PARLIAMENTARY
CONSITUENCY AS A RETURNING CANDIDATE BY SECURING
2ND HIGHEST VOTE AND (D) PASS ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
ORDER/S AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER
UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
IN E.P. No.2 OF 2019
BETWEEN
1. SRI G DEVARAJEGOWDA
SON OF LATE GUNDEGOWDA,
AGED 42 YEARS
RESIDING AT KAMASAMUDRA VILLAGE,
MAVINAKERE POST
HALEKOTE HOBLI,
4
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 211
...PETITIONER
(BY MS. PRAMILA NESARGI, SENIOR ADVOCATE
FOR SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR D., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SRI PRAJWAL REVANNA @ PRAJWAL R
SON OF SRI H D REVANNA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.43,
PADAVALAHIPPE VILLAGE AND POST,
KASABA HOBLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT PIN - 573 11
2. SRI MANJU A.
S/O LATE ANNAIAH GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/AT HANYALU VILLAGE,
ANANDUR POST,
RAMANATHAPURA HOBLI,
ARAKALGUD TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573102
3. SRI VINOD RAJ K H
S/O HANUMANTHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT NO.562/2,
AMBEDKAR NAGAR,
KONANURU,
ARAKALGUD VILLAGE,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 102
4. SRI H M CHANDREGOWDA
S/O SRI MALLALIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.54,
HONNASHATTIHALLI,
SRINIVASAPURA POST,
5
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 211
KARNATAKA.
5. SRI M MAHESH @ LOKESH
S/O H C MANJAPPA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT DOOR NO.349,
SAISADANA,
HEMAVATHINAGAR,
NEAR CHANNAMBIKA THEATRE,
HOLENARASIPURA - 573 211
HASSAN DISTRICT.
6. SRI R SATEESHA
S/O SRI GOWDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT RAMADEVAPURA,
YELAGUNDA POST,
SALIGRAMA HOBLI,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 219
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. M. KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI. S. SREEVATSA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. M.R. VIJAYA KUMAR AND
SRI. SUNIL M.V., ADVOCATES FOR R2
MS. AKKAMAHADEVI HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3
SRI. A. MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R4
SRI. MAHESH R. UPPIN, ADVOCATE FOR R6
NOTICE TO R5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS ELECTION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
81 OF THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLES ACT, 1951,
CHALLENGING THE ELECTION OF RESPONDENT NO.1,
RETURNED CANDIDATE SRI. PRAJWAL REVANNA @ PRAJWAL
R. FROM - 16 HASSAN (GENERAL) PARLIAMENTARY
CONSITUENCY HELD IN THE YEAR 2019 AND PRAYING TO:
6
(A) TO DECLARE THAT THE RESULT OF THE ELECTION SO
FAR IT IS CONCERNED OF RESPONDENT NO.1 HAS BEEN
MATERIALLY EFFECTED BY THE IMPROPER ACCEPTANCE OF
HIS NOMIANTION UNDER SECTION 100(1)(b)(d)(i)(iii)(iv) OF
THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT, 1951, CONTRARY TO
SECTION 33, 33(A)(B), RULE 4(A) AND FORM 26 AS ILLEGAL
AND VOID. (B) TO DECLARE THAT ON THE DATE OF
ELECTION I.E., 18.04.2019 AND ON THE DATE OF
DECLARATION OF THE RESULT i.e., 23.05.2019, THE 1ST
RESPONDENT HAD COMMITTED CORRUPT PRACTICE AND HE
WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE CHOSEN TO FILL THE SEAT OF
16 - HASSAN PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCY UNDER
SECTION 100(1)(b)(d)(iv) OF THE REPRESENTATION OF
PEOPLE ACT, 1951, (C) TO DECLARE THAT THE VOTES
RECEIVED AND COUNTED IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT NO.1
NUMBERING 6,76,606 VOTES AD IMPROPER RECEPTION AND
TREAT THEM AS VOID, WASTED AND THROWN AWAY VOTES,
(D) TO DECLARE THAT THE RESULT OF RESPONDENT NO.1
OF 16 - HASSAN PARLIAMENTARY CONSITUTENCY AS NULL
AND VOID, (E) TO DECLARE THAT THE RESULT OF THE
ELECTION HAS BEEN MATERIALLY EFFECTED BY THE
IMPROPER RECEPTION AND COUNTING OF 6,76,606 VOTES
IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT NO.1 AS VOID UNDER SECTION
100(1)(A)(d)(iii)(iv), (F) (i) TO DECLARE THAT THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 HAS RECEIVED MAJORITY OF THE VALID
VOTES; (ii) THAT BUT FOR THE CORRUPT PRACITCE
COMMITTED BY RESPONDENT NO.1, THE RESPONDENT NO.2
WOULD HAVE OBTAINED THE MAJORITY OF THE VALID
VOTES; (iii) TO DECLARE THAT 6,76,606 VOTES RECEIVED
AND COUNTED IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT NO.1 AS
THROWN AWAY, WASTED AND INVALID AND AS VOID
VOTES. (iv) FURTHER DECLARE THAT 5,35,282 VOTES
RECEIVED AND COUNTED IN FAVOUR RESPONDENT NO.2 AS
7
VALID VOTES; AND DECLARING AS HAVING BEEN DULY
ELECTED; (v) PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDER OR
ORDERS WHEREBY IN RESPECT OF PERSON/S WHO
RESPONSIBLE FOR CORRUPT PRACTICE AT THE ELECTION AS
GUILTY AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 99(1)(a)(i)(ii);
(G) TO DECLARE THAT IN FACT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 HAS
RECEIVED MAJORITY OF THE VALID VOTES AND HE HAS TO
BE DECLARED AS HAVING BEEN DULY ELECTED UNDER
SECTION 98(C) OF THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT,
1951; (H) TO FURTHER DECLARE THAT THE VOTES
OBTAINED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IS BY CORRUPT
PRACTICES AND THAT RESPONDENT NO.2 WOULD HAVE
OBTAINED A MAJORITY OF THE VALID VOTES. (I) TO
DECLARE THAT THE ELECTION OF 1ST RESPONDENT AS
RETURNING CANDIDATE IS VOID AND FURTHER DECLARE
THAT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IS OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN
DULY ELECTED UNDER SECTION 98 READ WITH SECTION
101 OF THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPPLE ACT, 1951; (J)
TO MAKE AN ORDER REGARDING THE CORRUPT PRACTICE
COMMITTED BY PERSONS OTHER THAN RESPONDENT NO.1
IN THE ELECTION HELD FOR 16 -HASSAN PARLIAMENTARY
CONSTITUENCY AND TO COMMUNICATE THE SAME HAVING
BEEN EFFECTED AT THE TIME OF ELECTION BY FOLLOWING
PERSONS VIZ. SRI.H.D. REVANNA, SRI. SURAJ AND OTHERS.
(K) PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS DEEMED NECESSARY UNDER
SECTION 125(A) OF REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT, 1951
AND (L) TO AWARD COSTS AND SUCH OTHER
CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF/RELIEFS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THE CASE.
THESE ELECTION PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 19.04.2023, THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
8
ORDER
This order has been divided into the following
sections to facilitate analysis:
Sl. Particulars Page
No. No.
(iii) Pleadings in Recrimination 30
Petition
election petitions
5 Conclusion / operative Portion of 231
the Order
Election Petition No.1/2019 is filed by
Sri.A.Manju (defeated candidate) under Section 81 of
the Representation of People's Act, 1951, (hereinafter
referred to as 'R.P. Act') praying for:-
(a) Call for entire records pertaining to the
election of 16 Hassan (General)
Parliamentary constituency held on
18.04.2019 and declared on 23.05.2019.
(b) To declare the Election of returning
Hassan General Parliamentary Constituency,
held on 18.4.2019 and declared on
23.5.2019 by Returning Officer vide result
declaration in Form No.21(c) and certificate
of election as null and void on account of
filing false affidavit.
(c) Declare the petitioner as duly elected in the
above mentioned election from 16 Hassan
(General) Parliamentary Constituency as
returning candidate by securing 2nd highest
vote.
(d) Pass any appropriate order/s as this Court
deem fit and proper.
2. Election Petition No.2/2019 is filed by a
voter Devaraje Gowda under Section 81 of the R.P. Act:-
(a) To declare the result of the election or
respondent No.1/Prajwal Revanna has been
materially effected by the improper
acceptance of his nominations under Section
100 (1) (b) (d) (i) (iii) (iv) of R.P. Act
contrary to Sections 33, 33 (A) (B), Rule 4
(A) and Form No.26 as illegal and void.
(b) To declare that on the date of election i.e,
18.4.2019, the date of declaration of result
dated 23.5.2019, the respondent No.1 had
committed corrupt practice and he was not
qualified to be chosen to fill the seat of 16-
Hassan Parliamentary Constitution under
Section 100 (1)(b)(d)(iv) of R.P. Act.
(c) To declare that the votes received and
counted in favour of respondent No.1
numbering 6,76,606 votes has improper
reception and treat them as void, wasted
and thrown away votes.
(d) To declare the result of respondent No.1 of
16-Hassan Parliamentary Constituency as
null and void.
(e) To declare the result of election has been
materially effected by the improper
reception and counting of 6,76,606 votes in
favour of respondent No.1 as void under
Section 100 (1) (A) (d) (iii) (iv).
(f) (i) To declare that the respondent No.2 (A
Manju) has received majority of the valid
votes,
(ii) that but for the corrupt practice
committed by the respondent No.1, the
respondent No.2 would have obtained
majority of the valid votes,
(iii) to declare 6,76,606 votes received and
counted in favour of respondent No.1 has
thrown away, wasted and invalid and as void
votes.
(iv) further declare that 5,35,282 votes
received and counted in favour of the
respondent No.2 has valid votes and
declaring as having been duly elected.
(v) pass such other suitable orders,
whereby in respect of person/s who are
responsible for corrupt practice at the
election as guilty as contemplated under
Section 99 (1)(a)(i)(ii).
(g) To declare that in fact the respondent No.2
has received majority of the valid votes and
he has to be declared as having been duly
elected under Section 98 (c) of the R.P. Act.
(h) to further declare that the votes obtained by
respondent No.1 is by corrupt practice and
that respondent No.2 could have obtained a
majority of a valid votes.
(i) to declare that the election of respondent
No.1 as returning candidate is void and
further declare that the respondent No.2 is
ought to have been duly elected under
Section 98 read with 101 of R.P. Act.
(j) to make an order regarding the corrupt
practice committed by the persons other
than the respondent No.1 in the election
held for 16-Hassan Parliamentary
constituency and to communicate the same
having been effected at the time of election
by following persons namely
Sri.H.D.Revanna, Sri.Suraj and others.
(k) to pass such other orders deemed necessary
under Section 125 (A) of R.P. Act and to
avoid cost and such other constituency
reliefs in the circumstances of the case.
3. The case of the petitioner in E.P.No.1/2019 is
that the Election Commission of India (hereinafter
referred to as 'Election Commission of India') issued a
notification on 12.1.2019 appointing the Deputy
Commissioner, Hassan as Returning Officer to 16-
Hassan Parliamentary Constituency and the Returning
Officer issued a notification on 19.3.2019 publishing the
calendar of events by calling upon the contestants to file
nominations along with affidavit in Form No.26 as per
the dates prescribed as follows:-
(i) Election Notification dated 11.3.2019
(ii) Date of commencement of 19.3.2019
nomination
(iii) Last of date for filing 26.3.2019
nomination
(iv) Date of scrutiny nomination 27.3.2019
(v) Date of withdrawal of 29.3.2019
nomination
(vi) Date of polling 18.4.2019
(vii) Date of counting 23.5.2019
(viii) Date of declaration of result 23.5.2019
4. The election was conducted by the Returning
Officer appointed by ECI namely, one Akram Pasha and
subsequently one Priyanka Mary Francis was replaced as
Returning Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Hassan.
It is alleged that the petitioner is the voter of Hanayalu
village, Ramanathapura Hobli, Arakalagudu Taluk,
Hassan District, within the parliamentary constituency of
Hassan and his name is found in part No.278 at
Sl.No.405 and he has filed nomination to contest the
election. He has filed the nomination paper along with
the affidavit Form No.26. The respondent No.1 has filed
his nomination paper along with affidavit in Form No.26
to contest the Hassan parliamentary constituency
sponsored by Janata Dal Secular Party (hereinafter
referred to as 'JDS') on 22.2.2019 at 12.35 p.m. Apart
from the petitioner and respondent No.1, the respondent
Nos.2 to 5 are the local/regional parties, who also
contested, but not serious contestants in real terms. It
is further alleged that the counting was held on
23.5.2019. The petitioner secured 5,35,282 votes,
whereas respondent No.1 secured 6,76,606 votes. The
votes secured by respondent No.1 were not the valid
votes. The Returning Officer has declared the
respondent No.1 as duly elected, to fill the seat for 16
Hassan parliamentary constituency on 23.5.2019. It is
further contended that the Election Commissioner called
the information in prescribed affidavit Form No.26 by
exercising power under Article 324 of Constitution of
India, to furnish the information relating to candidates,
their assets including movable, immovable, bank
balance etc., of the candidates as well as the spouse and
the dependents.
5. The petitioner further alleged that calling
information in the affidavit Form No.26 by the ECI is to
provide to the knowledge of every voter who has
elementary right to know full particulars of the
candidates who intends to represent him in the
parliament and such right to get information is
universally recognized and to know the candidate is a
natural right flowing from the concept of democracy. It
is an integral part of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution
of India. Therefore, the candidate is bound to provide
the necessary and all information at the time of filing
nomination paper. The nomination paper is liable to be
rejected, if it is incomplete information, tantamount to
mis-representation, suppressing the material
information in the affidavit, which would be treated as a
defect of substantial character by Returning Officer. It is
the duty of Returning Officer to check whether the
information required is fully furnished and non-
furnishing of the required information, would amount to
falsehood or suppression/non-disclosure which amounts
to suppression of material information relating to the
candidate and it also amounts to nullify the very
foundation of voters exercise of choice and vitiating the
purity of the election process.
6. The petitioner further contended that the
respondent No.1 is guilty of non-disclosure of
information pertaining to partnership firm M/s.
Adhikarah Ventures LLP and M/s. Dhrone Workforce LLP
owned by him as partner for 20% and 25%.
7. It is further contended that, as on the date of
filing this affidavit on 22.3.2019, the respondent No.1
declared his assets and liabilities, bank balance,
movable and immovable properties. Immediately, the
petitioner filed the objection before the Returning Officer
against willful suppression of assets, movable and
immovable properties including, bank balances, but the
Returning Officer accepted the nomination paper of the
respondent No.1, by rejecting the objection of the
petitioner on the ground of 6.10 (iv) of Returning
Officer's directory. Upon considering the objection filed
against respondent No.1, the ECI, designated an officer
to hold an enquiry, but the designated officer failed to
take any decision against the respondent No.1. The
very purpose of issuing guidelines issued by ECI to
submit affidavit in form No. 26 would be defeated, if
such affidavits are accepted. Therefore, accepting of the
nomination filed by respondent No.1 is bad in law.
8. The petitioner further submitted that non
furnishing of the required information would amount to
falsehood, suppression/non-disclosure, hence the
respondent No.1 is guilty of:-
a) Non-disclosure of information regarding
partnership of M/s. Adhikarah Ventures LLP
and M/s. Dhrone Workforce LLP,
b) The income tax returns to be filed for 5 last
financial year but not filed any income tax
returns but he has filed income tax returns
only for the assessment year 2018-19, even
though he is having huge amount of income
and self acquired properties worth crores
from 2008 till 2018,
c) The respondent No.1 despite not owning any
title but he has declared he is owner of the
land in Sy.No.16/3, 17/2 and 13/2 of
Bhavinkere village kasaba hobli
Nelamangala, and in Sy.No.3/1 and 3/3 of
Srirampura village Mysore Taluk,
d) The respondent No.1 has wrongly shown the
market value of the immovable properties
situated at Bhavinkere village in respect of
item No.1 to 8 properties No.E. The affidavit
of the respondent No.1 was verified in
column no.7(b) (2) non agricultural land in
respect of Chennambika Convention Hall is a
partner which is a commercial building but
he has invested the money in the land but
he has mentioned as nil and he has misled
the public at large,
e) The respondent misled the public by
declaring that he had huge amount of loan
from his father Sri.H.D Revanna for
Rs.1,26,36,000/- but the H.D. Revanna has
declared before the Registrar of Lokayuktha
where in his affidavit stated he has given
loan to his son for Rs.47,36,000/-,
f) The respondent No.1 filed Income Tax return
on the very same day of filing affidavit on
26.2.2019 by showing his address at
Padmanabhanagar, Bengaluru,
g) The respondent No.1 filed returns for the
assessment year as belated return under
139 (4) of Income Tax Act which applies to
individuals having income to be returned
under the head of profits and gains from the
business but he has suppressed his business
interest in the firms,
h) The respondent No.1 shown the income from
business of Rs.7,48,442/-and he has
conceded the true fact of his source of
income in the affidavit,
i) The respondent No.1 mis-calculated the total
income and he has avoided the tax to the
authorities for the previous years and he is
guilty of dues to the Government,
j) The respondent No.1 declared before the
Income tax authority by mentioning the
business and share in the firm in including
the Chennambika Convention Hall but he has
shown the false affidavit,
k) The petitioner learnt the income of
Rs.7,48,842/- was under the head of
business but he has not furnished the actual
figures in respect of the business in Form
No.26,
l) The respondent No.1 filed income tax return
of the assessment year 2018-19 without
disclosing income for previous year including
the interest earned from Chennambika
Convention Hall therefore he is guilty of non
disclosing the income from the Chennambika
Convention Hall,
m) The respondent No.1 is guilty of not
maintaining the books of accounts as per
Section 44 AA (2),(i)(ii) of IT Act,
n) The respondent No.1 shown bank balance as
on 22.3.2019 at Karnataka Bank Minerva
Circle Branch, Bengaluru in the affidavit as
Rs.5,78,238/- but as per the bank balance it
was Rs.49,09,583/-,
o) The respondent No.1 received Rs.50 lakhs
from Kuppareddy as Rajya Sabha Member
through his bank account at Minerva circle
branch but he has not disclosed.
9. It is further alleged by the petitioner that the
information furnished by respondent No.1 were
suppressed and not disclosed various information in the
nomination paper. Therefore the nomination of the
respondent No.1 was liable to be rejected and
consequently, his election is liable to be declared as null
and void. It is further alleged that the nomination of
respondent No.1 is only lip service and there is no
evidence at all, therefore, his nomination is liable to be
held invalid. It is further alleged that the details are
furnished in respect of asset / business and possessed
by each candidate separately, but the respondent No.1
has mislead by suppressing the investments in bonds,
debentures and shares. There is corresponding duty on
part of respondent No.1 to disclose truthful and correct
information regarding the assets, both movable and
immovable including bank balance, therefore, non
disclosure of assets in his nomination, is held as invalid.
It is further contended the Returning Officer failed to
exercise his statutory duties but wrongly accepted the
nomination of the respondent No.1. Therefore, prayed
for allowing the petition as prayed for.
10. The respondent No.1 appeared through the
counsel and filed written objections by denying all the
allegations made in the petition against the respondent
No.1, as false except the respondent specifically
admitted some of the averments and other averments
are not admitted and the petitioner is put to strict proof
of the same.
11. The respondent has contended that he secured
6,76,606 votes and declared as elected candidate on
23.5.2019 and all the votes are the valid votes and he
has duly filled all the instructions printed in the Proforma
Form No.26. The contention of the petitioner is that
every voter has right to know the full particulars of the
candidate who represent them in the parliamentary
election be true but other contentions are false. The
paragraph 9 of the petition is figment of imaginations
and the Returning Officer not expected and permitted to
conduct a rowing enquiry on the affidavit filed in Form
No.26. The contention in paragraph 10 is denied as
false. The averments in paragraph 11 regarding
partners in the firms-M/s. Adhikarah Ventures LLP, M/s.
Dhrone Workforce LLP, is not correct. The respondent
was no more partner, he was already resigned from the
firm on 19.3.2019 and the firm has accepted his
resignation by resolution which was forwarded to the
Registrar of Companies, therefore the contention of the
petitioner that the respondent No.1 was partner of the
firms, is not correct. The averments in the petition in
paragraph 12 is the matter of record. The contention in
paragraph 13 regarding filing of his objection, before the
Returning Officer may be true, but the other contentions
are not true. The contentions in paragraphs 14 and 15
are not admitted. The Returning Officer is justified in
rejecting the objection of the petitioner and accepted the
nomination. The contention in paragraph 16 is not
admitted. The respondent has not suppressed any
material facts and has not left any blank spaces in the
affidavit.
12. It is further objected by respondent No.1 that
paragraphs 17A, 17B, 17C of the petition are denied.
The respondent has furnished the information sought at
Sl.No.4, part A of the Form No.26 that candidate should
have filed IT returns for previous 5 financial years. The
respondent correctly declared his IT returns and further
contended that he has purchased the land in
Sy.No.16/3, 17/2 and 13/2 of Bhavinkere village by sale
deeds dated 15.9.2020 and in respect of Sy.No.3/1 of
Srirampura village, it was typographical error that the
land in Sy.No.3/2 but wrongly typed as Sy.No.3/1 and
the land in Sy.No.3/3 is inherited through 'Will' executed
by his grand mother Smt. Nagarathnamma on
04.12.2009. It is further contended that the land in
Sy.Nos.13/1, 17/1 and 16/3 reflects the erstwhile owner
of the land and they have sold those properties in favour
of the respondent, but the encumbrance were reflecting
in the name of the erstwhile owner. Further contended
that he has furnished approximate current market value
of those properties and the guidance value fixed by the
authorities for the purpose of stamp duty. It is further
contended that the Chennambika Convention Hall
belongs to a firm and he has mentioned the same in the
affidavit Form No.26 and further denied that in the
financial year 2017-18, he has availed loan from his
father Sri. H.D. Revanna and he has mentioned in the
nomination paper. The IT returns filed by him is not
within the scope of the election petition, even otherwise,
the respondent is earning income and interest from the
firm, the same was declared in IT returns and his
affidavit. He further contended that the allegations
made in the paragraph 17 and sub-paragraphs are all
false and contended that the respondent has furnished
Bank balance available as on the date of filing the
nomination by obtaining the account for the period from
31.12.2006 to 7.3.2019 and the receipt of Rs.50 lakhs
as loan from Kuppendra Reddy, which was transferred
on 11.3.2019 and the same was not intimated to the
respondent. Subsequent to filing of the nomination
paper, the respondent came to know the amount
received by him and further denied paragraph 18, 19,
20, 21, 22, 32 as false and further admitted that the
interpretation given by the petitioner in respect of
judgment of courts in paragraph-33 is partially correct
and further denied the paragraphs 34 to 37 as false and
contended that the respondent never suppressed any
information in his affidavit and he has not violated any
provisions of the Act. Therefore, he has contended the
petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
13. The respondent also further contended that
the contention of the petitioner in accepting the
nomination of the respondent has materially affected the
result of the Returning candidate under Section
100(1)(d)(i) of R.P. Act is untenable and there is no
violation of provision of Sections 33A, 33B and Section
100(1)(d)(iv) of R.P. Act and the contention of the
petitioner in paragraph 38 to 45 are untenable and not
admitted. It is further contended that prayer (a) of the
petition cannot be granted as the petitioner has not
made out prima facie case, the prayer (b) also cannot
be granted as the affidavit filed by the respondent does
not suffer from any infirmities. The Election Petition is
not required to be entertained by this court as the
petition itself is not maintainable in the earlier
paragraphs of the objections.
14. It is further contended that the Election
petition suffers from non-compliance of Section 81(3) of
R.P. Act which is as under:-
i. The election petition served to the
respondent is not signed by the
petitioner as well as his Advocate
as true copy.
ii. The advocate of the petitioner has
put his signature at page no.34 to
37, 40, 42, 49 to 64, 66 to 77, 79
to 81, 83 to 86, 88 to 97, 100, 105
to 107, 110, 113, 116, 118 to 120,
122 to 127, 131, 133 to 136, 138,
140, 141, 142, 144, 145, 147 to
151, 155 to 158, 160 to 169, 171
to 180, 182 to 192, 196 to 201 but
not true copy.
iii. The advocate for the petitioner has
not signed on the documents page
Nos.128 and 129,
iv. The petitioner has alleged the
respondent is guilty of corrupt
practice but has not filed the
affidavit in the format prescribed in
Form No.25 which is mandatory
under the Act and Rules. The
documents produced by the
petitioner in Annexure 'G' and 'H'
are tampered one and contended
that the respondent not
suppressed any material facts in
Form No.26 which does not suffers
any infirmities and no false
information filed by the respondent
hence prayed for dismissing the
petition as no case made out by
the petitioner.
15. The respondent No.1 in EP.No.1/2019 also
filed Recrimination Petition under Section 97 of R.P. Act
alleging that the petitioner has sought for declaration
before this court that the election of the respondent to
be declared as null and void. That this respondent has
filed false affidavit and also sought the petitioner be
declared as duly elected for having secured the 2nd
highest vote and he has contended that assuming
without admitting the same, the petitioner is not entitled
for relief of declaration that he should be declared as
elected, because the petitioner also indulged in corrupt
practice. It is further contended that the petitioner has
filed false affidavit in Form No.26, he also suppressed
the material fact regarding declaration of his income and
his wife's income and pending criminal cases against
him. The petitioner also contested from Arakalagudu
constituency of Assembly election on 12.5.2018 by
declaring his income as Rs.11,85,18,249/- and his wife's
income as Rs.10,49,88,112/- in part B of the affidavit,
but in the Lok Sabha election, he has mentioned his
income and wife's income as Rs.12,04,322/- and
Rs.22,06,488/- respectively for the assessment year
2018-19. He further contended that a criminal case has
been filed against him which was pending before the
Hassan Court for the offence punishable under Section
188 of IPC and an appeal was pending before the High
Court in W.P.No.16510/2018 which was not declared by
him and he has a filed false affidavit by showing two
different annual income for the same financial year and
same is contradictory to the Section 33A of the R.P. Act.
He has further submitted that Section 100 of R.P. Act
enumerates the ground for declaring the election to be
void, with a specific ground that if by improper
acceptance of any nomination, result of the election has
been materially affected and as per clause (d)(iv) non
compliance with provisions of Constitution or Act and
Rules, the petitioner is guilty of furnishing wrong
information and suppressing the material information.
The jurisdictional police registered FIR against him,
which is pending before the JMFC, Arakalagudu in Crime
No.64/2019 and while canvassing for the petitioner with
the knowledge and consent of the petitioner an Ex. MLA
H.M. Vishwanath issued the statement regarding the
name of the caste and religion and there is clear
violation under Section 123(3) of the R.P. Act. Another
case has been registered in Crime No.65/2019, the
election agent also filed before the District Election
Office along with the newspaper cutting, the petitioner
also influenced the voters in a meeting on 5.4.2019. A
case has been registered in Crime No.62/2019, another
case registered in Crime No.66/2019 for seizing Rs.2
lakhs in a car along with the badges and pamphlets of
BJP. Another case was registered in Crime No.34/2019
for carrying the caps and T-shirts with symbol of BJP in
a car. The petitioner has willfully violated the code of
conduct and the petitioner also indulged in making a
false allegation against the JDS leaders. The petitioner
has misused the official machinery and indulged in
corrupt practice as enumerated under Section 100 of the
R.P. Act. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for
declaring himself as elected and hence, prayed for
rejection of the prayer of the petition.
16. The petitioner in E.P.No.1/2019 filed
objections to the Recrimination petition, contending that
regarding the allegation of corrupt practice, the
Recrimination petition itself is liable to be dismissed in
limine for non compliance of Rule 94-A of Conduct of
Election Rules as the recrimination petition does not
contain the affidavit in Form No.25. As regards to the
non disclosure of pendency of criminal cases, the
allegations are unfounded, except one case in Crime
No.171/2018 and the said case was stayed by the High
Court in Writ petition and there is no other cases at the
time of filing the nomination and other cases were
registered subsequent to the filing of the nomination.
Therefore, the said contention is not tenable. It is
further contended that so far as discrepancies in
declaration of income of the assessment year 2017-18,
the petitioner has shown different income due to
increase of the income to the extent of Rs.18,43,073/-.
It is further contended that the fairness in the conduct of
the petitioner in promptly showing the higher income
deserves to be appreciated and likewise, the two
affidavits in respect of income of his wife differs and
both the figures are correct. The two forms filed by the
petitioner in the Recrimination petition confirms the
petitioner's explanation regarding the reason for
changing in the figure. The amount has been declared
before the income tax authorities. Therefore, the
petitioner is entitled for relief to be declared as elected
in the place of respondent No.1. Hence prayed for
dismissing the Recrimination petition as not
maintainable.
17. The respondent No.2 also filed statement of
objection stating that he has contested the Hassan
parliamentary election from Bahujan Samajwadi Party
and he has lost the election. The respondent No.1 was
declared as returned candidate, as per Rule 4A of which
mandates furnishing information in Form No.26. The
respondent No.1 has not disclosed the information
pertaining to the partnership firm, namely M/s.
Adhikarah Ventures LLP and M/s. Dhrone Workforce LLP
were the partner holding 20% and 25% respectively,
and he withheld the information and given false
declaration and misleading information. Therefore, the
respondent No.1 is guilty of non disclosure, misleading
and furnishing the false information to ECI which
amounts to corrupt practice, hence the election of
respondent No.1 as returned candidate should be
declared as null and void. Hence, prayed for allowing
the petition.
18. The respondent No.3 also filed the written
statement stating that he is a voter in Honnashettihalli
village Chennarayapatna Taluk, he was sponsored by
Uttama Prajakiya Party and contested the election and
lost. He also contended the respondent No.1 suppressed
the material fact, given false declaration in respect of
assets and liabilities including the bank balances.
Therefore, it is contended that respondent No.1 is guilty
of dishonest, non-disclosure, misleading and furnishing
the false information to the ECI, hence he also prayed
for declaring the election of the respondent No.1 as null
and void.
19. The respondent No.5 also filed written
statement by adopting the statement filed by the
respondent No.1 and contended that the Election
petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed
for non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Sections
81 and 83 of the R.P. Act. He also denied the
contentions in the election petition and he has almost
supported the respondent No.1 and prayed for
dismissing the election petition.
20. Based upon the pleading, the following issues
has been framed by this court on 27.5.2022:
ISSUES (IN E.P.No.1/2019)
(1) Whether the petitioner proves that
respondent No.1 was the partner of the
firm M/s. Adhikarah Ventrues LLP and
M/s Drone Workface LLP but not
disclosed in the affidavit Form No.26 filed
along with nomination paper?
(2) Whether the petitioner proves that
respondent No.1 has falsely claimed that
he is the owner of the lands mentioned
in paragraph 17(c) of the petition and
also shown wrong market value of the
suit property and also furnished wrong
and incomplete information in his
affidavit From No.26 filed along with the
nomination paper?
(3) Whether the petitioner proves that
respondent No.1 has mislead the voters
in respect of the firm Chennambika
Convention Hall which respondent No.1
is a partner?
(4) Whether the petitioner proves that it is
mandatory for the candidate contesting
in an election to the parliament to show
his source of income?
(5) Whether the petitioner proves that
respondent No.1 concealed his
investment in the firm Chennambika
Convention Hall and it was obligatory on
his part to disclose the same?
(6) Whether the petitioner proves that
respondent No.1 has concealed the
actual balance of the bank account of
Karnataka Bank, Minerva Circle branch,
held by him and if so, it vitiates the
election?
(7) Whether the petitioner proves that the
acceptance of the nomination papers of
the respondent No.1 by the Returning
Officer is improper?
(8) Whether respondent No.1 proves that he
was not aware of the remittance of
Rs.50.00 lakh into his savings bank
account in Karnataka Bank by one
Kuppendra Reddy, Member of Parliament
(Rajya Sabha)?
(9) Whether respondent No.1 proves that
non disclosure or non filing of returns for
five years as required under clause 4(1)
in Form No.26 does not violate Section
33A of the R.P. Act read with Rule 4A of
Conduct of Election Rules together with
Form No.26 as appended to the Conduct
of Election Rules, 1961?
(10) Whether respondent No.1 proves that
the petitioner has also indulged in
corrupt practice by transporting the
election materials unauthorisedly without
taking permission of the Returning
Officer and thereby, many cases were
registered by the police and pending
before the various Courts in Hassan
District?
(11) Whether the petitioner proves that
respondent No.1 has suppressed the true
income, assets and liabilities in Form
No.26 which violates Section 33A of the
R.P. Act and Rule 4A of Conduct of
Election Rules and furnished false
information which amounts to the
corrupt practice in terms of Section 123
of the R.P. Act, thereby election of
respondent No.1 of Hassan (General
Parliamentary Constituency) and result
declared on 23.5.2019 is held to be void
under Section 98 and Section
100(1)(d)(i) of R.P. Act?
(12) Consequently, whether the petitioner is
entitled to be declared as elected in place
of respondent No.1 to No.16 Hassan
(General Parliamentary Constituency) as
enumerated in Section 98(c) of the R.P.
Act?
21. Election Petition No.2/2019 is filed by a
voter G. Devarajegowda under Section 81 of the R.P.
Act submitting that his name finds place at Sl.No.301 in
part No.001, in Booth No.240 at Kamasamudra village
and he is an Ex-Karnataka Development Inspection
Committee member of Hassan District and also
Ex-General Secretary of KPCC. He is an advocate and
social worker and working for cause of justice. Even in
the parliamentary election, he has actively participated
in support of Congress Candidate sponsored by the
Congress party. But after a few days, election was
announced for Hassan parliamentary constituency. At
that time the JD(S) and Indian National Congress have
decided to field a common candidate, due to which, he
has resigned from congress party and joined Bharatiya
Janata Party (BJP) including the respondent No.2 -
A.Manju who was being sponsored by BJP in the said
election.
22. The respondents Nos.1 to 6 have filed
nomination. Respondent No.1 was sponsored by JDS,
Respondent No.2 was sponsored by BJP, respondent
No.3 was sponsored by Bahujan Samaj Party, they are
National and State political parties, whereas respondent
No.4 was registered as political party and was
representing a new party - Uttama Rajakiya party and
respondent Nos.5 and 6 are independent parties. The
contest is only between respondent No.1 and respondent
No.2 i.e., JDS and BJP. Respondent No.1 was supported
by congress which had not fielded any candidate.
Respondent No.1 secured 6,76,606 votes and
Respondent No.2 secured 5,35,282 votes, the rest of
them secured in all 54,002 votes. The respondents No.3
to 6 have lost their deposits. Respondent No.1 secured
6,76,606 votes should not have been received and
counted and they are not valid votes, whereas the votes
secured by respondent No.2 were the valid votes. The
respondent No.1 has been duly elected and the
petitioner being the voter has right to challenge the
same, in as much as he wants a good representative in
the parliament to represent his constituency. The
petitioner is seeking for a prayer not only to declare the
election of the respondent No.1 as void but also to
declare the respondent No.2 having been elected under
Section 101 of R.P. Act.
23. The petitioner herein calling in question the
declaration of the result of the respondent No.1 under
Section 100(1)(b), (d)(i), (d)(ii), (iii) and (iv) of
R.P. Act. The petitioner has also challenged the
declaration of respondent No.1 as void but also
challenged the commission of various corrupt practices
by respondent No.1 under Sections 123(A)(b),
123(B)(b), 123(2)(b), 123(3), 123(3A), 123(6),
123(7)(a), 123(7)(d)(h) and 123(8) of R.P. Act.
24. It is alleged by the petitioner that
respondent No.1 has filed the nomination before the
Returning Officer under Section 33 of the R.P. Act and
the Returning Officer was bound to satisfy himself after
verifying the electoral roles, but the Returning Officer
ignored the requirement contemplated under Section
33(a) of the R.P. Act that the candidate who is
contesting the election has to submit Form No.26 and
the Form No. 26(A) has to be sworn in by an affidavit in
accordance with law. But after going through the
affidavit of the respondent No.1, it was brought to the
notice of officer that the Form No.26 filed by the
respondent no.1 was not in accordance with the law. But
the Returning Officer accepted the same, inspite of
objections without considering the questions raised by
respondent No.2. It is also contended that Form No.26
suffers from non disclosure of material requirements
regarding assets, liabilities, bank balance, which is
substantial in nature. Respondent No.1 also invested in
two partnership firms, which were not declared by him.
25. The petitioner further stated that in Form
No.26, the liabilities and the loans required to be
mentioned, whereas the respondent has taken loan from
16 persons including his father, mother and relatives but
he has not properly declared. He has declared that he
has borrowed loan from his father for Rs.1,26,36,000/-
as per his father's declaration before the Lokayuktha,
but the respondent No.1 declared only Rs.74,00,000/-.
There is difference of Rs.52,36,000/-. Likewise, the loan
borrowed from his mother was Rs.43,75,000/- but
payment is only Rs.30,00,000/-. There is a difference of
Rs.13,75,000/- and there is no declaration before the
Income Tax Department.
26. The petitioner further contended that the
balance in the account at Karnataka Bank, Minerva
Circle branch was Rs.49,09,583/- but, he has declared
only Rs.5,78,238/- and there is difference of
Rs.43,31,344/-. Therefore, the declaration made by
respondent No.1 is false. It is further contended at
column No.11 of Part B of affidavit Form No.26, that he
has declared a sum of Rs.4,89,15,029/- and that it has
been paid through RTGS DD for purchase of agricultural
land, by borrowing loan from his father, but his father
declared before the Lokayuktha that he has paid loan
only for Rs.47,36,000/-. Therefore, there is difference
of Rs.79 lakhs and hence, the said declaration is also
false. It is further contended that the respondent No.1
declared some of the landed property at Bhavinkere,
Nelamangala Taluk are belonging to him but some of the
properties were not standing in his name, therefore,
there are difference in the properties as per the sale
deed. Therefore, the declaration was false and some of
the properties belonging to Government and declaring
the said properties as his property, amounts to land
grabbing and punishable under the penal offences.
27. The petitioner further stated there were sale
deeds in respect of two survey Nos. 16/2 and 17/1 and
in respect of survey Nos.16/3, 17/2 and 13/2 of
Bhavinkere village, said to be belonging to him, but the
record speaks some thing else, his name was not shown
in those documents. Therefore, the said declaration is
false. Further it is contended that so far as Sy.No.17/2
belonging to one Siddananjappa, a litigation was
pending in O.S.No.482/2015 and O.S.No.326/2011
which are still pending. Therefore, his name is not
reflecting in the revenue records, therefore his
declaration is false. Further contended, in respect of
Sy.No.3/1 of Srirampura village, the property belongs to
one Maramma, wife of Nanjaiah, but the respondent
declared as owner and similarly in respect of Sy.No.3/3
of Srirampura village he has declared, that it belongs to
him, but it shows in the name of Nagarathnamma. As
per Form No.26, he has stated that he is the owner of 5
survey properties but it does not belong to him.
Therefore, it is a false declaration which attracts corrupt
practice under Section 123 (2) of R.P. Act.
28. The petitioner further contended that while
filing the nomination, he filed Form No.26, the same is
not in accordance with Section 33A of R.P. Act and Rule
4A of Conduct of Election Rules and if it is not in
conformity within the prescribed form, the Returning
Officer is bound to reject the nomination paper. But the
Returning Officer has failed to do so. Therefore,
considering the information, non-filing the correct
information amounts to corrupt practice under Section
123(2) of R.P. Act.
29. The petitioner filed a complaint to the Election
Commission when the nomination of respondent was
accepted, the said complaint was forwarded to the ECI
and the result is awaited. Further submits, in part A and
B, the PAN number of income tax required to be
furnished but he has not furnished. There is a difference
in the amount disclosed by him, the same amounts to
non-disclosure, suppression and concealment of
different items which are as under:-
i. The respondent No.1 lent loan to his
brother Suraj in a sum of
Rs.37,20,000/- but that is not correct,
but has lent loan of Rs.76,00,000/-
through Karnataka Bank,
ii. He has declared he is the owner of
land in Sy.No.16/3 of Bhavinkere
village and owner of Sy.No.17/2 but
his name is not find place in the
revenue records,
iii. The Assistant Commissioner,
Doddaballapura have passed order on
29.4.2011 in LRF SR(L) 19/2009-10
regarding Sy.No.16/3 which belongs
to Government, but the respondent
declared the said land belongs to him
and he has declared the value of the
property as Rs.5,77,50,000/- crores
but the actual value is 11.55 crores
hence his declaration is false.
iv. In respect of Chennambika
Convention Hall he has shown
Rs.14,66,666/- in the said site there
was a construction of hall and as per
the building license and photograph
the investment is not less than Rs.5
crore and his earning is Rs.8 lakhs as
rental income which was not
disclosed. It is further alleged, the
High Court has passed an order on
16.10.2012 in W.P.No.38127/2012
(LB RES -PIL) to the DC for
demolition of the convention hall. The
said land said to be gifted by his
father Revanna to the respondent
No.1 and he himself and his brother
had constructed and the cost would
be more than Rs.5 crore but it is not
declared. Therefore, his declaration is
false,
v. As per the Income Tax Act the
amount derived which exceeds the
slab, then he has declared in his
returns but he has not declared in the
income tax returns and he has filed IT
returns only in Assessment year
2918-19 but not filed any IT returns
from 2014 to 2017. He bound to
show the income for first five years
but which is not declared and as per
the information gathered by the
petitioner an amount of
Rs.1,88,68,368/- has come to his SB
account at Minerva Circle Branch as
per the discounting of 41 bills from
Government department which has
not been declared. The respondent
No.2 also filed complaint to the IT
department to hold an enquiry
regarding bills received and encashed
by the respondent No.1,
vi. The respondent No.1 is guilty of non
disclosure of investments in M/s.
Adhikarah Ventures LLP and M/s.
Dhrone Workforce LLP to the extent of
20% and 25% respectively and as per
the data in public domain uphold on
24.6.2019 that he is retired from the
said companies. Therefore, as on the
date of filing nomination he is partner
of the said two companies which were
not disclosed,
vii. As per the affidavit he has declared
the balance in his account at Minerva
circle branch Karnataka bank was
Rs.5,78,238/- but as on the day of
filing nomination the amount was
Rs.49,09,583/- and there is difference
of Rs.43,31,345/- hence his
declaration is false and further
contended he has lent loan of
Rs.37,00,000/- to his brother but he
has actually lent Rs.76,00,000/-
therefore his statement is incorrect
and as per the Income Tax Act, he
has transferred the said amount
through online, therefore it is an
offence under Section 269 SS and
269(T) of IT Act.
30. The petitioner further contended that there is
gross violation narrated above. It is clear in Form No.26
that he has declared all false information, suppression of
material facts which amounts to defect of substantial
character, hence nomination should have been rejected
and the non disclosure as per the Section 33A of
R.P. Act and Rule 4A of conduct of Election Rules which
declaration were contrary to the said provisions and
further contended that under Section 100(1)(b) read
with Section 100(1)(d)(2) of R.P. Act, he has suppressed
all the material facts which amounts to violation under
R.P. Act. The petitioner further contended that under
Human and Civil Right contemplated under International
Covenants and Civil and Political Rights, 1966 read with
Article 19 of Constitution of India, disclosure of
information in the affidavit and guidelines issued by the
Election Commission in 2006 amounts to violation of
Sections 33 to 36 and 100(1)(d)(i)(iv) of R.P. Act and
election is liable to be set aside. It is further submitted
that, the material information regard to assets not only
lacks in correctness and particulars, but suffers from non
disclosure of interest. The Returning Officer at the time
of scrutiny is not bound to go into details, but in the
instant case, he ought to have gone into the details as
there were glaring and patent and supported by public
documents. Further it is contended that the facts
narrated regarding non compliance of law under Section
33 of R.P. Act and Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election
Rules, 1961 amounts to corrupt practice of undue
influence within the meaning of Section 123(2) of R.P.
Act. Hence, the election of respondent No.1 is liable to
be set aside.
31. The petitioner further contended that the
respondent committed corrupt practice of bribery as
contemplated under Section 123 (1) A and B of R.P. Act
which reads as under:-
(a) On 16.04.2019 at 12.45 am near
Chennambika theatre Holenarasipura
which comes under Hassan
parliamentary constituency one suraj
the brother of respondent No.1 who
acted as agent and has committed
corrupt practice that which he was
carrying Rs.1,20,00,000/- in Innova
Car bearing KA 01 MH 4477 for
distributing money to the electorate
nearby the said car belongs to the
State Government which was used as
escort car for his father who is PW
sitting minister and Hassan District In
charge Minister. The squad seized the
vehicle along with cash and registered
case in Crime No.15/2019 of
Holenarasipura town police which
amounts to corrupt practice under
Section 123 (A) of R.P. Act.
(b) There was constant propaganda
and work carried by the father of the
respondent No.1 HD Revanna who is a
sitting PWD Minister and incharge
District Minister and upon his direction
the Cauvery Neeravari Nigama had
used fund which was sanctioned by
the Government for 576 crores which
has been diverted Rs.273 crore
towards construction of temple,
Samudaya bhavana (community hall),
concrete road and drainage, these
amounts belongs to Cauvery Neervari
Nigama which was diverted at the
instance of father of the respondent
No.1 and the Managing Director,
Executive Engineer were all used by
his father as Assistants which were
Government Officials, thereby it was a
corrupt practice under Section
123(1) and 123(7) of the R.P. Act.
32. The respondent No.1 also committed corrupt
practice under Section 123(7) of R.P. Act, by taking
assistance of the Government officials who are the police
officers i.e., Ravi and Chandraiah, as their escort car
was used for carrying the money for distribution.
33. It is further alleged that on 18.4.2019, in
booth No.244 of Holensarasipura constituency, the
respondent No.1 had taken assistance of officer of the
polling booth namely, Yogeesh who is the Gazetted
Officer, one Ramachandra Rao who is Head Master of
Maruthi High School and Dinesh who is the 2nd booth
officer and the Assistance Professor of Government
Primary school and these persons were posted in
Paduvalahippe Village in booth no.244 and between
10.43 a.m. and 1.00 p.m., in the absence of
complainant MN Raju who happens to be polling agent of
respondent No.2 - Manju and on behalf of the said Raju
one Mayanna worked as polling officer from 10.45 a.m.
to 1.00 p.m. The act of the officers exhibited the
manner in which the rigging took place by the polling
agents of the respondent No.1 who allowed to exercise
votes though they were not eligible to vote in the polling
booth. The said acts occurred in the presence of the
above said election officers, they were kept silent at the
instance of the agent of the respondent No.1. It is
further alleged that the father of the respondent No.1,
HD Revanna who tried to prevent from complaining, at
the time of complaint being lodged which amounts to
corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the said Act of
booth capturing. Taking assistance of the police officers,
who are the government officials amounts to corrupt
practice within the Section of 123(7)(h) of the R.P. Act.
34. The respondent also taken the assistance of
Government officials working in Cauvery Neervari
Nigama which is a statutory body controlled by
Government of Karnataka i.e., Managing Director
Prasanna, Executive Engineer - Dam Division, Executive
Engineer -Channarayapatna Assembly Division,
Executive Engineer, Holenarasipura. The assistance
were taken by respondent No.1 through his father which
amounts to corrupt practice including diverting the fund
of Rs.273 crores towards construction of temples, road,
drainage etc., which amounts to corrupt practice under
Section 123(7) of the R.P. Act.
35. It is further alleged that the respondent No.1
committed corrupt practice under Sections 123(3) and
3(A) of the R.P. Act that the respondent No.1 addressed
the electorate belonging to the Lingayath community
and a case was registered in Crime No.41/2019 by the
flying squad team No.3 of Halli Mysore police station
which amount to the corrupt practice.
36. It is further contended the respondent
committed corrupt practice under Section 123(6) of the
R.P. Act that the election expenditure was fixed for
Rs.70 lakhs, but he has spent beyond the limit which
amounts to corrupt practice that the respondent
declared expenditure as Rs.63,14,197/-, but the
expenditure incurred by him for star campaigner i.e,
sitting Chief Minister once came along with his wife
Anitha Kumaraswamy, Nikhil Kumaraswamy - cinema
actor which amounts to Rs.4,80,000/-. They also visited
to Kadur along with former Prime Minister
Sri.H.D.Devegowda along with former Chief Minister
Siddaramaiah which amounts to Rs.14.40 lakhs which
was not declared by him and in respect of expenditure
incurred towards the advertisement in print and
electronic media he has spent Rs.26,64,429.50/- but he
has stated only Rs.1,46,601/- which amounts to corrupt
practice under Section 123(6) of the R.P. Act as he has
used 44 vehicles for 16 days, but he has declared very
meager amount. It is further contended that he has
given advertisement by Viajay Karnataka, Prajavani,
Kannada Prabha, the expenditure would not be less than
Rs.4.00 lakhs and the local newspaper and
advertisement is given which amounts to Rs.1.00 lakh
were not declared. He has spent the amount towards
the pamphlets which were transported through KSRTC
bus which were seized and two FIRs registered in
Crime Nos.24/2019 and 26/2019 which amounts to
more than Rs.1,40,000/-, but he has not included in the
expenditure. He has spent huge amount towards the
vehicle expenditures more than Rs.10.00 lakhs, but he
has not declared.
37. The respondent spent more than
Rs.13,41,000/- towards the expenditure of polling
agent, in all 20 to 35 polling booths which were not
declared. The respondent is not having any gainful
employment except his influence in political background
of his grand father, father, uncle, whereas the
respondent No.2 - A.Manju is a qualified law graduate
and Ex-Minister and Ex-member of various organization
was contested and succeeded against JDS. The BJP had
expected the Hassan constituency to be the winning
constituency. The respondent No.1 while filing his
nomination, he has acquired properties from 2009-10
when he was hardly 18 years and a student and having
no independent income, but he has acquired huge
properties. The declaration of the respondent No.1 as
returning candidate is void. The respondent No.2 having
been duly elected under Section 101 of the R.P. Act and
the respondent No.1 by giving false affidavit suffers
from disqualification. Therefore, the votes secured by
him has to be declared as invalid votes and thrown away
votes and to declare the respondent No.2 as elected and
secured 5,35,232 valid votes and hence the result and
declaration of election dated 23.5.2019 so far as the
respondent No.1 is concerned, who is the returning
candidate has been materially affected due to improper
reception of votes, which were not valid, should have
been declared as thrown away votes and to declare the
votes secured by respondent No.2 as valid votes and the
respondent to declare as newly elected.
38. It is further contended the respondent No.1
committed offence under Section 125A of R.P. Act and
an action has to be taken and hence, prayed for allowing
the petition.
39. The respondent No.1/Prajwal Revanna
appeared through the counsel and filed statement of
objections by denying all the allegations made against
him as false and contentions in Paragraph Nos. III, IV,
V, VII and VIII and not admitted and paragraph No.9 is
partly admitted in respect of securing the votes by the
respondent and contended that they are valid votes and
further denied paragraph Nos. XI, XII, XIII as false and
contended that he has not committed any corrupt
practice and he has complied all the provision and rules
and further denied the contentions that the Returning
Officer ignored the requirement under Section 33 of R.P.
Act as false. He has furnished all the details including
the investments, bank balances, and he was not partner
in the firms as he was already resigned from the firm.
He further denied the averments in respect of loan
borrowed from his parents as false and he has filed IT
returns to the Income Tax Authorities. He further
contended that he has obtained the bank statement till
end of February 2019 and he has requested Kuppendra
Reddy for loan of Rs.50 lakhs but it was transferred on
11.03.2019 and the same was not intimated to this
respondent, therefore, there is no intention to suppress
any bank balance. He further denied the allegations in
paragraph XIV(d) as false in respect of amount paid
through DD for purchasing the agricultural properties.
He further denies the contentions in paragraph XIV(e),
(f), (g)(h)(i)(j) as false and contended that he has
purchased agricultural lands under the sale deed but the
encumbrance certificate reveals previous owner's name.
However, it is contended that there is typing error in
Sy.No.3/1 but it should be Sy.No.3/2 of land belongs to
his grand mother which was received by him through
'Will' executed by his grandmother Nagarathnamma and
further denied allegations made against respondent No.1
in the paragraph Nos.XIV(l),(m),(n),(o) and other
allegations in sub paragraph O(i) to sub paragraph
O(26) and denied as false and the petitioner is put to
the same. He has further contended that his father
never diverted the funds from the Cauvery Neeravari
Nigama and involvement of his brother Suraj in the
seizure of cash in a car. He further contended that there
is no rigging in the booth and the petitioner not filed any
complaint to the Deputy Commissioner regarding
electoral irregularities. The Cauvery Neeravari Nigama
does not come under PWD minister and therefore,
question of diverting the fund by his father does not
arise. The respondent has not sought by invoking the
name of any community, in particular, the community
belongs to Lingayath and therefore it does not fall under
the corrupt practice under Section 123 of the R.P. Act.
The respondent already filed details in the election
expenses which was already accepted, therefore,
Section 123(6) of the R.P. Act not attracted. He further
denies the ceasing of the pamphlets, the case is under
investigation and he has not incurred any amount for
printing the pamphlets. The details of election expenses
sent to appropriate authority were accepted.
40. The respondent further denied the allegations
regarding appointing counting/ polling agents and he
has not spent any amount towards them. The
respondent though belongs to the political family, but he
is not having disqualification to contest the election. the
remaining allegation in paragraph Nos. XXIX, XXX, XXXI
to XXXVII are all denied as false and petitioner is put to
strict proof of the same.
41. The respondent further contended that the
petition suffers from non compliance of Section 81(3) of
R.P. Act which is detailed as under:
i) Date of Election Petition in
presentation form, index, mentioned as
6.7.2019 whereas date mentioned in
synopsis, verification of petition, verifying
affidavit and affidavit in support of
allegation of corrupt practices is
mentioned as 5.7.2019,
ii) The presentation form, index,
page Nos.2 and 3, 58 to 68 are not signed
as true copies by the petitioner whereas
the advocate of the petitioner as also not
signed presentation form, index,
page No.3 and memorandum of election
petition as true copy and page No.39. The
advocate of petitioner has not signed,
iii) at page No.7 of the
memorandum of election petition, there is
a correction in paragraph No.9 but it is not
attested by petitioner and his advocate,
iv) at page No.24 of the EP there is
a correction which has been attested by
the advocate for petitioner by not attested
by petitioner,
v) at page No. 55 of the learned
counsel for the petitioner there is a
correction in paragraph No.XXXV but it is
not attested by the petitioner and his
advocate,
vi) at page Nos.71, 76, 78, 79, 80,
83, 96, 122, 133, 143, 154, 159, 165,
193, 201, 221, 233, 275 in the space
against the date in the verification, the
date of the document is not mentioned but
mentioned as Nil.
vii) at page No.127, in the
verification the date is mentioned as Nil
and space for annexure name is left blank,
at page No.176, the space for the date
and the name of the petitioner is left
blank. At page No.209, in the space for
date is mentioned as Nil and annexure is
mentioned as N3 whereas in the document
is annexure N2, at page 245 in the space
for date it is mentioned as Nil, and
annexure as N4, whereas documents
name is N5, at page 257 in the space for
date it is mentioned as Nil and annexure is
mentioned as N5 where as the document
is not given any annexure name at page
250 and the same is not mentioned even
in the index through it is a different
document than that of annexure N5, at
page Nos.262, 265, 270, 278, 287 in the
space for date is left blank at page 309,
the space for annexure is mentioned as 'P'
where as in the document is marked as
Annexure-P1 and the document produced
293 is not given any annexure name and
the document is not verified by the
petitioner at page Nos. 311 to 317 the
document is not signed as true copy and
in the verification at 317 the space for
date is left blank where as document
produced Annexure-Q at 310 is claimed to
be bank statement but it does not bear the
seal and signature of the bank authorities.
42. The election petition suffers from non
compliance of Sections 81(3) and 83 of the Act which
deserved to be rejected at the threshold in view of the
provisions contained in Rule 94(A) of the Conduct of
Election Rules, 1961. Even otherwise, the petition is
devoid of merits and does not stand any scrutiny of facts
of law which deserved to be rejected and petitioner is
not entitled for any prayers sought by him in the
election petition since he has not established any
electoral offences and hence prayed for dismissing
election petition.
43. The respondent No.2 / A. Manju (who is the
petitioner in E.P.No.1/2019) has not filed any statement
of objection in this petition.
44. The respondent No.3 appeared through the
counsel and filed written statement and submitted that
he also contested in the election and lost and contended
that as per Rule 4(A) of Conduct of Election Rules, it
mandates furnishing information in Form No.26 including
the assets and liabilities and balances, but the
respondent No.1 has not disclosed the information
pertaining to the partnership firm in M/s. Adhikarah
Ventures LLP and M/s. Dhrone Work Force LLP owned
by him as a partner holding 20% and 25% respectively
and respondent no.1 not only withholding the details of
information but also sworn to a false affidavit in respect
of the landed properties and is guilty of non-disclosure,
misleading and furnishing false information to the ECI
which amounts to corrupt practice, hence election of
respondent No.1 should be declared as null and void and
hence, prayed for allowing the petition.
45. The respondent no.4 who also appeared
through counsel filed statement of objection stating that
he also contested the election and he has lost and also
stated the respondent no.1 not disclosed the information
pertaining to the investment in the firm as well as lands.
He has sworn to false affidavits, therefore, the election
of the respondent no.1 is to be declared as null and void
and hence, prayed for declaration of election of
respondent no.1 as null and void.
46. On the above said pleadings, the following
issues have been framed:
ISSUES (In E.P.No.2/2019)
(1) Whether the petitioner proves that
the acceptance of the nomination
of respondent No.1 by the
Returning Officer is illegal?
(2) Whether the petitioner proves that
the nomination of respondent No.1
and Form No.26 enclosed along
with the nomination is in
contravention of Section 33A of
R.P. Act and Rule 4A of Conduct of
Election Rules?
(3) Whether the petitioner proves that
as on the date of the election,
respondent No.1 was not eligible
and qualified to be chosen to fill
the seat of No.16 Hassan
Parliamentary Constituency?
(4) Whether the petitioner proves that
the result of the election so far as
respondent No.1 is concerned has
been materially affected by
improper acceptance of his
nomination?
(5) Whether the petitioner proves that
non-disclosure of material
information in Form No.26 as
contemplated under Section 33A of
R.P. Act and he has committed
corrupt practice of bribery as
contemplated under Sections
123(1)(A), 123(1)(B), 123(7),
123(7)(b), 123(vii)(d), 123(7)(h)
and Section 123(8), 123(3), 3A
and 123(6) of R.P. Act?
(6) Whether the petitioner proves that
non disclosure of material required
in Form No.26 as contemplated in
the guidelines issued by Election
Commission in the year 2006
amounts to violation of Sections
33 to 36 and 100(1)(d)(i)(iv) of
R.P. Act?
(7) Whether the petitioner proves that
the declaration of respondent No.1
as returned candidate is void and
whether he further proves that
respondent No.2 has to be duly
declared as having been duly
elected under Section 101 of R.P.
Act?
(8) Whether the petitioner proves that
the votes counted in favour of
respondent No.1 should be treated
as wasted votes (thrown away
votes) and reception of the said
votes in favour of respondent No.1
and counting the same is his
favour is void?
(9) Whether the petitioner proves that
respondent No.2 has secured
5,32,282 number of valid votes
and respondent No.2 has to be
declared as having been duly
elected?
(10) Whether the petitioner proves that
the election expenses incurred by
respondent No.1 was beyond the
limit fixed as stated in paragraph
XXI and XXVII of the election
petition?
(11) Whether the petitioner proves that
the discrepancies in the
information given by respondent
No.1 is a corrupt practice and the
same has affected free exercise of
votes by the voters?
(12) Whether respondent No.1 proves
that the Election Petition is liable to
be dismissed for non compliance of
Section 81(3) of the R.P. Act?
47. In support of the case of the petitioner in
E.P.1/2019, he himself examined as PW1 and also
examined 3 more witnesses as per PW2 to PW4 and got
marked 14 documents as per Exs.P1 to P14.
48. The petitioner in EP.No.2/2019, he himself
examined as P.W.1 and he also got examined some of
the official witnesses. P.Ws.5 to 18 were examined by
way of common evidence in both EP.Nos.1 and 2/2019.
P.Ws.16 to 23 were examined by the petitioner in
EP.No.2/2019 and got marked Exs.P1 to P66 and closed
the evidence of both petitioners. The respondent
No.1/Prajwal Revanna who is the common respondent in
both the cases, who himself examined as RW1 and got
examined two more witnesses as RW2 and RW3 and got
marked Exs.R1 to R43(A). The other respondents were
not seriously contested the case and they have not
examined any witnesses.
49. After closing both the evidence, heard learned
Senior Counsel appearing for both petitioners as well as
Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1. Learned
Senior Counsel for the parties relied upon the various
judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
support of their contentions that will be discussed in the
later part of the judgment.
DISCUSSION ON ISSUES IN EP.NO.1/2019
50. ISSUE No.1
Whether the petitioner proves that the
respondent No.1 was the partner of the firm
M/s. Adhikarah Ventures LLP and M/s. Dhrone
Workforce LLP but not disclosed in the affidavit
Form No.26 filed along with nomination paper?
In order to prove the said issue, the petitioner in
EP.NO.1/2019 - A.Manju, examined as PW1, and he has
deposed that after filing of the nomination paper by the
petitioner himself and also respondent No.1, he has
verified the website in respect of the affidavit of the
respondent No.1 and he has found a false affidavit filed
by the respondent No.1 and contended that the
respondent No.1 was the partner of the firms M/s.
Adhikarah Ventures LLP and M/s. Dhrone Workforce LLP
but he has not disclosed the same in Form No.26 and
also deposed that he has raised various objections on
the Form No.26 filed by the respondent No.1 and he has
brought to the notice of the Returning Officer by
producing the master data of those companies where
the respondent no.1 was partner. In support of his
contention, he has produced and marked the EX.P1 the
Form No.26 the affidavit filed by the respondent No.1
and he also produced and got marked Ex.P2 - the
objection raised by him and contended that inspite of
the raising of objection, Returning Officer accepted the
nomination paper. In order to prove the respondent
No.1 was the partner of the firms, he has got marked
Exs.P10 and P11. He further got marked the Exs. P10
(A) to (E) and, 10(B) in respect of M/s. Adhikarah
Ventures LLP and Ex.P11 (A) to (E) in respect of the
M/s. Dhrone Workforce LLP. In the cross examination,
the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has posed
the question, that the petitioner has deposed he is not
aware that the respondent No.1 has resigned from the
post of partner in both the firms on 19.3.2019 and the
same was accepted by the firm and the petitioner
admitted that the resignation letter issued by the
respondent were marked by him as per Ex.P10(E) where
in the firm has accepted the resignation from the firm as
per Ex.P10(D) and the Form No.4 sent to the Registrar
of Companies, which is marked as Ex.P10(C). Likewise,
the PW1 also admits the respondent has resigned the
partner of the firm M/s. Dhrone Workforce LLP as per
P11(E), Ex.P11(D) is the acceptance of the resignation
by the firm and the Form No.4 sent to the Registrar of
Companies is marked as Ex.P11(C). The learned Senior
Counsel for the respondent has argued that as on the
date of filing the nomination paper by the respondent
No.1 on 22.3.2019, he is not the partner of both the
firms as his resignation was already accepted by the
firm and sent the information to the Registrar of
Companies and subsequently the Registrar of Companies
has web hosted the same. Therefore, it is contended
by the learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 that
he has not suppressed any information and he was not
at all part of the firm, therefore, he has not suppressed
any material fact in the affidavit.
51. Sri. Srivatsava, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for petitioner contended that the respondent
No.1 resigned on 19.3.2019 which was said to be
accepted on the same day and intimated to the
Registrar of Companies, but contended that as per
Section 24 of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, a
notice in writing shall have to be issued not less than 30
days prior to the resignation. Therefore, it is contended
that there is no such notice of resignation issued by
respondent No.1 prior to 30 days of his resignation and
acceptance and therefore he is continuing to be partner
in both he firm. It is further contended that as per Sub-
section 5(a) of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, a
partner is seized to be a partner unless otherwise
provided in the limited liability partnership agreement
that the former partner or a person entitled to his share,
an amount equal to the capital contribution of the
former partner actually made to the liability partnership
and contended that there is no such settlement took
place between the firm and the respondent No.1.
Therefore, he is continued to be a partner in both the
firms as on the date of filing the nomination and it was
not mentioned in Form No.26, the affidavit filed by the
respondent. However, the respondent No.1 himself
examined as RW1 and deposed that he has resigned as
the partner of both the firms as per resignation letters
Exs.P10(E) and P11(E), which were marked by the
petitioner and the firm has accepted the resignation and
Form Nos.3 and 4 were submitted to the Registrar of
Companies. Therefore, it is contended as on the date of
filing nomination he is not a partner in both the firm,
therefore, it need not be mentioned in the nomination
paper and in the cross examination by the learned
counsel for petitioner in EP.No.1/2019, the RW1
deposed that on 19.3.2019, he has resigned from both
the firms but he does not remember as to when he
received the certificate of approval of registration from
the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and he also deposed
that he is not aware as to whether the approval
certificate from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs has
been received or not at the time of filing the nomination
paper on 22.3.2019, but denied that until the certificate
issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs he will
continued to be partner of both the firm as on the date
of filing the nomination. The respondent counsel relied
upon judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this court
reported in 2003 SCC Online KAR 651 in the case of
M/S. MOTHER CARE (INDIA LTD.) IN
LIQUIDATION REPRESENTED BY OFFICIAL
LIQUIDATOR BANGALORE Vs. PROF. RAMASWAMY
P. IYER, wherein in a similar circumstances, a Director
resigned from the company and the resignation was
immediate effect and resigning would be seized to be a
Director without having to wait for its acceptance by the
Board of Directors. Learned Senior Counsel for
respondent also contended that as per Section 24 of
Limited Liability Partnership Act (hereinafter referred to
as 'L.L.P. Act') when a persons seized to be a partner of
the limited liability partnership in accordance with
agreement with the other partner or in the absence of
agreement with other partners as to cessation of being a
partner by giving a notice in writing of not less than 30
days to other partners of his intention to resign as a
partner at Ex.P10(C) and as per Ex.P.10(D), the
petitioner himself produced the resolution extract of it
passed by the firm on 19.3.2019 by accepting the
resignation of the respondent No.1 and web hosted
subsequent to the filing of the nomination. In view of
the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Mother care India's case (supra) as on the date of
resignation of respondent No.1 on 19.3.2019, the
respondent No.1 ceases to be a partner of the firm,
therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he was
continued to be partner of M/s. Adhikarah Ventures LLP
as on 22.3.2019, is not acceptable. Likewise, as per
Ex.P.11 A to F, the respondent No.1 resigned from M/s.
Dhrone Workforce LLP on 19.3.2019 and therefore, once
the agreement was entered into between the parties by
mutual consent and resignation was accepted as on the
date of filing nomination, the respondent No.1 is no
more partner of both the firm. Therefore, it need not be
mentioned in the nomination form in Ex.P1. Therefore, I
hold that the petitioner failed to prove the issue No.1
that respondent No.1 though partner of both the firm,
but not mentioned in the Form No.26, hence answered
the Issue No.1 in the NEGATIVE.
52. ISSUE No.2
Whether the petitioner
proves that respondent No.1 has
falsely claimed that he is the owner
of the lands mentioned in
paragraph 17(c) of the petition and
also shown wrong market value of
the suit property and also
furnished wrong and incomplete
information in his affidavit Form
No.26 filed along with the
nomination paper?
In order to prove this issue that the respondent
No.1 is having landed properties in various places, he
has not mentioned the Market value, purchase value and
guidance value of the properties, but he has mentioned
wrong values of the properties. In support of his
contention, the petitioner got marked Exs.P8 and P8 (a)
to (h) to show that the respondent No.1 is having
property at Nelamangala as per Ex.R8 the RTC, he owns
property at Bhavinkere village as per RTC's 8(a) to
8(a)(d) and encumbrance certificate are marked at
Ex.P8(e) to P8(h). The petitioner has contended the
Sub-Registrar issued the market guidance value of the
properties fixed by the Sub-Registrar as per Ex.P8(j) to
(h). The learned counsel for the respondent in the cross
examination of PW1 suggested that Ex.P8 (e) to (h) not
depict the correct picture of the value of the properties
purchased by the respondent No.1 and the same was
denied by him. P.W.1 further denied in the cross
examination that respondent declared the 3 values like
guidance value, market value and purchase value of the
properties and further admits in the cross examination
that he has not verified those sale deeds of respondent
No.1 in respect of landed properties at Bhavinkere
village. On the other hand, the respondent No.1 in his
evidence has deposed and marked the Ex.R5 - the sale
deed copy in respect of Sy.No.13/2 of Bhavinkere
Village, Ex.R6 another copy of the sale deed in respect
of land in Sy.No.16/3, Ex.R7 in respect of copy of the
sale deed in Sy.No.17/2 and contended that he has
mentioned the value of the properties in the nomination
affidavit. In the further examination-in-chief, respondent
No.1 has stated that he has produced the Exs.R21, 22,
23 and 24 in respect of the lands in Bhavinkere village
and further contended he had purchased the properties
prior to the election and some of the properties in
Sy.No.17/1 got exchanged with adjacent land owner and
obtained land in Sy.No.16/4. In the cross examination,
respondent No.1 has stated that he has declared the
approximate market value of the property owned by him
and he further admits that he has declared the value of
the properties which was less than the guidance value
fixed by the government but he further submits by
volunteer to submit that guidance value is issued by the
government only for stamp duty purpose but he has
purchased the properties at distressed value.
53. The respondent No.1 denied the value of the
properties mentioned in Exs.P8(j) to (h) - the sale deeds
produced by the respondent. On perusal of Ex.P1 - the
nomination and the affidavit, the respondent has
mentioned approximate current market value of the
landed properties. Learned counsel for respondent No.1
has contended that the petitioner has not produced any
material to show the value declared by the respondent
was wrong, and the sale deeds and valuer's report were
not produced and it is contended that as per the
information given by one Kiran Real Estate Agent, the
market value of the properties were mentioned by the
respondent in his affidavit. Therefore, it is submitted
that the contention of the petitioner that value of the
property is not mentioned, is not tenable.
54. However, the petitioner examined PW2 -
R.Girish, Deputy Commissioner. He has deposed that
during his tenure as Deputy Commissioner of Hassan, he
received a letter from the Election Commissioner of
India to assess the value of the immovable property of
respondent No.1 at the time of purchase of the property
and also at the time of nomination filed by the
respondent No.1 and he got the valuation from the Sub-
Registrar as well as bank details from the banker, then
he gave report as per Ex.P5 and he has identified the
details of the value of the properties mentioned in his
report at the time of purchase as well as nomination as
per Exs.P5 (c) and P5 (d).
55. The counsel for the petitioner in
E.P.No.2/2019 also got marked Ex.P9 - the report and
the Ex.P5 and P9 are one and the same. In the cross
examination of P.W.2, the counsel for the respondent
No.1 suggested, what was the value of the property
whether he is having any personal knowledge, for that,
P.W.2 has stated that he does not have any personal
knowledge about value of the property, but he has
mentioned in his report about the value of the property
by obtaining information from the Sub-Registrar of the
concerned jurisdiction and he has denied that the he has
given false report to the Election Commission of India as
per Exs.P5 and P9.
56. On perusal of the Ex.P5(c), the details of the
immovable assets, P.W.2 has mentioned the details of
the agriculture land situated at Bhavinkere village as
mentioned by the respondent No.1 in his affidavit and
the value of the property at the time of purchase and
the value of the properties as per the information
received from the authorities, he has mentioned that
Rs.4,47,130/- is excess declared by the respondent in
respect of Sy.No.9/1 (measuring 1.36 guntas). In
respect of Sy.No.9/2, respondent No.1 declared the
value was Rs.6,75,000/- and purchase value was
Rs.7,27,925/- thereby, he has declared Rs.52,945/-
which is excess. Likewise, in Sy.Nos.13/1, 16/3, 16/2,
17/1, 17/2, 13/2, the respondent No.1 declared less
amount of Rs.43,23,010/-, Rs.5,16,585/- is less amount
declared and another Rs.19,91,243/- which is less
declared and in respect of Sy.No.17/1, respondent No.1
has declared excess of Rs.87,757/- and in Sy.No.17/2
declared less amount of Rs.17,11,855/- and in respect
of Sy.No.13/2, he has declared less amount of
Rs.80,39,650/-.
57. As per Ex.P5(d), it is mentioned by the PW2
in total, the respondent No.1 declared in the affidavit as
under:-
Sl. Details Declaration as per As per Market Remarks/findings
No. as per affidavit affidavit value/SR value
affidavit approximate as on
current 22.03.2019 by
market value concerned
(mentioned authorities
in affidavit)
Nelamangala Taluk, Kasaba Hobli, Bhavinkere Village
1 S.No.9/1 (1.36 54,00,000-00 70,00,000-00 A less amount of
guntas) Rs.16,00,000-00 is
declared
Details 2 S.No.9/2 (0.18 9,00,000-00 18,00,000-00 A less amount of
1 of guntas) Rs.9,00,000-00 is
Agricult declared
ural 3 S.No.13/1 (1.28 41,00,000-00 2,21,00,000-00 A less amount of
Land guntas) Rs.1,80,00,000-00
is declared
4 S.No.16/3 32,00,000-00 63,00,000-00 A less amount of
(1.02guntas) Rs.31,00,000-00 is
declared
5 S.No.16/2/ (1.36 36,00,000-00 1,14,00,000-00 A less amount of
guntas) Rs.78,00,000-00 is
declared
6 S.No.17/1 32,00,000-00 57,00,000-00 A less amount of
(0.38guntas) Rs.25,00,000-00 is
declared
7 S.No.17/2 (1.30 33,00,000-00 1,05,000-00 A less amount of
guntas) Rs.72,00,000-00 is
declared
8 S.No.13/2 (3.06 72,00,000-00 4,09,50,000-00 A less amount of
guntas) Rs.3,37,50,000-00
is declared
Holenarasipura Taluk, Kasaba Hobli, Margowdanahalli Village
guntas)
½ guntas) 16,30,000-00 19,23,825-00 Rs.2,93,825-00 is
guntas)
guntas)
13 Paduvalahippe 12,00,000-00 19,68,000-00 A less amount of
Village S.No.72 (4 Rs.7,68,000-00 is
guntas) declared
Hassan Taluk, Dudda Hobli, Gowripura Somanahalli Kavalu Village
guntas) Rs.12,79,125-00 is
15 S.No.63(5.05 14,22,000-00 27,01,125-00 declared
guntas)
guntas) Rs.14,48,125-00 is
17 S.No.47(4.38 9,10,000-00 23,58,125-00 declared
guntas)
1 Mysore Taluk, 2,13,00,000-00 A less amount of
Non- Srirampura Rs.1,50,000-00 is
2 Agricult S.No.3/1 (1.31 declared
ural guntas) 90,00,000-00
Land
S.No.3/3 (0.09 27,00,000-00
guntas)
2 Holenarasipura 36,00,000-00 16,81,875-00 A less amount of
Taluk, Dakshina Rs.52,81,875-00 is
nala Village declared
S.No.261/4
3 Hassan Taluk, 81,00,000-00 76,75,483-00 A excess amount
Hassan B.M. Road of Rs.4,24,517-00
Site No.289/430- is declared
3157 Sq.Ft.
4 Site at 68,00,000-00 1,48,33,280-00 A less amount of
Holenarasipura Rs.80,33,280-00 is
Site No.959,960- declared
9856 Sq.Ft. (Gift
Deed)
TOTAL 6,35,62,000-00 16,28,91,713-00
58. On perusal of the reply, it reveals that the
respondent has declared Rs.16,00,000/- less in
Sy.No.9/1, Rs.9,00,000/- in Sy.No.9/2, he has declared
less amount of Rs.1,80,00,000/- in Sy.No.13/1 and
Rs.31,00,000/- less in respect of Sy.No.16/3,
Rs.78,00,000/- less in Sy.No.16/2, Rs.25,00,000/- less
in Sy.No.17/1. Rs.72,00,000/- in Sy.No.17/2 and
Rs.3,37,50,000/- less in respect of Sy.No.13/2. These
properties were situated at Bhavinkere village, Kasaba
Hobli Nelamangala.
59. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1
has not examined any witness on behalf of the
respondent No.1 to disprove the evidence of PW2 - the
Deputy Commissioner, who gave the report as per
Ex.P5, 5(b) and 5(c) where it is clear that there is
difference in purchase value, guidance value and
declared value in almost all the landed properties
purchased by the respondent No.1 at Nelamangala
taluk, Kasaba Hobli, Bhavinkere village. As far as the
property at Holenarasipura, Maragowdanahalli village,
the property at Gowripura, Somanalli Kavalu village and
non agriculture land at Holenarasipura received from his
father were all declared less amount than the actual
market value as well as the guidance value to the tune
of Rs.2,93,825/- in Sy.No.150/2 and Rs.7,68,000/- in
respect of Holenarasipura landed property. In respect of
Sy.No.72 of Gowripura Somanalli Kavalu village, he has
declared less amount than the market value and also
regarding non agricultural land at holenarasipura he has
declared less value of Rs.52,81,875/-, Rs.4,24,517/-,
and Rs.80,33,280/- in respect of non agriculture lands
situated at Holenarasipura village, Hassan. Though the
petitioner not disputed in respect of the value mentioned
by the respondent No.1 for the property situated at
Hassan Taluk but disputed only the value of the property
at Holenarasipura as well as Bhavinkere village and the
Ex.P5 (b) and (c) were not contraverted by respondent's
counsel.
60. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel
relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in respect of INDIAN COUNSEL OF MEDICAL
RESEARCH Vs TN SANIKOP AND ANR reported in
(2014) 16 SCC 274 paragraph 20 of the judgment, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that while determining
the market value of the land, one can never come to any
exact figure of price of lands because in the very nature
of things, prices are bound to vary from land to land and
further depending upon the individual buyer to buyer,
seller to seller, reason behind the sale and purchase etc.
However, the courts, in such case, always exercise their
discretion within the permissible parameters after
appreciating the evidence on record and applying
relevant legal principles. The learned counsel contended
that, the value declared by the respondent is correct.
But, in my considered view, the said judgment will not
come to the aid of the respondent as the observation
made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for determination
of the market value is for the purpose of awarding
compensation in land acquisition matter and there were
settled principles and guidelines issued for the purpose
of calculating fair market value while awarding
compensation. But here, in this case, the respondent
No.1 has declared the value of his immovable properties
in the affidavit in Form No.26 in order to secure the
votes from the general public while contesting the
election. Hence, he has to declare the actual value which
was purchased by him and the market value of the
immovable property. As per the evidence of the PW1,
PW2 and PW4 and PW3 and Exs.P5 and P9 in both case,
it is clear that the respondent No.1 declared the value of
the immovable properties less than the market value as
well as the guidance value. Therefore, I am of the view
the petitioner is successful in proving issue No.2 that,
the respondent No.1 given false information and false
declaration of the value of the immovable properties in
his affidavit Form No.26. Hence answered Issue No.2 in
the AFFIRMATIVE in favour of the petitioner and as
against the respondent No.1.
61. ISSUE No.3
Whether the petitioner
proves that respondent No.1 has
mislead the voters in respect of the
firm Chennambika Convention Hall
for which respondent No.1 is a
partner?
and
ISSUE No.5
Whether the petitioner
proves that respondent No.1
concealed his investment in the
firm Chennambika Convention Hall
and it was obligation on his part to
disclose the same ?
The petitioner has stated in the petition that
respondent No.1 is the partner of Chennambika
Convention Hall and respondent No.1 has spent lot of
investment in constructing the said Hall, but he has not
declared the same, and, thereby, he has mislead the
voters. The petitioner has not lead any evidence or
produced any document in support of his contention.
But respondent No.1 has declared in Ex.P.1-affidavit
No.26 at column No.7A(3) that he is having the
investments in bonds, debentures/shares, unit in
companies, mutual funds and others, and the amount
where the respondent stated that Chennambika
Convention Hall is Rs.14,66,666/-, but respondent No.1
has not stated that whether he is the partner of the firm
or he is having bond or debentures in the firm. The
petitioner though taken the contention in paragraph-K
of the petition, but he has not lead any evidence in this
regard. However, it is the duty of the respondent No.1
to declare that he is the partner of the Chennambika
Convention Hall but he has not disclosed as to whether
he is the partner or he is having any shares in the
Chennambika Convention Hall. Therefore, without
production of any document in this regard, the
contention of the petitioner that respondent No.1 is the
partner of Chennambika Convention Hall, cannot be
acceptable. (Though the petitioner in E.P. No.2/2019
lead evidence in respect of Chennambika Convention
Hall, but that will be discussed in the later part of the
judgment). The learned counsel for the respondent No.1
has rightly contended that there is pleading, but there
is no evidence. In this regard, learned counsel for
respondent has relied upon the judgment reported in
2000 (8) SCC 191 in the case of RAVINDER SINGH
Vs. JANMEJA SINGH, reported in 2011 (8) SCC 613
in the case of RAMESH KUMAR Vs. FURU RAM and
reported in 2012 (3) SCC 236 in the case of
MARKIO TADO Vs. TAKAM SORANG. In view of the
principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I
hold that the petitioner has failed to prove issue Nos.3
and 5. Hence, I answer Issue Nos.3 and 5 in the
NEGATIVE.
62. ISSUE No.6:
Whether the petitioner proves that
respondent No.1 has concealed the actual
balance of the bank account of Karnataka
Bank, Minerva Circle branch, held by him and if
so, it vitiates the election?
and
ISSUE No.8:
Whether respondent No.1 proves that he was
not aware of the remittance of Rs.50.00 lakhs into
his savings bank account in Karnataka Bank by one
Kuppendra Reddy, Member of Parliament (Rajya
Sabha)?
The petitioner has stated in the pleadings that
respondent No.1 is having the savings bank account
No.0622500101373401 in Karnataka Bank, Minerva
Circle Branch, Bengaluru and he had the balance of
Rs.49,09,583/- in the said account, but respondent
No.1 has declared in his affidavit that the balance in the
said account was Rs.5,78,238/-. The petitioner further
contended that respondent No.1 received Rs.50.00
lakhs from Sri Kuppendra Reddy, who was the Rajya
Sabha Member and the said amount has been credited
to account of respondent No.1, but he has not declared
in his affidavit. The petitioner, in his evidence, at
paragraph No.5, has reiterated the same and he has
produced the certificate issued by the said Bank
Manager as per Ex.P.57. Respondent No.1, in his cross
examination, has stated that he was not aware that
Kuppendra Reddy transferred Rs.50.00 lakhs to his
account on 11.03.2019, and further contended that the
respondent No.1 obtained the statement of accounts
from 01.04.2018 till February 2019. Therefore, as per
the statement, the balance as on 27.02.2019 was
Rs.5,78,238/-but not Rs.49,09,583/-.
63. In this regard, respondent No.1 also lead
evidence and has stated in his deposition that he was
not aware regarding transfer of Rs.50.00 lakhs by
Kuppendra Reddy, it was subsequent to statement of
accounts obtained by him. Therefore, he has stated that
he has mentioned the bank balance till 27.2.2019. In
the cross examination of R.W.1, the learned Senior
Counsel for petitioner in E.P. No.1/2019 got an
admission that account No.0622500101373401
mentioned in Ex.R.3 is not reflected or mentioned in
Ex.P.1 that the balance amount as per Ex.R.3 was
Rs.54,59,973/-. But respondent No.1 declared in his
affidavit in Form No.26 (Ex.P.1) that he is having the
balance of Rs.5,78,238/-in Karnataka Bank.
64. The learned Senior Counsel for respondent
No.1 has argued that the auditor of respondent No.1
advised respondent No.1 to take the balance in the
account till the end of February 2019. In this regard,
the respondent has examined R.W.2 Nagin Chand
Kincha, the auditor of respondent No.1, who has stated
that as per his advise, respondent No.1 took out the
statement in the bank account up to 28.02.2019.
However, in the cross examination, R.W.2 has admitted
that while filing the nomination by respondent No.1 on
23.02.2019, he has not checked the balance amount
from 01.03.2019 to 22.03.2019. In view of the
admission made by R.W.2 as well as respondent No.1 in
his evidence, it is clear that respondent No.1 had the
balance of more than Rs.49,09,583/- as on 22.03.2019.
65. It is also revealed in the evidence of P.W.5,
who is the Senior Manager of the Karnataka Bank, that
he has issued Exs.P.12 and P.13 and respondent No.1
was having the balance of Rs.55,95,910/- as on
11.03.2019 and subsequently, there was no transaction
till 21.03.2019 and the balance in the account of the
respondent No.1 as on 22.03.2019 was Rs.49,09,583/-.
The learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 has not
controverted the evidence of P.W.5 that respondent
No.1 was having the balance of more than Rs.49.00
lakhs, but in the nomination affidavit Form No.26,
respondent No.1 has mentioned the balance only for
Rs.5,78,238/- and he has not mentioned that this
balance was at the end of February 2019. He was
supposed to declare the bank balance as on the date of
filing the nomination or, at least one or two days prior
to the filing of nomination and it required to be
mentioned atleast a day prior to 22.03.2019.
Absolutely, there is no mention by respondent No.1 in
his affidavit, but he has transacted even after 1.3.2019
till 21.3.2019 (the said evidence came in
E.P.No.2/2019) as he has paid some taxes to the
Mysore Urban Development Authority. Therefore, the
explanation of respondent No.1 that he was ignorant of
the amount received from Kuppendra Reddy, is not
acceptable and he has not mentioned in the affidavit
that he is liable to pay Rs.50.00 lakhs to Kuppendra
Reddy. On the other hand, the petitioner is successful
in proving that respondent No.1 concealed (suppressed)
the actual balance amount in the bank account
No.0622500101373401 of Karnataka Bank, Minerva
Circle branch. Hence, I answer Issue No.6 in the
AFFIRMATIVE and Issue No.8 in the NEGATIVE as
the respondent failed to prove this issue.
66. Issue No.5 in E.P.No.2/2019
Whether the petitioner proves that the
non disclosure of material information by
respondent No.1 in Form No.26 as
contemplated under Section 33A of RP Act and
he has committed corrupt practice of bribery
as contemplated under Sections 123(1)(A),
123(1)(B), 123(7), 123(7)(b), 123(vii)(d),
123(7)(h) and Section 123(8), 123(3), 3A and
123(6) of R.P. Act ?
The petitioner in E.P. No.2/2019 has contended
that respondent No.1 committed corrupt practice of
bribery as contemplated under Section 123 and various
sub Sections of R.P. Act and Section 123(1)(A) of R.P.
Act. The petitioner has stated in the petition that
respondent No.1 filed his nomination paper and an
affidavit in Form No.26, but he has not disclosed all the
information and he has given false information and
suppressed most of the information. In spite of the
objections raised by the petitioner, the Returning Officer
accepted the nomination paper of respondent No.1. The
contentions of the petitioner are as under:
(a) The petitioner has contended that
respondent No.1 was the partner in two firms namely
M/s. Adikarah Ventures LLP and as on the date of filing
nomination, he was continued to be a partner of the
firm and he has not disclosed in the affidavit filed on
22.03.2019. In this regard, the petitioner lead the
evidence and got marked Ex.P.15 which is the
document pertaining to the M/s. Adikarah Ventures LLP
and Ex.P.15(a) is the document pertaining to
M/s. Drone Work Force LLP. In the cross-examination,
it was suggested by the respondent counsel that the
respondent No.1 already tendered resignation to both
the firms as on 19.03.2019. In the cross examination,
the P.W.1 has stated that he is not having any
knowledge about tendering resignation by respondent
No.1 to those companies as a partner. He has also
stated that he has not approached the office of the
Registrar of Companies or personally verified the
resignation of respondent No.1 to the above said firms.
The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has
contended that respondent No.1 was the partner of
both the firms and he had investment to the extent of
20% and 25% respectively, but he has not disclosed
the same. Ex.P.15 is the master data where it reveals
that the respondent No.1 was the partner of
M/s. Adikarah Ventures LLP ., Ex.P.15(a) is the master
data to show that he is one of the partners of the Drone
Work Force LLP. The respondent No.1 has contended
that he has already resigned from the said firms as on
19.03.2019, the same was accepted by the other
partners of the firm by resolution and they have sent
the information to the Registrar of the Companies. In
this regard, the petitioner in E.P.No.1/2019 has got
marked Exs.P.10 and P.11 and the same was admitted
by the respondent, the said documents were marked by
the petitioner in E.P.No.1/2019 which were admitted
documents and it clearly reveals, respondent No.1
already resigned from the firm which was accepted by
the other partners of the firm by way of resolution. The
petitioner in both the cases also got examined PW.9-
B.Annapurna, the Deputy Registrar of Companies and
this witness has stated that Exs.P.10 and P.11 are the
documents pertaining to respondent No.1 where he was
the partner in both the firms and he had a share of
investment in both the firms. After the resignation of
the respondent No.1, the said share was appropriated
by the remaining partners. P.W.9 has also stated they
received the information from the firm and also the
amended agreement dated 19.03.2019 and the same
was accepted by their office. The learned counsel for
the petitioner has tried to bring in the evidence stating
that 30 days notice required to be given prior to
resignation by a partner. P.W.9 has also stated that as
per Section 24(1) of Limited Liability Partnership Act,
2008 (for short 'LL.P. Act'), there is no need to give 30
days notice when there is an agreement between the
parties and 30 days notice is required only when there
is no agreement. Here, in this case, there is an
agreement between the partners of the firm and after
the resignation of respondent No.1, it was accepted by
the firm and amended agreement was prepared as per
Exs.P.10(f) and P.11(f). P.W.9 also deposed that their
office approved the resolution on 26.03.2019.
Therefore, it is suggested to P.W.9 by the petitioner's
counsel that respondent No.1 was continued to be a
partner till 26.03.2019, but, PW.9 has stated that as
soon as the respondent resigned from the firm, which
was accepted by the firm and the same was approved
by the Registrar of Companies, the resignation will
come into effect from 19.03.2019 but not from
26.03.2019. In view of the evidence of PW.9 and
Exs.P.10 and P.11 marked by the petitioner counsel
that, I hold, as on the date of nomination filed i.e., on
22.03.2019, respondent No.1 was not the partner of
both the firms. Therefore, he need not be declare in the
Form No.26. This Court has already given finding in
respect of issue No.1 in E.P.No.1/2019 in favour of the
respondent. Therefore, I hold that the petitioner failed
to prove the contention that the respondent No.1 not
given proper information and investment made in both
the firms and therefore, answered NEGATIVE against
the petitioner.
(b) The petitioner also contended that the
respondent No.1 is bound to disclose the liabilities and
loans, if any taken, and he has stated in column No.8 in
Part-A of the Form No.26 and disclosed that he has
borrowed loan from 16 persons, which are as under:
Sl. Name of the As declared Whether Nature of
No. Lender in the actually paid loan as
affidavit or not as per declared
(Rs.) the by
Lokayukta respondent
Report and No.1
Bank
statement
(Rs.)
1 Smt. Anasuya 20,00,000 Nil Personal
Manjunath loan
Difference
amount
2 Sri C N Pandu 15,00,000 Nil
3 Sri C N 40,00,000 Nil
Puttaswamy
4 Sri D K Nagaraju 19,97,550 Nil
5 Sri H D Revanna 1,26,36,000 74,00,000
6 Sri Jayarama 20,00,000 Nil
7 Sri Kalegowda 10,00,000 Nil
8 Sri P B Boregowda 29,94,650 Nil
9 Smt Shaila 10,50,000 Nil
Chandrasekar
10 Srinivasa 5,00,000 Nil
Associates
11 Smt Bhavani 43,75,000 30,00,000 As per
Revanna (as per Bank Lokayukta
statement) Report
12 Sri Babu M C 5,00,000 Nil
13 Sri Devegowda 5,00,000 Nil
14 Sri Kumar 5,00,000 Nil
15 Sri M N 10,00,000 Nil
Shiregowda
16 Sri Venkatesh 5,00,000 Nil
67. The petitioner further contended that the
respondent No.1 has declared that the loan borrowed
from his father H.D.Revanna was Rs.74,00,000/-, but
as per the declaration made by H.D.Revanna before the
Lokayuktha in the year 2018, he has declared that loan
given to his son was Rs.1,26,36,000/-, thereby,
respondent No.1 has shown a wrong information in the
affidavit and there was difference of Rs.52,36,000/-.
In this regard, the petitioner has not produced the
declaration made by H.D. Revanna before the
Lokayuktha. On the other hand, it was suggested to
R.W.1 in the cross examination where R.W.1 admitted
that his father declared in his assets and liabilities
before the Lokayuktha by showing the loan given to him
was Rs.46.00 lakhs as on 30.07.2018. Though R.W.1
has stated that there was subsequent transaction
between himself and his father. Likewise, the petitioner
has also stated that R.W.1 borrowed loan from his
mother Bhavani Revanna to the tune of Rs.43,75,000/-,
but as per the evidence of P.W.11- Dr. Abhinav Pitta,
Income Tax Deputy Commissioner and P.W.12- Praveen
Sinha, Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax that R.W.1-
Prajwal Revanna in his income tax returns has not
declared that he has borrowed the loan of
Rs.1,26,36,000/- from his father and Rs.43,75,000/-
from his mother. Neither Revanna nor Bhavani
Revanna has declared in their income tax returns that
they have lent loan to their son. The petitioner has
produced Exs.P.30 to P.44, the income tax returns of
R.W.1 and his parents, which clearly reveal that there is
no such disclosure of the loan amount by all these three
persons. Therefore, I hold that respondent No.1 made
wrong declaration about loans in his affidavit in column
No.8 of the nomination paper. Hence, I answer this
point in favour of the petitioner and against the
respondent.
(c) The another contention taken by the
petitioner is that respondent No.1 is having S.B.
account in Karnataka Bank, Minerva Circle Branch and
he has declared the balance amount as on the date of
nomination was Rs.5,78,238/- but, as per the Bank
Statement, the balance amount was Rs.49,09,583/-.
There is difference of Rs.43,31,345/- which is a false
declaration and also the respondent No.1 borrowed loan
of Rs.50,00,000/- which was not declared in the
affidavit. To prove this contention, the petitioner
himself was examined as witness, deposed the same
and got marked the nomination filed by the respondent
No.1 where the respondent has declared that the
amount balance available in his account as
Rs.5,78,238/-. The petitioner examined
P.W.5 - Sathish Kishore K., Senior Branch Manager,
Karnataka Bank has deposed that Ex.P.7 is the letter
issued by his predecessor which is the statement of
account belongs to respondent No.1. The petitioner also
produced Exs.P.12 and P.13 and deposed that as on
11.03.2019, the balance amount in the account of
respondent No.1 was Rs.55,95,910/- and thereafter,
there was no transaction and as on 22.03.2019, the
balance was Rs.49,09,583/-. In the cross-examination,
the learned counsel for the respondent has contended
that they are not sending the alert information to the
customer for having transferred any amount to the
account holders. In order to controvert the evidence of
PW.1, the respondent No.1 stated in his evidence that
he has obtained the statement of accounts only up to
February 2019 and therefore, he is not aware about the
transfer of an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- by Kuppendra
Reddy to his account on 11.03.2019. He also stated
that the said Kuppendra Reddy also not informed him
about the transfer of the said amount. To prove his
contention, the respondent also got examined his
auditor one Nagin Chand Kincha as R.W.2, who has
deposed that as per his instruction, respondent No.1
obtained the statement of accounts and balance till
28.02.2019 and in the cross-examination, he has
admitted that he is not aware about the transaction
made by the respondent No.1 between 01.03.2019 and
22.03.2019. He also further deposed his ignorance
that he is not aware that assets and liability statement
shall be filed as on the date of filing the nomination
paper. But he has admitted the filing of the nomination
for the last day was 23.03.2019. Admittedly,
respondent No.1 filed nomination on 22.03.2019. On
perusal of Ex.P.5, he has mentioned or declared the
balance in his account was only Rs.5,00,000/- and odd,
but, in fact as per Ex.P.7 and evidence of PW.5, the
balance was Rs.49,09,583/- as on 22.03.2019 and
therefore, I hold the respondent No.1 not furnished the
correct balance in his account at Karnataka Bank,
Minerva Circle Branch. Apart from that, he has also not
declared the loan obtained from Kuppendra Reddy, a
Rajya Sabha M.P. for Rs.50,00,000/- in his affidavit,
even though he has declared 16 names in column No.8
of Part A. Therefore, I am of the view, that the
petitioner has proved that the respondent made a false
declaration in respect of his balance in the account and
suppressed the loan of Rs.50,00,000/- obtained from
Kuppendra Reddy. Hence, answered this point in the
AFFIRMATIVE.
(d) The petitioner has further contended that
respondent No.1 declared in column No.11 of Part B in
affidavit Form No.26, that a sum of Rs.4,89,15,029/-
paid through D.D. and RTGS for the purpose of
purchasing agriculture properties but the father of
respondent No.1, the sitting MLA has declared that he
has paid Rs.47,36,000/- to the respondent No.1,
thereby, there was a false declaration. But, the
petitioner has not lead any evidence and also not
produced any document to show that this amount was
borrowed from his father in order to purchase the
agricultural lands. Therefore, I hold the respondent's
counsel has rightly contended that though there was a
pleading, but there was no evidence. Therefore, I
answered this point against the petitioner in the
NEGATIVE.
(e) The petitioner further contended that
respondent No.1 declared that he has purchased
various agricultural properties in different places totally
8 properties, but only 4 sale deeds are the registered
sale deeds and three more properties pending for
registration, even though the said properties belong to
the Government and not available for registration which
amounts to the land grabbing and further contented
that there was a false declaration.
(e)(i) In respect of sale deeds in survey
Nos.16/2 and 17/1, the petitioner has deposed that one
sale deed containing two survey number of lands,
therefore, it is contended by the petitioner that it is
false declaration. In this regard, the respondent No.1
himself produced and marked the document as per
Ex.R.24 which is also marked by the petitioner as per
Ex.P.11. On perusal of Ex.P.11, the respondent has
purchased land in survey No.16/3 on 15.09.2010 and
on the same day, he has also purchased one more land
in Sy.No.17/2. Therefore, Ex.P.11 cannot be considered
as document in respect of the land in survey Nos.16/2
and 17/1 contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner. However, the respondent got marked
Ex.R.24, the sale deed dated 15.09.2010, the
respondent purchased lands in survey No.17/1
measuring 38 guntas and survey No.16/2 measuring 1
acre 38 guntas and the same was declared by the
respondent in the affidavit. Though he has mentioned
two survey numbers in the declaration, in fact, it was
purchased in one sale deed. The respondent No.1 has
not given any explanation in respect of Ex.R.24 where
he has stated Ex.R.24 contains only survey No.17/1,
but in fact he had purchased two properties i.e.,
Sy.Nos.17/1 and 16/2 under Ex.R.24-the sale deed.
However, the said sale deed containing the purchase of
both the lands under the sale deed No.3005/2010-11.
Therefore, it may be the details mentioned by
respondent but it cannot be said that it is a false
declaration. Hence, the contention of the petitioner is
not acceptable.
(e)(ii) The learned counsel for the petitioner
further contended that the survey Nos.16/3, 17/2 and
13/2 are at Bhavinkere Village. The petitioner has
produced the RTCs which speak something else and
show the names of Ravishankar and Ramachandra,
which were acquired for the purpose of National
Highway and name of the respondent No.1 did not find
place in the RTCs. The petitioner has deposed the same
and marked RTCs as per Exs.P.13 and P.13(a) to (d).
On the other hand, the respondent No.1 has deposed in
his evidence stating that the land in survey Nos.16/3
and 17/2 were not forfeited by the Government when
he purchased the property in the year 2009 and there
was a civil litigation pending between his vendor and
vendor's vendor. He also stated that the registration
was kept pending for want of 11E sketch. The
petitioner also got examined PW.4 - Ambika Patel, the
Sub-Registrar, and she has stated in her evidence that
at the request of the Deputy Commissioner, she sent
the list of guidance value of the properties of
Bhavinkere Village and encumbrance certificate as per
Exs.P.8(e), (f) and (g). In the further evidence, she has
stated that the sale deed in respect of survey No.17/2
(Ex.P.11), the sale deed was kept pending registration.
This witness also identified that Ex.P.10 is the sale deed
in respect of survey No.16/3. In the cross examination,
she has stated that the sale deeds were not registered
and it was kept pending for want of 11E Sketch.
Though the petitioner's counsel produced document and
contended that the respondent was not the owner of
the land but respondent No.1 himself has declared as
owner. However, names of the owner in the said
document were shown as Ravishankar and
Ramachandra who were all the erstwhile owners of the
property and the registration was not completed.
Therefore, the name of respondent No.1 cannot be
entered in the RTC. Therefore, the contention of the
petitioner that respondent No.1 has given wrong
information in the affidavit cannot be acceptable. As
regards to the acquisition of the land by the National
Highway Authority, the respondent has stated that he
was not aware about the acquisition and he came to
know subsequently. Therefore, when he has not
received any notice from the Highway Authority in
survey No.13/2 and without his knowledge regarding
acquisition, he has declared that he has purchased
property in survey No.16/2, the contention of the
petitioner cannot be acceptable that it is a false
declaration. Likewise, when the litigation is pending in
respect of the land which he has purchased in survey
No.17/2 in O.S.No.482/2015 and O.S.No.326/2011 on
the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala, and in view
of the litigation pending, reflecting the name of this
respondent in the RTC does not arise. Therefore, once
he has purchased the property under the sale deed, he
has to declare in the affidavit as to whether his name is
mutated in the RTC or not.
(e)(iii) As regards to the land in Sy.No.3/1 of
Srirampura Village Mysore Taluk, it is contended by
respondent No.1 that the said property belongs to him
but in the document, the name of one Maramma, Wife
of Nanjaiah is mentioned. Apart from Maramma, it also
mentions the name of Brindavan House Building Co-
operative Society. In respect of Sy.No.3/3 of
Srirampura village, learned counsel for petitioner
contended that respondent No.1 has been declared as
owner of the property, but the RTC shows the name of
one - Nagarathnamma, therefore, it is a false
declaration. The petitioner has also deposed in his
evidence that even though the respondent No.1 was not
the owner of property, he has wrongly declared as his
property. On the other hand, respondent No.1 (RW1)
has stated in his evidence that Sy.Nos.3/1 and 3/2 of
the said land were wrongly mentioned as Sy.Nos.3/2
and 3/3 and these properties were bequeathed by his
grand mother Nagarathnamma under the 'Will' and the
said Nagarathnamma died long back and has produced
the death certificate of Nagarathnamma as per Ex.R19.
He has also got marked the certified copy of the 'Will' as
per the Ex.R8 wherein in the said 'Will', the property
Sy.Nos.3/3 and 3/2 were mentioned and as per Ex.R19,
his grandmother died on 16.1.2010 but the name of the
respondent not entered in the documents. Therefore, it
cannot be said that as on that date, he has not got the
right over the property, but he has declared in his
affidavit. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner
cannot be acceptable that it was the wrong declaration.
Therefore, the contention of the petitioner's counsel
that the declaration of the ownership of the properties
in the Form No.26, even though respondent No.1 is not
the owner of the property, cannot be acceptable.
However, though respondent No.1 declared that all
these properties were purchased by him and he is said
to be purchased the land, there is no registration of sale
deeds for want of sketch and he purchased some of the
lands in Bhavinkere village which is a disputed property
and litigations were pending, but he had declared the
value of those properties in the nomination Form No.26.
As per the evidence of P.W.2 in E.P.No.1/2019, the
Deputy Commissioner of Hassan, given a reply to the
report called by the Election Commission of India and
he has given report on 29.04.2019 as per Ex.P.7, the
respondent not declared that he has borrowed Rs.23.00
lakhs from his grand father/grand mother and the
values shown in the report - Exs.P.9 and P.9(c). The
respondent declared less amounts in his affidavit in
respect of value of those properties which has been
discussed by this Court in issue No.2 and answered
against the respondent. Therefore, declaring the wrong
valuation of the property by him is nothing but a wrong
declaration, which is nothing but a corrupt practice
under Section 123(2) of R.P. Act.
(e)(iv) The petitioner also contended that in
column No.7A of Form No.26 that the SB Account in
Karnataka Bank, Minerva Circle Branch had balance of
Rs.49,09,593/- but he has declared only Rs.5,78,238/-
which is a false declaration. In this regard, this Court
has already discussed in detail in issue No.6 in E.P.
No.1/2019 and answered against the respondent No.1
for wrongly declaring the balance in the SB Account in
Karnataka Bank, Minerva Circle Branch.
68. As regards to the another contention that a
wrong information mentioned by respondent No.1 in
part 7A of Column 5 in item No.1 that he has lent loan
to his brother for a sum of Rs.37,20,000/-, the said fact
is not correct, but the actual loan lent was
Rs.76,00,000/- through SB account, Karnataka Bank
and therefore, it is incorrect declaration. But the
respondent denied the same. The suggestion was made
that he has lent loan of Rs.66,70,000/-, but wrongly
declared in his affidavit as Rs.37,20,000/-. But on
verifying Ex.R.28, on careful calculation, which reveals
that the respondent lent the amount of Rs.73,70,000/-
to Suraj Revanna and as on 17.08.2012, he has
received back Rs.4.00 lakhs from Suraj Revanna,
thereby the respondent lent loan of Rs.69,70,000/- to
his brother. Therefore, his declaration in the
nomination form that he has lent loan for
Rs.37,20,000/- is not correct and it is wrong
declaration.
69. As regards to the another allegation that as
per financial bill 2007, Section 269 ST, the Income Tax
Act, provides that no person shall receive an amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- or more aggregate from a person in a
day or a single transaction by cash it should be only
online transfer. But the transactions shown by the
respondent No.2 in the Election Petition were all cash
transactions and does not contain any details.
Therefore, it is contrary to the Section 269 ST of IT Act.
In this regard, though RW1 has stated that all the
transactions are online transactions but no such
document is produced in order to show that he has
borrowed the loan from various persons only through
Bank but not cash. Therefore, the petitioner is
successful in proving that the respondent No.1
transacted by way of cash and it is not properly
declared the cash by borrowing loans and payments
made, but no details were mentioned in the declaration
Form No.26.
70. As regards to the corrupt practice, the
petitioner has contended that the respondent has
committed corrupt practice of bribery as contemplated
under Section 123 of the R.P. Act.
71. In order to prove this issue, the learned
counsel for the petitioner has contended that the father
of respondent No.1 was an In-charge Minister of Hassan
District and sitting PWD Minister, by misusing his
power, diverted the fund pertaining to the Cauvery
Neeravari Nigam Limited (CNNL) as the uncle of
respondent No.1 was the Chief Minister of the State
who is the Chairman of the CNNL. With his instruction,
they diverted the fund allocated by the State for
irrigation purpose, but they diverted the same for
constructing the Bhavan, Temple, formation of road etc.
In order to prove the said contention, PW.1-petitioner
has deposed that the father of respondent No.1 diverted
the funds from the CNNL for other purposes by
influencing the voters. The witness has stated that the
father of the respondent No.1 diverted Rs.576.00 crores
released by the State Government for irrigation project
for entire Hassan District, but, by influencing the
Managing Director, Executive Engineer and Assistant
Executive Engineer diverted the fund for some other
purpose. A complaint has been filed to the Lokayuktha
and the said Lokayuktha has not taken any action
against the father of the respondent. He has produced
Ex.P.17-the complaint filed by one Gavirangegowda of
Malali Village, Halekote Hobli, Holenarasipura, where
the petitioner was the advocate for the complainant
that complaint was filed long back and an
acknowledgment was issued by the Lokayuktha which is
marked as Ex.P.17(a). The complaint was lodged on
14.06.2019, but no action was taken by the
Lokayuktha. The petitioner also produced Ex.P.17(b)
which are the documents for having utilized the amount
for construction of Temple and other purposes other
than the irrigation work. There were almost 149 work
executed, most of them were construction of temples,
temple compounds, construction of roads, drainages
etc. In order to prove the said fact, the petitioner also
summoned the witnesses and examined one Shankare
Gowda as PW.18 who has deposed that he is the MD of
CNNL and also produced the document i.e., Ex.P.49
regarding fund allocation and expenditures. He also
produced Ex.P.50, the list of Chairman and members of
CNNL for the year 2017-18 and Ex.P.51 for the year
2018-19. The grant released by the State was marked
as Exs.P.52 and P.52(a) and he further deposes that
the fund allocated to Gorur Circle in 2018-19 was
Rs.943.62 crores and the said amount was released for
tank filling schemes, improvement and modernization of
canals and also road formation at catchment areas and
some amount for public purpose. He has stated that the
said fund cannot be diverted to any other purpose and
he has also admitted that the Chief Minister will be the
Chairman, and the Irrigation Minister will be the Vice
Chairman. But he has stated that there is no role in
respect of In-charge Minister of Hassan in the Board
activities and he is not a member of the Board. He also
deposes that the public can request the development
programmes and the District Minister can also make
such requests for such developmental programmes. In
the cross examination, the learned counsel for the
respondent has contended that the resolution is
required to be passed by the Board members including
the Chief Minister, then, they can ascertain the projects
and release the fund. But this witness has not denied
that there is no involvement of the District In-charge
Minister in the projects taken by the Board in the
resolution and not denied the intervention and
participation of the In-charge Minister in the Board
Meetings. Normally, the District In-charge Minister will
always be notified in respect of every meeting
conducted by the Chairman of the CNNL and the facts
should not be forgotten that the Chief Minister at that
time was H.D. Kumarswamy and the District In-charge
Minister for Hassan H.D. Revanna is none other than
the elder brother of H.D. Kumarswamy and respondent
No.1 is the son of H.D. Revanna. Therefore, the
contention of the respondent cannot be acceptable that
the funds were not diverted. On the other hand,
Ex.P.17(b) reveals that the funds were diverted and
spent other than the irrigation projects, thereby, the
petitioner is successful in proving that the respondent
influenced the voters by making development works by
way of diverting the funds which amounts to corrupt
practice. Hence, answered the said point in the
AFFIRMATIVE in favour of the petitioner.
72. As regards to another corrupt practice, the
petitioner has stated that the respondent tried to bribe
by sending Rs.1,20,000/- for distributing to the voters
through the brother of respondent No.1 -Dr.Suraj
Revanna while proceeding in the official car used by his
father in Car No.KA.01.MH.4477 which was seized by
the flying squad and a case was registered in Crime
No.59/2019 and it is marked as Ex.P.16-FIR which was
seized by the Police and PW.1-Devarajegowda has
deposed in this regard. In the cross examination, the
respondent has denied the same and contended that
the police filed 'B' final report.
73. As per the evidence of the petitioner PW.1
and the documents, Ex.P.16 reveals that the police
registered the FIR against the brother of the respondent
No.1 when the car belongs to his father has been
intercepted and verify the same, Rs.1,20,000/- cash
was seized and admittedly, a case was registered by the
Holenarasipura Police station. Respondent No.1 denied
the same and he has contended that the amount was
sent by his mother Bhavani Revanna for purchasing the
grocery and therefore, the police have filed 'B' Final
report. But the said 'B' Final report not produced by the
respondent to show there is no substance in the
complaint and on the other hand, it is a Government
Vehicle provided to the father of respondent No.1 who
is the District In-charge Minister and the vehicle was
used by the son of the Minister and cash of
Rs.1,20,000/- was seized by the squad.
74. The respondent examined as R.W.1, he has
deposed that the police filed 'B' Final report and his
mother gave the said amount to buy cattle feed and
groceries which falsely implicated him and in the cross
examination, the learned counsel for the petitioner has
contended that at the time of seizure, there was bill
found along with the brother of respondent No.1 and
subsequently, they manipulated the facts in order to
overcome the amount carried in the car. It is also
suggested by the Senior Counsel and there was an
admission made by R.W.1 that the car belongs to his
father and the same was used by escort belongs to his
father and admitted the amount was seized from the
car, but he says, it is an income tax department planted
the case and also says that the cash belongs to his
mother and it was given for purchasing the groceries
and cattle feed and in order to prove the said
contention the respondent not examined his mother
Bhavani Revanna or his brother and not produced the
'B' Final report. Even if 'B' final report filed by the
police, as the respondent family was ruling political
party in Karnataka at that time, there is possibility of
influencing the police for filing the 'B' final report is not
ruled out. Therefore, once registering the FIR and
seizure of Rs.1,20,000/- has been admitted, it should
be presumed that the amount was sent by the
respondent for distributing to the voters and in spite of
the model Code of Conduct of Election was in force, the
question of carrying Rs.1,20,000/- by the respondent
family for the purpose of purchasing the groceries
cannot be acceptable. Thereby, the petitioner is
successful in proving the corrupt practice of the
respondent in the said election. Hence, answered this
point in the AFFIRMATIVE in favour of the petitioner.
75. Regarding another corrupt practice alleged
by the petitioner and regarding religious appeal by the
respondent as per Section 123(3) of the R.P. Act:
76. Section 123(3) of the R.P. Act defines that
the appeal by a candidate or his agent or by any other
person with the consent of a candidate or his election
agent to vote or refrain from voting for any person on
the ground of his religion, race, caste, community or
language or the use of, or appeal to religious symbols
or the use of, or appeal to, national symbols, such as
the National Flag or the National Emblem, for the
furtherance of the prospects of the election of that
candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of
any candidate.
77. The petitioner has stated that prior to the
election on 12.04.2019, respondent No.1 campaigned at
Halli Mysuru village and assured that the Veerashaiva
Lingayath Community people by promising to build
Samudaya Bhavana if they voted to him in the election.
A complaint has been registered in Crime No.41/2019
and FIR has been produced and marked as per Ex.P.20.
The evidence of P.W.1-Devarajegowda has been
corroborated with Ex.P.20 - FIR was registered by the
Halli Mysuru police. During the cross examination,
learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 denied the
same. Except denial, nothing elicited to disbelieve the
evidence of P.W.1 that during the election campaign,
respondent No.1 assured the Veerashaiva Community
people to construct a Samudaya Bhavana for them, if
they voted to him. Thereby, the petitioner proves that
respondent No.1 himself made an appeal to the
community people assuring to build a Samudaya
Bhavana for them, if they voted to him, which definitely
affects the opposite candidate and those people might
have voted for the respondent. Hence, the point in
respect of Section 123(3) of the R.P. Act has been
proved by the petitioner and answered in the
AFFIRMATIVE.
78. Another corrupt practice alleged by the
petitioner is that, there were two cases registered by
Hirisave police against respondent No.1 in Crime
Nos.24/2019 and 26/2019 for having seized two KSRTC
buses and a car which were carrying the printed
pamphlets of the respondent. The said documents are
marked at Exs.P.21 and P.22. For that, respondent
No.1 has only denied in the cross examination.
However, registering the FIR against respondent No.1
for having carried the bundles of pamphlets in the
KSRTC buses and in a car are not in dispute.
Respondent No.1 has stated in his evidence that FIR
was not registered against him and it was registered
against some other person. But, the fact remains that
those two buses carried 15 bundles of 25,000
pamphlets without permission of the Election
Commission of India. R.W.1-respondent has admitted
the registration of the FIR for having carried the
pamphlets, but he says that he is not the accused in
that case. He has stated that the police have filed B-
final report in those two cases. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has contended that the father of respondent
No.1 was the District In-charge Minister for Hassan,
and, with influence, those cases were closed by filing
the B-final report and there is even chances of
influencing the police was not ruled out since at that
time, JDS was ruling party and H.D. Kumaraswamy, the
uncle of the respondent No.1 was Chief Minister and his
father was District In-charge Minister. Thereby, the
petitioner is successful in proving that the government
vehicles were used for transporting the election
pamphlets without prior permission, which attracts the
corrupt practice under Section 123(5) of the R.P. Act.
79. Another corrupt practice alleged by the
petitioner in respect of Section 123(8) of the R.P. Act,
which defines the booth capturing by a candidate or his
agent or other person within the meaning of Section
35A of the R.P. Act. In order to prove the said
contention, the petitioner himself is examined as P.W.1
and he has stated that on the day of polling, the father
of respondent No.1 went inside the polling booth
No.244 at Paduvalahippe village along with the mother
of respondent No.1. They took some non-voters from
various other parts of the district and made them to
vote in favour of respondent No.1. The agent of the
petitioner objected the same, but the officers deputed
for the said booth have not taken any action. Hence, a
complaint was lodged to the Deputy Commissioner.
Accordingly, three officers were suspended by the
Deputy Commissioner. P.W.1 further deposed that the
father of respondent went inside the polling booth in the
morning at 10.47 a.m. and was stayed for long time till
11.22 a.m. The CCTV footage also revealed that the
respondent's father with his followers went inside the
polling booth and got voted for respondent No.1
through many persons. The petitioner has also deposed
that one Sharath Gowda and his wife Lepakshi voted in
the said booth, but they are not the voters of the said
booth and they are from Mysuru. One Mahesh, Bhavani
Revanna's car driver also voted, who was not the voter
of the said booth. His name was mentioned in booth
No.212 at Kyathahalli village, but he has voted in booth
No.244. In this regard, P.W.1 produced and marked
M.Os.1 to 3, the DVDs and hard disk. The learned
counsel for respondent No.1 denied that there was no
such booth capturing took place and the respondent's
father went to the booth and voted and came out,
which was denied by P.W.1. It is not in dispute that the
respondent and his family members including the
parents and grand parents came and casted their vote
in the said booth. To prove the said contention, the
petitioner also marked Exs.P.19 and 19A which is the
suspension order passed by the Deputy commissioner
by suspending the electoral officials deputed to the said
booth. Subsequently, they have been reinstated, but,
the fact remains that there was entry of the
respondent's father and family members, and almost
the father of respondent No.1 stayed for one hour in the
polling booth and more number of persons voted, at
their instructions. A person by name Purushotham,
belongs to respondent No.1, who was wearing blue
shirt, was holding many voter I.D. cards and giving the
same to some persons to caste their votes. The DVD
produced by P.W.1 has been played and verified the
veracity of the contention of the petitioner which
reveals that the family of respondent No.1, especially,
H.D. Revanna and his wife gone into the polling booth
and in spite of casting their votes, they have not came
out. On the other hand, at the instructions of
H.D.Revanna, another person holding some voter I.D.
cards was handing over the same to some other
persons and in turn, they were casting the votes. It
appears that those persons were not the actual voters
of the said booth and I.D. cards in the custody of the
said Purushotham, the party man of respondent No.1
was giving the cards for casting the votes, which
reveals that those persons who casted votes were all
proxy voters.
80. The petitioner has also produced the voters
list of the Paduvalahippe booth and those persons were
not holding the list. The video clipping of polling booth
No.244 was viewed through the desktop computer
which reveals that Smt. Bhavani Revanna, after casting
her votes, gone out of the polling booth and after some
time, once again she came back to the polling booth
along with a child and the other people belong to
respondent No.1 were stayed in the polling booth. At
that time, there was no public were allowed inside for
casting the votes, which reveals that the father of
respondent No.1 H.D. Revanna captured booth No.244
for almost a hour and casted proxy votes through his
henchmen. The CCTV footage also clearly reveals the
same. P.W.19-Deputy Commissioner, Hassan District,
produced M.Os.1 to 3 along with the certificate under
Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act and the certificate
is marked as Ex.P.53. Except denial, nothing has been
elicited by the respondent's counsel to disbelieve the
evidence of P.W.19 in respect of producing and marking
the M.Os.1 to 3 and Ex.P.53, which clearly corroborates
the evidence of P.W.1 that the father of respondent
No.1 captured the booth for more than a hour and
casted the proxy votes and that was also proved by
suspending three electoral officials by the Deputy
Commissioner.
81. The petitioner examined P.W.15-Yogisha,
who is the Selection Grade Lecturer working in
Government Polytechnic, was deputed as the Presiding
Officer to booth No.244 at Paduvalahippe in Hassan
constituency, on 18.04.2019. According to him, more
than 1100 voters casted their votes and there were
surveillance camera installed in the polling booth. On
25.04.2019, he received a notice from the Deputy
Commissioner on the complaint made by one Mayanna
and Raju against the officials posted in booth No.244
and they gave reply on 26.04.2019. On 27.04.2019,
the suspension order was issued by the Deputy
Commissioner and he identified the suspension order as
per Ex.P.19. In the cross examination, P.W.15 has
admitted that the suspension order was revoked by the
Deputy Commissioner on 29.11.2021 as per Ex.R.4.
82. To corroborate the evidence of P.W.1-
petitioner and P.W.15 Yogisha, the petitioner also
examined P.W.14- Mayanna, an election agent of BJP
Candidate. P.W.14 also deposed that, on 18.04.2019,
he worked as an election agent in booth No.244 at
paduvalahippe village along with one Rajugowda.
P.W.14 has also deposed that at about 10.15 a.m., he
received a phone call from one Rajugowda, that, the
then Minister H.D. Revanna along with his followers
brought the outside people and casted votes.
Accordingly, he went there and found the said Minister
was in the booth and the gunman was stood outside,
the police and the gunman did not allow him to enter
into the booth. After showing the agent pass and
agitated about the proxy votes, there was altercation
between them and thereafter, he telephoned to
Tahsildar and obtained permission. Then, he went inside
the booth where he found that then Minister. The 25
followers were standing in the queue and casting the
proxy votes in favour of respondent No.1, even though,
they did not have votes in the said booth and then, he
shouted at them. According to his evidence, more than
50 proxy votes casted. Then, he went to the Assistant
Returning Officer in order to file complaint and the said
officer did not take any action. Therefore, on the next
day, he lodged a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner
and the Deputy Commissioner, after verifying the CCTV
footage and the finding prima facie material in the
allegation, suspended those officials. He has produced
and marked Ex.P.19-the suspension order. During
cross examination, it was suggested to P.W.14 that he
has not lodged the complaint on the same day, but he
has lodged the complaint only on 24.04.2019 and the
suggestion was also made that there was no such
incident took place, but the witness denied both the
suggestions.
83. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 14 and 15, the
documents at Ex.P.19 and M.Os.1 to 3, the petitioner is
successful in proving respondent No.1 has committed
the corrupt practice through his father and family
members, captured the booth and got casted the proxy
votes in his favour by bringing non-voters to the booth,
thereby the petitioner proved the allegation made in
the petition as per Section 123(8) of the R.P. Act
beyond doubt.
84. The learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner has also argued that respondent No.1
engaged a 13 year young boy as their agent and used
for the election purpose and to work as volunteer to
bring the aged persons. It is argued that the children
must not have been used by the respondent and the
said child was one of the party members of the
respondent.
85. The corrupt practice alleged in respect
of Section 123(7) of the of the R.P. Act:
The petitioner has also taken another contention
that the respondent No.1 used the officials for aiding
and abetting, by influencing for booth capture, which is
also a corrupt practice under Section 123(7) of the R.P.
Act. It is also contended that the respondent No.1
used the car belonging to the government and the
government officials, escorts and their cars were used
for election purpose and thereby, committed the corrupt
practice.
86. The proviso of Sub-Section (7) to Section
123 of The R.P. Act referred below for convenience:
" The obtaining or procuring or abetting
or attempting to obtain or procure by a
candidate or his agent or, by any other person
11[with the consent of a candidate or his
election agent], any assistance (other than
the giving of vote) for the furtherance of the
prospects of that candidate's election, from
any person in the service of the Government
and belonging to any of the following classes,
namely:--
(a) gazetted officers;
(b) stipendiary judges and magistrates;
(c) members of the armed forces of the
Union;
(d) members of the police forces;
(e) excise officers; 13[(f) revenue officers
other than village revenue officers known as
lambardars, malguzars, patels, deshmukhs or
by any other name, whose duty is to collect
land revenue and who are remunerated by a
share of, or commission on, the amount of
land revenue collected by them but who do
not discharge any police functions; and]
(g) such other class of persons in the service
of the Government as may be prescribed:
14[Provided that where any person, in the
service of the Government and belonging to
any of the classes aforesaid, in the discharge
or purported discharge of his official duty,
makes any arrangements or provides any
facilities or does any other act or thing, for,
to, or in relation to, any candidate or his
agent or any other person acting with the
consent of the candidate or his election agent
(whether by reason of the office held by the
candidate or for any other reason), such
arrangements, facilities or act or thing shall
not be deemed to be assistance for the
furtherance of the prospects of that
candidate's election.] 15[(8) Booth capturing
by a candidate or his agent or other person.]
Explanation.--(1) In this Section the
expression "agent" includes an election agent,
a polling agent and any person who is held to
have acted as an agent in connection with the
election with the consent of the candidate."
87. The learned Senior Counsel for petitioner
has also relied upon the Ex.P19 and the evidence of
PW14 and 15 that the respondent father by misusing
official position as District In-charge minister captured
the polling booth No.244 and casted their votes with
assistance of the PW15 and two other Government
officials by his influence. who were deputed for election
purpose in favour of his son, thereby he has utilized the
government officials that was proved by the petitioner
in respect of 123(8) of RP Act, in the above said issue.
88. It is also an admitted fact that the FIR was
registered against the brother of respondent No.1 Suraj
Revanna at Holenarsipura police station and cash of
Rs.1,20,000/- was seized from the escort car belonging
to his father which is official vehicle and the police
officials were used by the father of the respondent No.1
H.D. Revanna in order to circulate the cash among the
voters to vote in favour of respondent No.1 apart from
that the KSRTC bus also used for transporting the
pamphlets on behalf of the respondent which was
seized by the Hirisave police and registered two cases
which also once again using the public
servants/government officials and government vehicle's
in favour of the election campaign. There is nothing to
disbelieve the evidence of petitioner witnesses in
respect of allegation made against the respondent and
his family has misused the official position as district In-
charge minister as the father of the respondent No.1
and his uncle chief minister of the State at the relevant
time and the grand father of the respondent was former
Prime Minister of the nation were all influenced persons
and except H.D. Kumaraswamy the family of
H.D.Revanna including his wife, sister-in-law, the
respondent, his friends, his grand parents and relatives
polling agent were all stayed together in the polling
booth for hours together. It is unfortunate, the officials
of the polling booth were afraid of the In-charge
Minister and the ruling party at the time for sending
them out from the polling booth and he has succumbed
to the pressure and influence of the respondent family.
Thereby the petitioner is successful in proving the
corrupt practice under Section 123(7) of R.P. Act. In
view of the above findings the petitioner is successful in
proving the Issue No.5 that the respondent No.1
involved in corrupt practice of bribery as contemplated
under Sections 123 of R.P. Act. Hence, answered the
Issue No.5, Partly In AFFIRMATIVE, in favour of the
petitioner and against the respondent No.1.
89. Issue No.4 in E.P.No.1/2019:
Whether the petitioner proves that it is
mandatory for the candidate contesting in an
election to the parliament to show his source of
income ?
The petitioner has contended the candidate who
contest the parliamentary election to show his source of
income, in this regard, the petitioner himself examined
as PW.1 and contended that the respondent No.1
purchased huge landed properties nearby Nelamanagala
Taluk by paying crores of rupees but he has not shown
any source of income. On the other hand, the
respondent has stated he has borrowed loan from his
parents and other third parties which were declared in
the nomination form but the respondent No.1 not
declared the same in the Income Tax Returns for last 5
years. Though he has purchased properties from 2008
onwards and received various bills through the banks
but he has not declared his income in the Income Tax
Returns and he has not at all filed any Income Tax
Returns till 2017. He has filed ITR for only one year
prior to filing of the nomination and this Court has
found various incomes but it was not declared, there
were discrepancies in the borrowing loan from third
parties and he has involved in corrupt practice. The
very acceptance of nomination by the Returning Officer
is illegal and improper. It is the duty of the candidate
who is contesting the election shall declare his sources
of income assets and liabilities in order to choose the
candidate by the voters. Therefore, it is mandatory on
the part of the candidate to show his source of income,
but the respondent failed to show his any source of
income which mislead the voters, thereby I answered
Issue No.4 in E.P.No.1/2019 in the AFFIRMATIVE in
favour of the petitioner as against respondent No.1.
90. Issue No.9 in E.P. No.1/2019
Whether respondent No.1 proves that non
disclosure or non filing of IT returns for five
years as required under clause 4(1) in Form
No.26 does not violate Section 33A of the RP
Act read with Rule 4A of Conduct of Election
Rules together with Form No.26 as appended
to the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961?
and
Issue No.2 in E.P.No.2/2019
Whether the petitioner proves that the
nomination of respondent No.1 in form No.26
enclosed along with the nomination is in
contravention of Section 33 A of R.P. Act and
Rule 4A of Conduct of Election Rules ?
Both the above issues are common issues, hence,
taken together for discussion in order to avoid the
repetitions.
91. The provision of Section 33 A of R.P. Act
defines as under:
[33A. Right to information.--(1) A candidate
shall, apart from any information which he is
required to furnish, under this Act or the rules
made thereunder, in his nomination paper
delivered under sub-Section (1) of Section 33,
also furnish the information as to whether--
(i) he is accused of any offence punishable
with imprisonment for two years or more in a
pending case in which a charge has been
framed by the court of competent jurisdiction;
(ii) he has been convicted of an offence [other
than any offence referred to in sub-Section (1)
or sub-Section (2), or covered in sub-Section
(3), of Section 8] and sentenced to
imprisonment for one year or more.
(2) The candidate or his proposer, as the case
may be, shall, at the time of delivering to the
returning officer the nomination paper under
sub-Section (1) of Section 33, also deliver to
him an affidavit sworn by the candidate in a
prescribed form verifying the information
specified in sub-Section (1).
(3) The returning officer shall, as soon as may
be after the furnishing of information to him
under sub-Section (1), display the aforesaid
information by affixing a copy of the affidavit,
delivered under sub-Section (2), at a
conspicuous place at his office for the
information of the electors relating to a
constituency for which the nomination paper is
delivered.]
92. As per Rule 4A of the conduct of Election
Rules defines as under:
"4A Form of affidavit to be filed at the time
of delivering nomination paper - the
candidate or his proposal, as the case may
be, shall, at the time of delivering to the
returning officer, the nomination paper
under Sub-section (1) of 33 of the Act, also
delivered to him an affidavit sworn by the
candidate before the Magistrate of the First
Class or Notary in Form No.26".
93. In this regard, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has contended that it is the duty of the
candidate who contest for the election shall mention all
the information to the Returning Officer in the affidavit
and in turn, it should be published to the public domain
in order to the voters to excise their voting right in
favour of the candidate. But here in this case, the
respondent No.1 not furnished the entire details of his
assets and liabilities, investments including the bank
balances and most of the information given by him were
wrong information. Therefore, it is held, the information
submitted by respondent No.1 in Form No.26 is in
contravention of Section 33A of R.P. Act and Rule 4A of
the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. Hence, answered
Issue No.9 in E.P.No.1/2019 and Issue No.2 in
E.P.No.2/2019 in the AFFIRMATIVE in favour of the
petitioners.
94. Issue No.10 in E.P.No.2/2019
Whether the petitioner proves the election
expenses incurred by respondent No.1 was
beyond the limit fixed as stated in paragraph
Nos.21 and 27 of the Election Petition?
In order to prove the said allegation, the
petitioner in E.P.No.2/2019 has contended the
respondent has incurred more than Rs.1,40,000/-
towards printing the pamphlets more than 25,000 in his
favour when the said pamphlets were transported in
two KSRTC buses and a car which were seized by the
Hirisave Police and registered two Crime cases
Nos.24/2019 and 26/2019 and seized more than 15
bundles of pamphlets. In order to prove the said
contention, the petitioner has produced and marked
Exs.P.21 and P.22. PW.1-the petitioner in the cross
examination, except denial, the learned counsel for the
respondent nothing elicited to disbelieve the evidence.
On the other hand, the respondent himself examined as
R.W.1 and he has deposed that he is not aware about
seizing of 15 bundles of pamphlets in K.S.R.T.C. buses
and FIR was registered against some other persons and
he is not the accused in the said cases and the
suggestion was made to R.W.1 that after winning the
election, they influenced the police and got filed the 'B'
Final report.
95. On perusal of Exs.P.21 and P.22 reveals that
the Hirisave Police registered two FIRs and seized 15
and 11 bundles containing 25,000 pamphlets for
transporting the pamphlets pertaining to this
respondent and admittedly, this respondent name was
not there in the FIR, but the President of JDS Party,
Hassan was the accused and the said pamphlet was
printed for the purpose of election campaigning of the
respondent. Therefore, this amount of Rs.1,40,000/-
should be considered as his election expenditures. But
the same was not properly declared by him in his
election expenditure account to the Election
Commission of India in the Ex.P.23 produced by the
petitioner and Ex.R.32 marked by the respondent.
96. The petitioners have also deposed that the
respondent declared the expenditure of pamphlets,
posters, hand bills and banners that he has spent
Rs.5,78,310/- whereas, the value of the pamphlets
seized by the Police in the Bus itself is Rs.6,50,000/-
and Rs.3,00,000/-. The voters slip would cost
Rs.3,00,000/- but the same was not properly declared
by the respondent. As already held above, the
expenditures for hand bills or the pamphlets seized
from two KSRTC buses and the car, more than 25,000
pamphlets, the expenditure were not declared and the
voters slips supplied by the respondent near the polling
booth also not properly calculated apart from the other
amenities used for polling day. Therefore, in this
regard, there is no proper evidence adduced by the
respondent for spending the meager amount declared
by him.
97. As regards to the expenditure incurred by the
respondent towards the Helicopter charges for doing
election campaign through star campaigners where the
respondent has spent huge amount for the purpose of
rent paid for visit of former Prime Minister Sri H.D.
Devegowda and the then former Chief Minister
Sri Siddaramaiah who came to Arasikere, Arakalagud
and Hallimysuru on 11.04.2019. The respondent not
included the rent and expenditures in the expenditure
account in Ex.R.32. In order to prove the said
contention, the petitioner has examined himself as
witness and got marked at Ex.P.23 wherein the
summary report regarding expenses accounted by the
candidate. Wherein, the respondent has shown the
expenditures as Rs.63,14,197/-. The abstract of the
expenditures declared by respondent No.2 where the
Helicopter expenditures were shown as NIL. Whereas
the petitioner has produced documents and deposed
that the respondent has spent more than
Rs.14,00,000/- towards the Helicopter expenses and
the respondent also got marked as Exs.R.33 and 34
that the list of star campaigners in JDS party as well as
Congress party.
98. PW.1 further deposed that the then Chief
Minister Sri.H.D.Kumarswamy, his wife
Smt.Anitha Kumaraswamy and their son Sri.Nikhil
Kumaraswamy have visited Holenarasipura by
Helicopter and the said amount was not declared by the
respondent and also contended that the former Prime
Minister and Chief Minister's helicopter expenses is also
not declared by him. In response to the allegation, the
respondent examined and he has stated in his evidence
that he is not aware about declaring the list of leaders
as star campaigners in both the political alliance of the
JDS and Congress and denied that the former Chief
Minister Sri H.D.Kumaraswamy was not at all came for
campaigning but it was their private visit and therefore,
not necessary. But the respondent admitted that he has
obtained the permission of the Deputy Commissioner
for landing of Helicopter to Kadur Town where the
Former Prime Minister Sri H.D. Devegowda and the then
former Chief Minister Sri Siddaramaiah campaigned at
Kadur and he has stated, they are the star campaigners
and therefore, as per Schedule 1 in Sl.No.11, the
expenditures of Star campaigners not required to be
declared. But in Ex.R.32(a), the respondent has stated
the expenditures on star campaigners by Helicopter
mentioned as NIL. Though, RW.1 further stated the
helicopter came to Kadur, but while going back to
Hassan, the helicopter was stopped at Gandsi due to
bad weather and they went by car and he also admitted
that he has obtained the permission for landing of the
helicopter at Holenarasipura and Arasikere and denied
that helicopter expenditures was Rs.17,40,000/-. But
the fact remains, as per Ex.R.32(a), the abstract of the
expenditures, the respondent has shown, there is no
amount spent on the helicopter for star campaigners.
The respondent also not stated what was the actual
amount spent for helicopter expenditures for star
campaigning. Exs.R.35 and R.35(a) are the permission
accorded by the Deputy Commissioner for landing of
helicopter. But not a single document produced by the
respondent that he has spent amount towards the
helicopter rent and he is entitled for exemption in
respect of said helicopter expenditure. Thereby, the
petitioner is successful in proving that the respondent
not declared the helicopter expenses of more than
Rs.17,00,000/- in his Ex.P.23 or Ex.R.32 (both the
documents are one and the same).
99. The petitioner also stated that the
respondent has shown the expenditure for food,
refreshment, tea, juices etc., as Rs.42,950/- but the
respondent actually spent more than Rs.13,41,000/-
towards the expenditure as respondent No.1 conducted
large scale election campaign. Two election campaigns
which comes under 8 Legislative constituency of Hassan
Lok Sabha constituency and spent Rs.15 to 16 lakhs per
campaign for distribution of Milk, food and LED
expenditures including pendals, chairs etc., But the
respondent declared meager amount. Though the
respondent has stated that Rs.42,950/- spent on
refreshment, but there is no document produced before
the Court as breakup wise expenditures spent by him
for the purpose of two star campaigning large scale
meetings, the expenditure cannot be Rs.42,000/-, it
must be more than lakhs of rupees. Therefore, I hold,
the respondent has not properly declared the
expenditures spent on food and refreshments.
100. The next contention of the petitioners are
that the respondent declared expenditures on vehicles
as Rs.12,60,860/- for engaging the auto rickshaw, cars,
Bolero jeeps for campaigning as per Schedule 5 in
Ex.R.32. Whereas the petitioner has contended that the
respondent has spent more than Rs.15,45,875/-
towards the vehicle expenditures, but it was suppressed
by the respondent and stated that the Deputy
Commissioner himself has declared the rate fixed for
the different vehicles in different rates, but the
respondent has found very meager amount per day for
a vehicle, thereby, he has not properly declared the
actual expenditures. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has stated that the Deputy Commissioner as per the
Notification No.ELN(1)100/2018-19 has fixed
Rs.5,000/- per day for Innova vehicle and for different
categories of vehicle, different rates were fixed as
minimum rental rates. But the respondent used 34
different types of cars along with 57 three wheeler auto
rickshaws. On calculation, it comes, the respondent has
spent more than Rs.19,90,000/- but he has declared
only Rs.11,32,000/- thereby, more than Rs.8,57,000/-
differs from actual expenditures. Though, the
respondent has produced the Notification issued by the
Deputy Commissioner, but there is no authenticated
document produced by the respondent, however, the
expenditure mentioned by the petitioner in Schedule 5
of expenditure is not correct and no auto rickshaw or
taxi persons provided their vehicles less than the
amount fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, therefore, I
am of the view, that the petitioner proves the vehicle
expenditures declared by the respondent was not
correct.
101. The another contention of the petitioner is
that the respondent has spent more than
Rs.22,00,000/- towards the polling booth, agent
expenses and Rs.56,000/- towards the counting day
expenses. It is contended by the petitioner that the
respondent declared the expenditures towards the said
expenditure as NIL, but in fact, the respondent has
shown and declared Rs.96,000/- towards the candidates
booth set up for distribution of voters slip for voters for
Rs.90,000/-, food expenses Rs.6,000/-. Whereas the
petitioner has calculated that the amount was more
than Rs.22,00,000/- as there were 2,235 booths and if
2 persons per booth, if they paid Rs.500/- per head, it
comes to Rs.22,35,000/- and even if the expenditure
for food and other expenditures considered for two
booth agents and it would be Rs.56,000/-. Though the
respondent declared Rs.96,000/- but there is no proper
accounts to that effect and no evidence adduced by the
respondent before this Court and even, if a person
received Rs.200/- per head, it could be more than
Rs.4,47,000/- and counting agents for 8 round tables,
there must be at least Rs.25,000/- but the respondent
declaring Rs.96,000/- is very meager and the said
expenditures declared by him appears to be not correct.
102. As regards to the other expenditures spent
by the respondent regarding amount spent on
advertisement through newspapers and T.V. channels,
the petitioner has contended that the respondent not
declared any amount spent by him towards the
advertisement in the News channels both print and
electronic media. Whereas the petitioner has
contended that the respondent given advertisement in
Praja Vani Newspaper and spent Rs.50,000/- as per
Exs.P.54 and P.55, towards the Vijaya Karnataka
Newspaper he has spent Rs.89,250/- as per Exs.P.56
and P.58, towards Vijaya Vani Newspaper, he has spent
Rs.1,14,07,290/- as per Ex.P.62, a bill for
Rs.51,08,784/- and another bill as per Ex.P.62(a) for
Rs.62,48,756/- and as per Ex.P.62(b) was
Rs.10,49,750/-, towards the Kannada Prabha
Newspaper Rs.6,75,001/- as per Exs.P.63 and P.64(a)
and P.64(c), but the respondent not declared the same.
The respondent has stated in Schedule 4 of Ex.R.32
that no amount spent on the advertisement, whereas,
the petitioner to prove its contention examined and
deposed in the evidence that advertisements were
given by the respondent and spent more than crores of
rupees towards the advertisement on Newspapers. In
support of his contention, the petitioner summoned the
PWs.20, 21, 22 and 23.
103. The PW.20-Nataraj Dodmani who is legal
executive in Prajavani Kannada daily news he has
summoned and produced the documents Ex.p4, the
advertisement given by the respondent No.1 which was
published in page No.7B of Ex.P54(a) and the bill issued
by them to the JDS Party is marked at Ex.p55.
Accordingly to his evidence an amount of Rs.50000/-
charged by them for the advertisement. In the cross
examination he has admitted that the said paper was
published by enlarging the hand bill of JDS and
requisition might have received by his office and he has
to verify the office that any authorisization issued by
the respondent No.1 for giving advertisement in the
said paper.
104. PW21- Logan a Dy.Manager of Vijay
Karnataka also deposed that on 16.4.2019 an
advertisement was given by the respondent JDS which
was published as per Ex.p56 and P56A, The certificate
issued by their office is P57 and P58 is advertisement
release order and they have charged Rs.44625/-
towards the advertisement charges and in the cross
examination it is suggested the handbill was enlarged in
the newspaper and he is not aware that who has
actually placed order to the Bhoomika Advertisement
agency.
105. PW22:K.N.Channegowda, the editor of VRL
Media i.e, Vijayvani Kannada news paper accordingly to
his evidence there was news published in their paper on
06.04.2019, 15.4.2019 and 18.4.2019 as per the paper
cuttings P59 to P61. They charged Rs.51,08,784/- and
they raised the bill/invoice as per Ex.P62 and further
submits the advertisement was placed through
Maddgen Technologies Pvt. Ltd. which is an
advertisement agency and in the cross examination this
witness has stated they have not mentioned the name
of the person on behalf of whom the advertisement
were given and deny the suggestions that they created
the documents and also admits there is no photographs
of the respondent in the paper advertisement and the
respondent No.1/Prajwal Revanna not given the said
advertisement and the said publication was published
throughout Karnataka including Hassan district.
106. PW23 - Mallikarjunaiah Editor of Kannada
Prabha he has deposed that there was advertisement
on 16.4.2019 by Janata Dal S and Ex.P63 is a
newspaper and they charged Rs.45000/- and they
charged totally Rs.59,000/- including the other
expenditures. The invoice is marked as Ex.P64 and in
the cross examination it is suggested the paper was not
the actual advertisement, it is enlargement of hand bill
and format separate by the JDS, this witness also
stated the respondent No.1 not given any consent or
placed order for advertisement.
107. On perusal of the evidence of these 4
witnesses PW20 to PW23 the respondent political party
given the advertisement on behalf of the respondent by
spending lakhs of rupees as per the Ex.P54 to 64 but
the respondent denied the same and he is not aware
about the issuing of the advertisement and the amount
could have paid by the JDS party in support of his
contention the respondent not adduced any evidence on
his behalf to show the amount was not paid by him and
some other person given advertisement but no
documents produced by the respondent to show these
advertisement were given by some one else without his
knowledge. The respondent counsel stated in the cross
examination that the advertisement appeared in the
news paper were enlargement of the hand bill but not
denied the advertisement published in the various
newspaper on behalf o the JDS on vote for the JDS
candidates. Therefore, the petitioner successfully
proving the allegation that the respondent spent more
than a crore rupees on paper advertisement but not
declared in Ex.P23 or R32.
108. As regards to the amount spent by the
respondent by own fund for Rs.15,05,000/-, his party
had spent Rs.40,00,000/- and his father spent
Rs.14,00,000/- these 3 amounts were reflected in the
bank account extract of the respondent which was open
for election expenditures. He has declared in Part 3 of
the expenditures Ex.R.32 which was shown in the
Schedule 9. Though the respondent No.1 has
contended he has spent Rs.15,05,000/- by his own fund
and Rs.40,00,000/- spent by his party and
Rs.14,00,000/- by his father were all subsequent to the
election and he has declared in the election
expenditure. It is not necessary to discuss much, it has
to be looked into by the Election Commission of India
and the Income Tax Authorities whether he has
declared in his Income Tax Returns after the concerned
years.
109. Accordingly, I hold the petitioner has proved
that the expenditure limit was fixed by the Election
Commission of India was Rs.70,00,000/- whereas the
respondent spent more than crores of rupees than
Rs.70,00,000/- but he has declared only Rs.63,00,000/-
hence answered the Issue No.10 in the
AFFIRMATIVE in favour of the petitioner and against
the respondent.
110. Issue No.7 in E.P.No.1/2019
Whether the petitioner proves that the
acceptance of the nomination papers of the
respondent No.1 by the Returning Officer is
improper?
and
Issue No.1 in E.P.No.2/2019
Whether the petitioner proves that the
acceptance of the nomination of respondent
No.1 by the Returning Officer is illegal?
Both the above issues are common in both
petitions, hence, taken together for discussing in order
to avoid repetitions.
111. The petitioner also contended that the
amounts mentioned in the Form No.26 regarding
ownership of the property, Assets and Liabilities which
are patently erroneous and amounts to defect of
substantial character and nomination should have been
rejected. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
submitted even though the petitioner E.P.No.1/2019
raised objection regarding the false information
submitted by respondent No.1 in form No.26 but the
Returning Officer without proper verification overruled
the objections and accepted the nomination paper.
112. The Income Tax declaration made by the
respondent No.1 is for only one year, even though the
law requires 5 years past Income Tax returns. The
evidence of the respondent No.1 and properties owned
by him all reveals that he has huge property which has
been purchased by him for last 10 years but he has not
paid any Income Tax even though he was having
sufficient income and balance amount in his Bank
account. But he has evaded tax and paid tax only for
one year prior to the filing of the nomination for
contesting election. But there were lakhs of rupees
transacted by him but he has not filed any income tax
returns and paid any income tax to the State.
Therefore, the declaration made by the respondent in
the form NO.26 is not correct information and all false
statement regarding assets and liabilities, income etc.,
113. On perusal of the acceptance of nomination
by the Returning Officer the Ex.P3 was the objection
raised by the petitioner against the nomination of the
respondent and Ex.P4 is the acceptance of nomination
by the Returning Officer. In the Ex.P3 the petitioner/
A.Manju raised the objection in detail regarding
investments in Chennambika convention hall, bonds,
investment in the firm and he has stated the material
information has been not disclosed by the respondent
No.1. Therefore, request for rejecting the nomination
paper but the Returning Officer failed to consider the
objection raised by the petitioners and wrongly
accepted the nomination which is against the law,
hence, the Senior Counsels for the petitioners have
contended that the acceptance of the nomination of the
respondent No.1 is liable to be set aside.
114. In this regard, the petitioner counsel
produced the hand book manual prescribing the
procedure to be followed by the Returning Officer. The
respondent counsel has contended that the Returning
Officer following the hand book even if the prescribed
affidavit not been filed, the nomination paper should not
be rejected on that ground. On this background, it is
worth to mention that the guidelines issued by the
Election Commission of India in Hand Book for
Returning Officer prescribes the grounds for rejection of
nomination paper at 6.10.(IV) as under:
"6.10(IV): The prescribed affidavit has not
been filed at all by the candidate, or (NB if
the prescribed affidavit has been filed but
are alleged or found to be defective or
containing false information, the
nomination should not be rejection on this
ground."
115. On perusal of the said guidelines, of course,
the Returning Officer may not have sufficient time for
verifying all those objections made by the petitioner
against the affidavit filed by the respondent at the time
of scrutiny but as per the guidelines, he has formally
accepted the nomination and now it is under scrutiny
by this Court.
116. In view of my findings against the
respondent No.1 in respect of Issue No.2 in
E.P.No.2/2019 that the respondent No.1 filed the
nomination paper and its enclosures in contravention to
Section 33 A of the R.P. Act and Rule 4A of the Conduct
Rules and the respondent No.1 involved in corrupt
practices in misusing the official position diverting the
CNNL Funds and other corrupt practices has been
proved by the petitioners and wrong declarations
suppressing the material facts, non filing the income
taxes, not declaring the proper income, assets and
liabilities and non disclosure of his income from the
Chennambika Convention Hall, amount spent on
construction on Chennambika Convention Hall, partner
in the said Chennambika Convention Hall, profit from
the Chennambika Convention Hall, it was brought to the
notice by the petitioner in E.P.No.1/2019 by way of
objection, but the Returning Officer / Deputy
Commissioner accepted the nomination of the
respondent No.1 is improper and illegal, thereby the
nomination paper of the respondent No.1 ought to have
rejected by the Returning Officer, but it is not done by
the Returning Officer and the petitioner were successful
in proving the fact and the affidavit Form No.26 of the
respondent No.1 is not in accordance with law.
Therefore, the acceptance of the nomination is liable to
be set aside. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.7 in
E.P.No.1/2019 and Issue No.1 in E.P.No.2/2019 in the
AFFIRMATIVE in favour of the petitioners and against
respondent No.1.
117. Issue No.11 in E.P.No.2/2019
Whether the petitioner proves that the
discrepancies in the information given by the
respondent No.1 is a corrupt practice and the
same has affected the free exercise of courts
by the voters?
In view of my findings in respect of Issue Nos.1, 2
and 5 against the respondent that the nomination of the
respondent is in contravention of the Section 33 of the
R.P. Act, non disclosure of material facts required to be
mentioned in Form No.26 which amounts to violation of
Sections 33 to 36 and 100 of R.P. Act and the
information given by the respondent regarding various
defects like assets and liabilities, bank accounts, details
of sources of income etc. in the affidavit Form No.26
and not giving proper information to the voters in order
to know about their candidates for voting or for free
exercise of votes by the voters.
118. The learned counsel for the petitioner in
E.P.No.1/2019 relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of KRISHNAMURTHY Vs.
SHIVAKUMAR AND OTHERS reported in (2015) 3
SCC 467, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
concealment or suppression of fact regarding criminal
cases and non disclosure of material facts will create an
impediment in the free excise of electorate. Non
disclosure of the fact amounts to undue influence and
therefore, election is to be declared as null and void.
119. The learned counsel also relied upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
LOKPRAHARI THROUGH GENERAL SECRETARY
S.N.SUKLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
reported in (2018) 4 SCC 699, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held the contesting candidate shall furnish
the information regarding sources of income and their
associates which would help the voters to make
informed choice and hence, is a part of fundamental
right which required to be informed under Form No.26.
The non disclosure of assets and sources of income of
candidates and their associates which constitute corrupt
practice amounting to undue influence since it is
attempt to suppress, misguide and keep people in the
dark.
120. In another judgment in the case of KISAN
SHANKAR KATHORI Vs. ARUN DATTATREY
SAWANTH AND OTHERS reported in (2014) 14 SCC
162, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also held article
19(1a) of the Constitution of India, the voters right to
know assets and liabilities of contesting candidate and
non disclosure in respect of share in the firm is serious
and major lapse. The affidavit given by the candidates
in the Nomination form, material information about the
assets was not disclosed, the election of the candidate
has to be set aside.
121. Learned counsel for the petitioner in
E.P.No.2/2019 also relied upon the same judgments of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Here in this case, the
petitioner not disclosed the all assets and liabilities
evading the income tax, borrowing loans, income from
the Chennambika Convention Hall, expenditure on the
construction, market values on the assets of landed
properties were all not properly discloses. Balance in
the bank account also not disclosed were all a corrupt
practice and not informed the true facts to the voters to
exercise their votes, thereby, the voters were kept in
dark and which was affected exercising of their votes in
favour of the petitioner. Hence, answered Issue No.11
in AFFIRMATIVE in favour of the petitioner and
against the respondent No.1.
122. Issue No.11 in E.P.No.1/2019
Whether the petitioner proves that
respondent No.1 has suppressed the true
income, assets and liabilities in Form
No.26 which violates Section 33 A of the
R.P. Act and Rule 4A of Conduct of
Election Rules and furnished false
information which amounts to the
corrupt practice in terms of Section 123
of the R.P. Act, thereby election of
respondent No.1 of Hassan (General
Parliamentary Constituency) and result
declared on 23.5.2019 is held to be void
under Section 98 and Section
100(1)(d)(i) of R.P. Act?
and
Issue No.6 in E.P.No.2/2019
Whether the petitioner proves that
non disclosure of material required in
Form No.26 as contemplated in the
guidelines issued by Election Commission
in the year 2006 amounts to violation of
Sections 33 to 36 and 100(1)(d)(i)(iv) of
R.P. Act?
The above said issues in both the cases are
similar, hence, taken the same for discussion in order to
avoid the repetition. The learned senior counsels for
the petitioners in both cases has contended that the
respondent No.1 has not disclosed the assets and
liabilities, sources of income and in spite of raising
objection by the petitioner and before the Returning
Officer, the Returning Officer without considering the
same, wrongly accepted the nomination of respondent
No.1. It is further contended that respondent No.1 also
involved in corrupt practices including the proxy voting,
suppressing the material facts, furnishing the wrong
and incorrect information and violated the Conduct of
Election Rules and Section 33A of the R.P. Act, thereby,
the election of respondent No.1 shall be declared as
void under Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) of R.P. Act.
123. For the convenience, the provisions of
Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the R.P. Act are referred as
under:
(i) by improper acceptance or any
nomination or
(4) by any non compliance with the
provisions of Constitution or of this Act or of
any Rules or Orders made under this Act.
The High Court shall declare the
election of the returning candidate to be void.
124. The petitioners in both the cases are
successful in proving the fact that respondent No.1 has
not disclosed the real assets and liabilities, the value of
the properties, the income from the business of
Chennambika Convention Hall. Further, the father of
respondent No.1 misused the official position as District
In-charge Minister diverting the CNNL fund to various
other development projects by taking advantage of the
uncle of respondent No.1 - the then Chief Minister, who
was the Chairman of CNNL and involved in corrupt
practices including booth capturing, proxy voting,
inducing the voters by using the religion and carrying
the money for distributing to the voters which was
seized by the flying squad, non-declaring the
expenditure of election and other various issues against
respondent No.1 and also not giving proper information
to the voters in order to make the voters to know about
the candidates in free exercise of their votes and
answering issue Nos.1, 2, 5 and 11 against respondent
No.1 in E.P. No.2/2019 and issues proved by the
petitioner in E.P.No.1/2019 against the respondent
No.1, are all proved by the petitioners by examining the
petitioners themselves as witnesses and also examining
the income tax officials, bank managers, CNNL Director,
and various other witnesses almost 23 witnesses
thereby, both the petitioners successfully proved that
respondent No.1 violated Section 33A of R.P. Act and
involved in corrupt practices and violated the
provisions and Rules under this Act. Thereby, the
election of respondent No.1 shall be declared as void.
Hence, answered the above Issue No.11 in E.P.
No.1/2019 and Issue No.6 in E.P. No.2/2019 in the
AFFIRMATIVE in favour of the petitioner and as
against respondent No.1.
125. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for
respondent No.1 has relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MARKIO TADO
V. TAKAM SORANG reported in (2013)7 SCC 524
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the
booth capturing involves the use of force, whereas
impersonation or double voting is on the basis of
deception and the said ground was not pleaded in the
petition nor was any issue framed thereon for trial.
But, herein this case, the petitioner in E.P. No.2/2019
has pleaded that the respondent No.1, his father, who
was the In-charge Minister of the district, his mother
and grand parents were all inside the polling booth and
not allowed the public to cast their votes, but taking
some proxy voters through a gunman and another
person carrying fake voter I.D. cards, got casted the
proxy votes in booth No.244. The same has been
pleaded in the petition and in this regard, issue No.5
was framed in E.P.No.2/2019 and the same was proved
by the petitioner by examining the witnesses, the
Returning Officers, Deputy Commissioner and by
producing photographs, C.Ds., hard disc (M.O. Nos.1 to
3) and thereby, this Court has already answered the
said issue in favour of the petitioner and against
respondent No.1. Therefore, the said contention of the
learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, is not
acceptable.
126. The learned Senior Counsel for the
respondent No.1 also relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of LIFE
INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND
ANOTHER VS. RAMPAL SINGH BISEN reported in
2010 (4) SCC 491 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that mere filing or exhibiting a document in
Court does not amount to proof of its contents, and
admission of a document in court may amounts to
admission of its contents but not their truth, and further
held that the documents having been produced and
marked as required under the Evidence Act cannot be
relied upon by this Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
has also held that failure to prove the defence does not
amount to an admission and failure to prove the
defence does not reverse or discharge the plaintiff's
burden of proof. There is no second opinion in respect
of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the said case. Here, in these cases, the
petitioners have pleaded in the petitions about the
corrupt practices by respondent No.1, and accepting the
nomination of the respondent No.1 was improper and
they the petitioners themselves lead the evidence and
also examined 22 witnesses and produced the
documents and material objects, thereby they are
successful in proving the issues framed by this Court.
Therefore, the aforesaid judgment will not come to the
aid of respondent No.1.
127. Issue No.3 in E.P. No.2/2019:
"(3) Whether the petitioner proves that as on
the date of the election, respondent No.1 was
not eligible and qualified to be chosen to fill the
seat of No.16 Hassan Parliamentary
Constituency?"
The petitioner has contended that as on the date
of election, respondent No.1 was not eligible and
qualified to be chosen to fill the seat No.16 of Hassan
Parliamentary Constituency. This Court already held in
issue No.1 against the respondent No.1 that there
objection was raised by the petitioner regarding
suppression of material fact, non declaration of income
tax, not disclosing the assets and liabilities, suppressing
the value of the landed properties in the nomination
paper. The very acceptance of the nomination by the
Returning Officer has held as illegal in issue No.1.
Respondent No.1 purchased the landed properties in
the year 2009 by paying the crores of rupees without
source of income and evaded the taxes. Though an
objection was raised by the contesting candidate-
petitioner in E.P.No.1/2019 in this regard, the Returning
Officer accepted the nomination paper. Even otherwise,
the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has
contended that the very nomination paper was not
attested and signed by the petitioner in the declaration
form and it was kept blank, and also issue No.11 is
answered against respondent No.1 and in favour of the
petitioner. Even though respondent No.1 was not
eligible and qualified to be chosen to fill the Hassan
parliamentary constituency. In spite of it, the Returning
Officer accepted the nomination. Thereby the petitioner
is successful in proving the said issue. Hence,
answered Issue No.3 in E.P.No.2/2019 in the
AFFIRMATIVE.
128. Issue No.4 in E.P. No.2/2019:
(4) Whether the petitioner proves that
the result of the election so far as
respondent No.1 is concerned has been
materially affected by improper
acceptance of his nomination?
The petitioner has contended that the result of
the election of respondent No.1 has been materially
affected by improper acceptance of his nomination. In
this regard, the petitioner lead the evidence as P.W.1
and raised objections regarding the suppression of
material facts, wrong disclosure of the assets and
liabilities, non payment of taxes, wrong market value
declared in the nomination form, not declaring the
liabilities as well as income, expenditure and loans and
in spite of raising the objection by the contesting
candidate petitioner in E.P. No.1/2019, the Returning
Officer accepted the nomination paper. This Court has
already held issue No.1 in E.P.No.2/2019 and issue
No.7 in E.P.No.1/2019 against the respondent No.1. In
view of the illegal acceptance of the nomination of
respondent No.1, the result of the election was
materially affected. The nomination of respondent No.1
if rejected by the Returning Officer, the petitioner in
E.P.No.1/2019 would have been returned candidate in
parliamentary Hassan constituency and because of
acceptance of the nomination of respondent No.1, the
result of the election has been affected. Hence,
answered Issue No.4 in E.P.No.2/2019 in the
AFFIRMATIVE.
129. Issue Nos.8 in E.P. No.2/2019:
"8. Whether the petitioner proves that
the votes counted in favour of
respondent No.1 should be treated as
wasted votes (thrown away votes) and
reception of the said votes in favour of
respondent No.1 and counting the same
is his favour is void?"
The petitioner has contended that in view of
accepting the improper nomination of respondent No.1
by the Returning Officer, respondent No.1 involved in
corrupt practices like amount carried for distribution of
voters, spending huge election expenditures,
suppressing material facts, booth capturing, proxy
votes. Therefore, these corrupt practices were the
cause for getting less votes by the petitioner i.e., A.
Manju in E.P.No.1/2019 who is respondent No.2 in E.P.
No.2/2019.
130. The petitioner is successful in proving all the
issues against respondent No.1 regarding corrupt
practices under Section 123 of the R.P. Act and
improper acceptance of the nomination of respondent
No.1 by the Returning Officer and spending excess
expenditure than the limit fixed by the Election
Commission of India. Even though the respondent No.1
secured 6,76,606 votes more than 1,40,000 as against
the petitioner, who secured 5,35,282 votes, but the
votes secured by the respondent No.1 shall be treated
as the wasted votes and thrown away votes and the
said secured votes and counting those votes in favour
of respondent No.1, is void. Hence, answered issue
No.8 in the AFFIRMATIVE.
131. Issue Nos.7 and 9 in E.P. No.2/2019 and
issue Nos. 10 and 12 in E.P. No.1/2019 and
Recrimination Petition:
Issue No.7 in E.P. No.2/2019
Whether the petitioner proves that the
declaration of respondent No.1 as returned
candidate is void and whether he further
proves that respondent No.2 has to be duly
declared as having been duly elected under
Section 101 of R.P. Act?
Issue No.9 in E.P. No.2/2019
Whether the petitioner proves that
respondent No.2 has secured 5,32,282 number
of valid votes and respondent No.2 has to be
declared as having been duly elected?
Issue No.10 in E.P. No.1/2019
Whether respondent No.1 proves that
the petitioner has also indulged in corrupt
practice by transporting the election materials
unauthorisedly without taking permission of
the Returning Officer and thereby, many cases
were registered by the police and pending
before the various Courts in Hassan District?"
Issue No.12 in E.P. No.1/2019
Consequently, whether the petitioner is
entitled to be declared as elected in place of
respondent No.1 to No.16 Hassan (General
Parliamentary Constituency) as enumerated in
Section 98(c) of the R.P. Act?
These issues are taken together in order to avoid
the repetition.
132. The learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners in both cases strenuously contended that the
votes were secured by the respondent No.1 by way of
illegal and corrupt practices and it is proved by way of
oral and documentary evidence, thereby, the votes
secured by the petitioner in E.P. No.1/2019 is to be
declared as returned candidate as he has been duly
elected as per Sections 98C and 101 of R.P. Act. Of
course, this Court also held and answered the issues
against respondent No.1 regarding proving the illegal
and improper acceptance of nomination, non disclosure
of assets and liabilities, income, avoiding income taxes,
spending expenses more than the limit of Rs.70 lakhs
prescribed by the Election Commission of India.
Therefore, the election of the respondent No.1 should
be declared as void and he should be disqualified.
However, the question is whether the petitioner shall be
declared as a winning candidate of the Hassan
Parliamentary Constituency or not?
133. In this regard, respondent No.1 filed a
Recrimination Petition in E.P. No.1/2019 under section
97 of R.P. Act contending that the prayer of the
petitioner that he shall be declared as the winning
candidate by setting aside the result of the respondent
No.1 as an elected candidate shall not be allowed.
Learned Senior Counsel contended if the election of
respondent No.1 is vitiated, even then, the petitioner is
not entitled for the relief of declaration that he should
be declared as winning candidate for the reason that
the petitioner has also indulged in corrupt practices as
under:
(i) The petitioner also filed false affidavit in Form
No.26 along with nomination paper.
(ii) The petitioner also suppressed the material
facts regarding his income and income of his spouse
and criminal case pending against him.
(iii) The petitioner has contested to the post of
Karnataka Legislative Assembly in Arakalgud
Constituency on 12.5.2019. In the affidavit, he has
declared his income as Rs.11,85,18,249/- and the
income his wife as Rs.10,49,88,112/- in his affidavit.
But in the present nomination paper, he has shown his
income as Rs.12,04,59,322/- and his wife's income
as Rs.2,20,06,488/- for the same assessment year
2017-18.
(iv) The petitioner also not declared the Criminal
Case in PCR No.171/2018-19, C.C. No.420/2018 and
pendency of the appeal before the High Court.
(v) The petitioner has also filed false affidavit
stating that there is no criminal case, but he has
challenged the criminal case by filing Writ Petition
No.16510/2018 pending in the High Court.
(vi) The petitioner has filed false affidavits for the
year 2017-18 regarding his income and pendency of the
cases which is contrary to Section 33A of the R.P. Act
and his nomination attracts Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the
R.P. Act. The petitioner was guilty of wrong information,
suppression of material facts. Therefore, the election of
the petitioner would have been declared as null and
void.
134. Respondent No.1 further contended that
there was meeting held during the election, a case was
registered in Crime No.65/2019 and a case is pending
in Hassan JMFC Court. The respondent No.1 also filed a
complaint before the District Election Officer against the
petitioner for providing free food to the voters and the
petitioner also indulged in distributing the money to the
voters. The cash of Rs.2.00 lakhs was seized in a car
along with pamphlets which is registered in a case in
Crime No.66/2019 pending in Hassan court. Another
case is registered in Crime No.34/2019 in Arsikere court
for distributing the pamphlets, BJP symbol T-shirts, BJP
flags. Therefore, prayed for rejecting the prayer of the
petitioner to be declared as Returned Candidate.
135. In this regard, the respondent No.1 in both
the cases, has given the oral evidence and also
produced the documents Exs.R.1 and R.2 i.e.
nomination filed by petitioner- A. Manju in
E.P.No.1/2019 for the parliamentary election and the
affidavit Form No.26 which is marked as Ex.R.1 and
Ex.R.2 is the nomination filed by the same petitioner in
Arakalgud Karnataka Legislative Assembly constituency
election in the year 2019 and contended that the
affidavits filed in respect of assets and income of the
petitioner and his wife, are the false affidavits. Ex.R.1
reveals the income of the petitioner for the financial
year 2017-18 and as per his declaration, the amount
was Rs.12,04,59,322/- and the said petitioner filed in
the affidavit in the M.L.A. election declaring his income
as Rs.11,86,16,249/- for the same year 2017-18. There
is difference in both the figures and affidavits filed in
the year 2018-19 for the same financial year 2017-18.
Likewise, the income of the wife Thara Manju Gowda,
declared in the parliamentary constituency in Ex.R.1
was shown as Rs.2,20,08,488/- whereas in the M.L.A.
Constituency election in Ex.R.2 the income of his wife
was shown as Rs.10,49,66,112/-. There is more than
Rs.8.00 crores difference in the income of his wife.
Though the petitioner has stated in his evidence that
due to escalation of the price of the assets, he has
mentioned like that, but for the same financial year
2017-18, there cannot be two different figures in the
value of the property or in the income. Therefore, it
clearly reveals that the petitioner A. Manju also filed a
false affidavit before the Election Commission for
contesting the parliamentary election which definitely
falls under the category of Section 100(1)(d) of R.P.
Act, thereby the respondent proved against the
petitioner that petitioner has suppressed the material
facts and filed false affidavit.
136. As regards to another contention that there
are criminal cases pending against the petitioner, the
petitioner has stated that only one case was registered
which was already quashed by the High Court in the
writ petition.
137. On perusal of the evidence of the
respondent and Ex.R.10 which reveals that a criminal
case was registered in Crime No.64/2019 on
10.04.2019 for the offence punishable under Sections
171H and 188 of the R.P. Act, but the petitioner
contested the election by filing nomination on
25.03.2019, which is prior to the registering the FIR in
Crime No.64/2019 and the said case came to be
quashed by the High Court subsequently.
138. However, in Ex.R.11, another FIR was
registered against the petitioner in Crime No.62/2019
on 05.04.2019. Subsequent to the filing nomination
paper, a case in Crime No.66/2019 was registered on
17.04.2019 by Hassan Extension police. Another case in
Crime No.34/2019 at Javagal police was registered on
17.4.2019 and a case in Crime No.65/2019 dated
14.4.2019 by Hassan extension police, a case in Crime
No.171/2018 on 4.4.2018 registered against him by
Hassan city police which was quashed by the High Court
in W.P.No.16510/2018 under Ex.R.9 on 9.8.2021.
Though the other cases were registered after filing of
nomination, but Crime No.171/2018 was registered
during the M.L.A. election which was challenged before
the High Court in the year 2018 and the same was
quashed on 9.8.2021 which means that the said Writ
Petition was pending before the High Court while filing
the nomination paper under Ex.R.1 on 25.3.2019, but
the same was not disclosed by the petitioner which
amounts to suppression of material facts by the
petitioner also. Thereby, respondent No.1 proves that
the petitioner also indulged in corrupt practice and
suppressed the case pending against him. Hence, I
hold that respondent No.1 proved issue No.10 as
against the petitioner in E.P. No.1/2019. Hence, the
said issue in the AFFIRMATIVE in favour of the
respondent No.1 and as against the petitioner in E.P.
No.1/2019.
139. In view of the registering of various cases
against the petitioner during M.L.A. election held in the
year 2018 and subsequently, after filing of the
nomination in the Hassan Parliamentary Constituency
election and he was also involved in corrupt practices
by distributing the BJP symbol caps, T-shirts, 'OM'
symbols, dresses, and seizure of the cash by the flying
squad, there are various cases registered against him
during the Hassan constituency election campaign.
Therefore, even if the respondent No.1 is disqualified in
view of the proving the case by the petitioner, but the
petitioner - A. Manju is also involved in corrupt
practices, suppression of material facts, regarding
income and pending cases, and he also cannot be
declared as returned candidate and he is unfit to be
declared as Returned Candidate of Hassan constituency,
as prayed by the petitioner in his petition in
E.P.No.1/2019 and the prayer cannot be allowed as
prayed under Section 98 C of the R.P. Act. Likewise,
the prayer of the petitioner in E.P. No.2/2019 for
declaring the petitioner [E.P.No.1/2019 (who is the
respondent No.2 in E.P.No.2/2019)] as duly elected
under Section 101 of R.P.Act cannot be granted.
140. Apart from that, it is unfortunate that the
petitioner in E.P. No.1/2019 contested from BJP and has
filed this petition against the respondent No.1 who has
contested from Janatha Dal Secular political party.
When the election petitions were pending and during
the course of final arguments, the election of Karnataka
Legislative Assembly was declared in March 2023, and
the JDS political party offered an MLA ticket to the
petitioner A. Manju, and it was published in the paper.
Hence, the petitioner A. Manju was summoned to the
court along with the counsel and he appeared before
the Court and submitted that the ticket was offered by
the JDS party but he is still in the BJP party, but
subsequently, the petitioner jumped to the JDS Party,
took the ticket for Arakalgud constituency and he was
elected as MLA.
141. It is also seen from the evidence of the
petitioner in E.P. No.2/2019 - Devaraje Gowda, who is a
party worker in BJP and a practicing Advocate who also
contested in the subsequent MLA election under BJP
political party and who has deposed before the court
that the petitioner - A. Manju and himself were working
for the congress political party in Karnataka and they
were opposing the JDS political party and both of them
left the congress party, because the congress party
made an alliance with the JDS party in the year 2018.
Therefore, both of them came to BJP and the petitioner
contested the MP election in the year 2019 at Hassan
constituency as BJP candidate. But the petitioner -
A. Manju forgetting all his previous enmities between
Congress and JDS and intentionally by ignoring the
pending of this election petition, he himself joined to
the JDS party, during the pendency of this petition with
the intention to help respondent No.1 and the petitioner
has shown his hostility towards his party and ignored
the pendency of his own case filed against the
respondent No.1 (belongs to JDS) and he in the lust for
power for the post of M.L.A./M.P. he jumped from one
party to other party. Such a person has no legal right to
declare himself to be elected candidate as Member of
Parliament for Hassan constituency and in view of the
petitioner A. Manju involved in corrupt practice, he is
not deserving candidate to be elected as winning
candidate either under Section 98(c) or 101 of the
R.P. Act. Apart from that, as per the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, when there were only 2
candidates who contested, then only the Court can
declare the petitioner as elected as returned candidate
and not when there were more than 2 candidates.
Herein, in this case, there are more than 2 candidates,
this petitioner and respondent No.1 in E.P.No.1/2019.
In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of MUNIRAJUGOWDA B.M. VS.
MUNIRATHNA AND OTHERS reported in 2020 (10)
SCC 192. Hence, Issue Nos.7 and 9 in
E.P.No.2/2019 and Issue No.12 in E.P.No.1/2019 are
answered in the NEGATIVE against petitioners in both
cases and the relief sought by them to declare the
petitioner A. Manju as the winning candidate is to be
rejected and the Recrimination Petition filed by
respondent No.1 deserved to be allowed.
142. Issue No.12 in E.P. No.2/2019:
Whether the respondent No.1 proves
that the election petition is liable to be
dismissed for non compliance of Section 81(3)
of R.P. Act?
The respondent has filed statement of objections
and also an application for rejecting the petition for
non-compliance and filing the defective election
petition.
143. Though this issue is framed by this Court in
E.P.No.2/2019, but there are no such issues framed in
E.P.No.1/2019. However, respondent No.1 filed
separate interlocutory application for dismissing both
the petitions for non compliance and both the
petitioners had approached Hon'ble Supreme Court and
the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order of
dismissal and remanded the matter back for trial,
however, permitted the respondent to raise grounds in
the trial. Subsequently, this Court took up the case for
trial and framed issues.
144. Respondent No.1 has contended that
Section 81(1) of R.P. Act mandates that the election
petition should be filed within 45 days from the date of
election of the returned candidate, Section 81(3)
specifies every election petition shall be accompanied as
many copies of election petitions and every such copy
shall be attested by the petitioner under his own
signature to be true copies of the petition. Respondent
No.1 further contended that as per Section 83(2) of
R.P. Act, any schedule or annexures to the petition
should also be signed by the petitioner and verified in
the same manner as in the petition. It is further
contended that as per Section 86(1) of the R.P. Act,
that the High Court shall dismiss the election petition
which does not comply the provisions of Sections 81, 82
or 117 of the R.P. Act. It is further contended that
respondent No.1 was declared as returned candidate on
23.5.2019 and the petitions have to be filed within 45
days from 23.5.2019 i.e. on or before 6.7.2019, but the
petitions came to be filed with full of fundamental
defects to the root of the matter. It is also contended
that objection was raised by the office and later, it was
complied. By that time, it was 66 days. Therefore,
petitions are barred by limitation and it cannot be said
that it was filed within 45 days.
145. In support of his contention, the learned
Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 relied upon the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the
judgment of Bombay High Court and the judgments of
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
146. Per contra, learned Senor Counsel for the
petitioner in E.P.No.1/2019 contended that the office
objections are complied as per the time granted by the
court and there is no delay in filing the petition as the
petition was filed within 45 days. and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has already set aside the order of
dismissal on technical grounds. Therefore, prayed for
allowing the petition.
147. The learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner in E.P.No.2/2019 has contended that there is
no delay in filing the petition, the petition was filed on
6.7.2019 and the matter was placed before the Court
and a week's time was granted for complying the office
objections and the office objections were complied as
per the direction of this Court. It is contended that as
per Rule 10 of the Karnataka High Court Rules, the
office can grant 3 days time for curing the defect or the
time granted by the Judge. Accordingly, this Court
granted time and objection was complied by the
petitioner. Therefore absolutely, there is no non-
compliance or defect in the petition. Therefore, on that
ground, the petition cannot be dismissed.
148. Having heard the rival arguments of learned
counsel for the parties, perused the records.
149. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
SATYA NARAIN Vs. DHUJA RAM reported in
1974(4) SCC 237, has upheld the dismissal order
passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court wherein
the said High Court dismissed the petition on the
ground that the requisite number of spare copies of the
petition were not filed and the defect was not cured
within limitation. It is further held that, in the absence
of any provision of the Act or the Rules made there
under, the High Court Rules cannot confer upon
Registrar or Deputy Registrar to permit correction or
removal of defect in a election petition and the petition
presented beyond the limitation. The same view was
taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
SHARIF-UD-DIN Vs. ABDUL GANI LONE reported in
1980(1) SCC 403.
150. The Bombay High Court in the reported case
in 2018 SCC online Bombay 175 in the case of
GILBERT JOHN MENDONCA Vs. NARENDRA
LALCHANDJI MEHTA has held that if the defects are
not cured within 45 days, the election petition is liable
to be dismissed. In the case of LACHHMAN DAS
ARORA Vs. GANESHI LAL reported in 1999(8) SCC
532 and in the case of AJAY GUPTA vs. RAJU
reported in 2016(14) SCC 314, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that the law of limitation has to be
applied with all its vigor, and the Courts and Tribunals
cannot extend the period of limitation in respect of
election petition. In the case of C. KANNAN Vs.
RETURNING OFFICER reported in ILR 1989 KAR
1081, it has been held that if the mandatory
requirements of Section 83(1) and (2) of R.P. Act are
not complied, the election petition is liable to be
dismissed.
151. The learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner in E.P. No.2/2019 contended that there is no
defect in the petition. The learned Senior Counsel for
respondent No.1 has contended that :
(i) Annexures are signed and verified by the
petitioner and there is original signature;
(ii) Every copy of petition to be attested as true
copy by the petitioner under his original signature;
(iii) Annexures to be verified.
152. Though the learned Senior Counsel for
respondent No.1 has contended that the prescribed
security deposit was not made etc., but on perusal of
the petition, it was filed on 6.7.2019 at 12.45 p.m., and
the petitioner produced the certificate of scrutiny and
cost deposit of Rs.2,000/- along with 1+3 copies and 6
copies of respondent.
153. On perusal of the check slip of the office,
which reveals that in respect of presentation along with
the copies, payment of deposit, answered as 'yes' and
the petition was presented as per the Rules.
154. Sl.No.2 also stated as 'yes', petition filed
within the period of limitation.,
Sl. Nos.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 are stated as 'yes'.
Sl. No.9, if any schedule for annexure filed with
petition, if so signed or verified, for that it is stated 'no'
and each page of the annexures to be signed by the
petitioner in the main petition along with 3 copies, for
that it is mentioned by the office that on 19.7.2019, the
petitioner signed and verified all the annexures as per
the date given by this Court.
155. As regards to Sl.No.10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
there is no defect in the petition.
In respect of Sl.No.15 - the signing of the petition
by the petitioner, the office has stated that the
petitioner has complied.
In respect of Sl.No.16, it is also complied.
In respect of Sl.No.17, it is stated that the
affidavit in form No.25 should be filed. For that the
office has endorsed that the affidavit filed along with
the petition itself, therefore, it is complied and thereby,
there is no defect.
Sl.No.18 to 20 stated as 'Yes'.
In respect of Sl.No.21, translation required to be
filed.
156. In respect of other objections, the office
made endorsement that the petitioner has complied all
the office objections and the objections at Sl.Nos.22(3),
22(4), 22(5), 22(6), 22(8), 22(9), 22(10), 22(15) and
22(16) are complied on 15.7.2019 itself.
The office has also endorsed that all the English
translation also filed in respect of Sl.No.14.
157. Rule 10 of The Karnataka High Court
Election Rules, reads as under:
"10. Immediately after the time fixed for the
removal of objections, the petition shall be placed
before the Judge for such orders as may be
required to be passed under section 86 of the Act.
If the petition is not dismissed under sub-
section(1) of section 86 of the Act, a summons on
the direction of the Judge, shall be issued to the
respondents to appear before the High Court on a
date specified in the summons and answer the
claim or claims made in the petition. Such date
shall not be earlier than three weeks from the date
of the issue of the summons. The summons shall
be for written-statement and settlement of issues
and shall be served by sending the summons to the
respondent to the address given by the petitioner
by registered post prepaid for acknowledgement."
On reading of Rule 10 of The Karnataka High
Court Election Rules, it clearly provides that, if any
defect or error, the objection should be brought to the
notice of the party or advocate, and it shall be removed
within 3 days, and thereafter, the office objection shall
be cured within further time as extended by the Judge.
158. In this case, the petitioners have complied
the office objections and on perusal of the order sheet
of this Court, dated 26.07.2019 it is observed as under:
" The office objection relating to
production of full edition of news paper at
Annexures Z1, Z2, Z3 and Z4 is kept open.
All other objections are complied.
Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Perused the petition requirements of
Sections 81 and 82 are satisfied in terms of
Rule 10 of the Election Petition Rules, dated
28.3.1967.
Issue summons to the respondent to
appear before the court on 19.8.2019 in
person or through advocate to answer the
claims made in the petition and also to
submit the written statement and for the
settlement of issues.
List this matter on 19.8.2019."
159. On reading the aforesaid order sheet, the
petitioners have categorically stated that all the
objections are complied, production of news paper is
kept open and after the satisfaction, the summons were
issued. However, subsequently, the respondent filed an
application for dismissal of the petition for non
compliance of office objection and hence, the petition
came to be dismissed, later, the same was set aside by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and remitted the matter
back. Therefore, in my considered view, there is no
defect in the petition under Section 81(3) of the R.P.
Act and the petition cannot be dismissed on the ground
that the petition was barred by limitation. Therefore,
the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for
respondent No.1 cannot be acceptable.
160. Though there is no issue framed in respect
of limitation, but the respondent's counsel argued that
the petition was filed within 45 days and it was filed
with defects. However, the check slip of the office
reveals that there were some errors, but the same was
rectified by the petitioner's counsel within the
prescribed time and subsequently, this Court held on
26.7.2019 that the petitioner complied the office
objection and the petition is in accordance with
requirements of Sections 81 and 82 of R.P. Act and in
terms of Rule 10 of Election Petition Original Rules
(28.3.1967). Therefore, summons were issued to
respondents. Subsequently, the petition came to be
dismissed by this Court and the same was set aside by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP and remanded the
matter back. Therefore, the petition cannot be
dismissed as barred by limitation.
161. The learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner in E.P.No.2/2019 has relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
CHANDRAKANT UTTAM CHODANKAR VS.
DAYANAND RAYU MANDRAKAR AND OTHERS
reported in AIR 2005 SC 547, wherein, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that copies of alleged election
petition have been supplied by the Registry of High
Court to the learned counsel for the respondent /
Returned candidate were one which were not submitted
by the Election petitioners for service of copies supplied
and rejection of the Election petition is not correct,
when the true copies of the same were duty supplied to
the respondent. It is also held that a defective
verification is not fatal to the maintainability of the
petition. Therefore, the Election Petition cannot be
dismissed on the ground that there was defect in the
petition.
162. Though the learned Senior Counsel for
respondent No.1 relied upon various judgments in
respect of the merits of the case that without pleading,
no amount of evidence can be looked into, the booth
capturing shall be proved beyond reasonable doubt,
etc., but this Court found that there is pleading and
evidence, both oral as well as documentary in order to
show that there was corrupt practice, suppression of
facts and non payment of taxes, and various allegation
made in the petition has been proved by the petitioner
especially in E.P. No.2/2019. Therefore, the arguments
of learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 cannot
be acceptable for dismissing the petition. Hence
answered the Issue No.12 in E.P.No.2/2019 in the
NEGATIVE.
163. The learned Senior counsel for the
respondent has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of R.P.MOIDUTTY VS.
P.T.KUNJU MOHAMMAD AND ANOTHER reported in
(2000) 1 SCC 481, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that the election of the successful candidate is
not to be set aside lightly until the case was proved by
the petitioners in accordance with law.
164. In another judgment in the case of M.J.
JACOB VS. A.NARAYANAN AND OTHERS reported in
(2009) 14 SCC 318, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that the mandate of the people has
expressed in the election results must be ordinarily
respected by Courts and the election of successful
candidates should not be likely set aside.
165. In another judgment in the case of THE
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VS. C.
PADMA AND ANOTHER reported in (2003) 7 SCC
713 that the burden of proof of corrupt practice is
heavy on the petitioner.
166. Another judgment in the case of GAJANAN
KRISHNAJI BAPAT AND ANOTHER VS. DATTAJI
RAGHOBAJI MEGHE AND OTHERS reported in
(1995) 5 SCC 347, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that onus heavily on the petitioner to
establish charge of corrupt practice and burden of proof
is on the petitioner.
167. In another judgment in the case of PRADIP
BURAGOHAIN VS. PRANATI PHUKAN reported in
(2010) 11 SCC 108, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that the charge of corrupt practice like criminal
charge must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
168. In another judgment in the case of JOSEPH
M PUTHUSSERY VS. T.S.JOHN AND OTHERS
reported in (2011) SCC 503, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that an election trial where
corrupt practice is alleged to be conducted as a criminal
trial and hence, standard of proof beyond reasonable
doubt needs to be adopted.
169. In another judgment in the case of RAHIM
KHAN VS. KHURSHID AHMED AND OTHERS
reported in (1974) 2 SCC 660, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that danger of believing oral
evidence in an Election Petition and its face value
without backing of sure circumstances and indubitable
document is required to be emphasized.
170. On perusal of the principle laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said cases and
here in this case, petitioners in both the cases have lead
oral evidence as well as documentary evidence along
with the material objects by examining election officials,
Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax officials and others
along with the certified copies of the public documents
and proved the issues framed by the Court in respect of
corrupt practices as well as more expenditures, proxy
voting, non disclosure of material facts in the
nomination form, giving wrong information, avoiding
taxes were all proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Therefore, the above said judgments are helpful to the
petitioners' case rather than the respondent.
171. In view of my findings in issues in both the
cases answered against the respondent No.1 and in
favour of the petitioners that the petitioners have
proved the issues framed by the Court and the corrupt
practices of the respondent No.1 in the Hassan
Parliamentary Election regarding non disclosure of
material facts, wrong disclosure of the value of the
properties, evading taxes, proxy voting, exorbitant
expenditures than the limit prescribed by the Election
Commission of India, wrong acceptance of nomination
paper by the Returning Officer. The election of the
returned candidate / respondent No.1 is liable to be set
aside as prayed by the petitioners in both the cases.
172. However, in view of the respondent No.1
proving the fact that the petitioner in E.P.No.1/2019
also involved in corrupt practices in Recrimination
Petition and he is also not deserving as declared as
returned candidate, therefore, even the respondent
No.1 once election declared as void, but the petitioner-
A.Manju in E.P.No.1/2019 cannot be declared as
returned candidate.
173. In respect of the prayer of the petitioner in
E.P.No.2/2019 that due to the corrupt practice
committed by H.D.Revanna and Suraj who are the
father and brother of respondent No.1 who were also
involved in the corrupt practices for helping the
respondent No.1 in electing him as returned candidate
in which the petitioner successful in proving that
H.D.Revanna, father of the respondent No.1 involved in
corrupt practice by diverting the funds allocated to
Cauvery Neeravari Nigama Limited by misusing his
official position as District In-charge Minister of Hassan
District and the uncle of respondent No.1-
H.D.Kumaraswamy, the then Chief Minister of the State
and Chairman of the Cauvery Neeravari Nigama Limited
also diverted the fund towards the other developments
in the District were all helped the respondent No.1 for
getting elected by the voters. Apart from that, H.D.
Revanna also actively participated in proxy voting at
Booth No.244 of Padavalahippe Village and casted the
votes in favour of the respondent No.1. It is also
corrupt practice which was proved by the petitioner in
E.P.No.2/2019. However, the petitioner not named H.D.
Kumaraswamy or the mother of the respondent Bhavani
Revanna in the prayer, but there were averments in the
petition as well as in the evidence both oral as well as
documents apart from the CCTV Footage and Hard Disc
were all shows the family members of the respondent
No.1 involved in the corrupt practices. Therefore,
H.D.Revanna involved in throughout corrupt practices in
helping respondent No.1, who is his son and the others
are all having little role to play. Therefore, it is
necessary to issue notice to H.D.Revanna and Suraj
Revanna to show cause as to why they should not be so
named as per Section 99(a)(ii) of R.P. Act in
E.P.No.2/2019.
174. In view of the above discussions and
findings on the issues, I proceed to pass the following
order:
(i) Both the election petitions filed by the
petitioners in E.P. No.1/2019 and 2/2019 are allowed in
part.
(ii) The election of returned candidate
respondent No.1 namely, Prajwal Revanna @ Prajwal R,
Member of the Parliament Constituency-16 Hassan
(General) having been declared as returned candidate
dated 23.05.2019 as per Form No.21(c), is hereby
declared as null and void.
(iii) The Recrimination Petition filed by
respondent No.1 in E.P. No.1/2019 is allowed.
(iv) The prayer of the petitioners in both cases
to declare Sri A. Manju, the petitioner in E.P.
No.1/2019, as returned candidate, is rejected in view of
the findings that, he himself involved in corrupt
practices.
(v) Sri H.D. Revanna and Sri Suraj Revanna are
named in terms of Section 99(1)(a)(2) of R.P. Act for
having committed corrupt practice at the time of
election and also Sri A. Manju, the petitioner in E.P.
No.1/2019, who is also involved in corrupt practice.
(vi) Issue notices to Sri H.D. Revanna and Sri
Suraj Revanna in terms of Proviso (a) to Section
99(a)(ii) of R.P. Act.
(vii) Registry to comply with the mandate under
Rule 19 of Election Petitions Procedure Rules,
Karnataka, by sending copy of this order to the Election
Commission and the Hon'ble Speaker of the House of
Parliament.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AKV/CS/GBB
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
PETITIONER
P.W.1 : Sri. A Manju (In E.P. No.1/2019)
&
Sri. G. Devaraje Gowda (In E.P. No.2/2019)
P.W.2 : Sri. R Girish
(In E.P. Nos.1/2019 & 2/2019)
P.W.3 : Sri. Kiran C.
(In E.P. Nos.1/2019 & 2/2019)
P.W.4 : Smt. Ambika Patel G.P.
(In E.P. Nos.1/2019 & 2/2019)
P.W.5 : Sri Sathish Kishore K
(In E.P. Nos.1/2019 & 2/2019)
P.W.6 : Sri Sathyan S
(In E.P. No.2/2019)
P.W.7 : Sri Shivanna S
(In E.P. No.2/2019)
P.W.8 : Sri. B.M. Mohan Kumar Pandit
(In E.P. Nos.1/2019 & 2/2019)
P.W.9 : Smt. V. Annapoorna
(In E.P. Nos.1/2019 & 2/2019)
P.W.10 : Sri. N. Tejesh Kumar
(In E.P. Nos.1/2019 & 2/2019)
P.W.11 : Dr. Abhinav Pitta
(In E.P. Nos.1/2019 & 2/2019)
P.W.12 : Sri. Praveen Sinha
(In E.P. Nos.1/2019 & 2/2019)
P.W.13 : Sri. N. Nagaraj
(In E.P. Nos.1/2019 & 2/2019)
P.W.14 : Sri. Mayanna
(In E.P. Nos.1/2019 & 2/2019)
P.W.15 : Sri. Yogeesha V
(In E.P. Nos.1/2019 & 2/2019)
P.W.16 : Sri. Gurumurthy M.S
(In E.P. No.2/2019)
P.W.17 : Sri. A.E. Venugopal
(In E.P. No.2/2019)
P.W.18 : Sri. Shankare Gowda
(In E.P. No.2/2019)
P.W.19 : Smt. Archana M.S.
(In E.P. No.2/2019)
P.W.20 : Sri. Nataraj Dodmani
(In E.P. No.2/2019)
P.W.21 : Sri. Logan P.
(In E.P. No.2/2019)
P.W.22 : Sri. K.N. Channegowda
(In E.P. No.2/2019)
P.W.23 : Sri. B.V. Mallikarjunaiah
(In E.P. No.2/2019)
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
RESPONDENTS
R.W.1 : Sri. Prajwal Revanna
(In E.P. Nos.1/2019 & 2/2019)
R.W.2 : Sri Nagin Chand Kincha
(In E.P. Nos.1/2019 & 2/2019)
R.W.3 : Sri G. Ramakrishnan
(In E.P. Nos.1/2019 & 2/2019)
List of documents on behalf of the petitioner
in E.P. No.1/2019
Ex.P.1 : Certified copy of Affidavit (Form No.26) of
Respondent No.1
Ex.P.2 : Certified copy of the written objection
dated 27.03.2019
Ex.P.2(a) : Certified copy of Company Master data
pertaining to M/s. Adikarah Ventures LLP
Ex.P.2(b) : Certified copy of Certificate of
incorporation (Form 16) of M/s. Drone
Work Force LLP
Ex.P.3 : Certified copy of the report of the
returning officer dated 27.03.2019
Ex.P.4 : The acceptance of nomination of
Respondent No.1 dated 27.03.2019
Ex.P.5 : Certified copy of the report of Deputy
Commissioner dated 12.11.2020
Ex.P.5(a) : Certified copy of details of non disclosure
of partnership form in respect of M/s.
Adikarah Ventures LLP and M/s. Drone
Work Force LLP - (Annexure-B)(i)
Ex.P.5(b) : Certified copy of details of movable assets
of Respondent No.1 - (Annexure-B)(ii)
Ex.P.5(c) : Certified copy of details of immovable
assets and its value at the time of
purchase by Respondent No.1 -
(Annexure-B)(iii)
Ex.P.5(d) : Certified copy of value of the property at
the time of filing nomination of
Respondent No.1 - (Annexure-B)(iv)
Ex.P.6 : Certified copy of Form No.21E dated
23.05.2019
Ex.P.6(a) : Certified copy of Form No.21C
Ex.P.6(b) : Certified copy of Certificate of Election of
respondent No.1 - Form No.22
Ex.P.7 : Certified copy of The reply of the
Karnataka Bank Manager dated
13.06.2019
Ex.P.8 : Certified copy of RTC in respect of Sy.
No.16/3 of Bhavikere, Kasaba Hobli,
Nelamangala Taluk
Ex.P.8(a) : Certified copy of RTC in respect of Sy.
No.17/2 of Bhavikere, Kasaba Hobli,
Nelamangala Taluk
Ex.P.8(b) : Certified copy of RTC in respect of Sy.
No.13/2 of Bhavikere, Kasaba Hobli,
Nelamangala Taluk
Ex.P.8(c) : Certified copy of RTC in respect of Sy.
No.3/1 of Srirampura, Kasaba Hobli,
Mysore
Ex.P.8(d) : Certified copy of RTC in respect of Sy.
No.3/3 of Srirampura, Kasaba Hobli,
Mysore
Ex.P.8(e) : Certified copy of encumbrance certificate
produced in respect of properties of
respondent No.1 dated 03.06.2019
Ex.P.8(f) : Certified copy of encumbrance certificate
produced in respect of properties of
respondent No.1 dated 25.05.2019
Ex.P.8(g) : Certified copy of encumbrance certificate
produced in respect of properties of
respondent No.1 dated 24.06.2019
Ex.P.8(h) : Certified copy of encumbrance certificate
produced in respect of properties of
respondent No.1 dated 18.06.2019
Ex.P.8(i) : Certified copy of Notification dated
01.01.2019 produced by P.W.1
Ex.P.8(j) : Certified copy of Guidance value of the
properties issued by Sub-Registrar,
Holenarasipura, dated 16.09.2020
Ex.P.8(k) : Certified copy of Guidance value of the
properties issued by Sub-Registrar,
Nelamangala, dated 05.10.2020
Ex.P.8(l) : Certified copy of Guidance value of the
properties issued by Sub-Registrar,
Mysore, dated 30.09.2020
Ex.P.8[l(a)] : Signature of Sub-Registrar, Mysore
District, Mysore
Ex.P.8(m) : Certified copy of Guidance value of the
properties issued by Sub-Registrar,
Hassan, dated 16.09.2020
Ex.P.9 : Certified copy of the assets and liabilities
declaration filed Sri.H.D.Revanna dated
30.07.2018
Ex.P.9(a) : Certified copy of assets and liabilities
declaration given to Lokayuktha at
Schedule (V)
Ex.P.9(b) : Relevant entry is at serial No.4 in
Schedule (V)
Ex.P.10 : Copy of document pertaining to M/s.
Adhikara Ventures LLP issued by Deputy
Registrar of Companies, Karnataka dated
23.10.2017
Ex.P.10(a) : Certified copy of Form No.2 in respect of
M/s. Adhikara Ventures LLP dated
08.11.2017
Ex.P.10(b) : Certified copy of optional attachment No.1
dated 19.03.2019
Ex.P.10(c) : Certified copy of LLP Form No.4
(Resignation of Respondent No.1 - M/s.
Adhikarah Ventures LLP)
Ex.P.10(d) : Certified copy of optional attachment No.2
dated 19.03.2019
Ex.P.10(e) : Certified copy of Evidence of Cessation
dated 19.03.2019
Ex.P.10(f) : Certified copy of amended agreement in
respect of M/s. Adhikarah Ventures LLP
Ex.P.11 : Copy of document pertaining to M/s.
Drone Work force LLP issued by Deputy
Registrar of Companies, Karnataka dated
13.10.2017
Ex.P.11(a) : Certified copy of Form No.2 in respect of
M/s. Drone Work Force LLP dated
24.10.2017
Ex.P.11(b) : Certified copy of optional attachment No.1
dated 19.03.2019
Ex.P.11(c) : Certified copy of LLP Form No.4
(Resignation of Respondent No.1 - M/s.
Drone Work Force LLP)
Ex.P.11(d) : Certified copy of optional attachment No.2
dated 19.03.2019
Ex.P.11(e) : Certified copy of Evidence of Cessation
dated 19.03.2019
Ex.P.11(f) : Certified copy of amended agreement in
respect of M/s.Drone Work Force LLP
Ex.P.12 : Certified copy of the account extract
issued by Karnataka Bank Ltd. dated
21.07.2022
Ex.P.12(a) : Seal and Signature of P.W.5
Ex.P.13 : Certified copy of certificate by Bank
Manager, Karnataka Bank Ltd. dated
22.07.2022
Ex.P.13(a) : Seal and Signature of P.W.5
Ex.P.14 : Certified copy of the Gazette Notification
dated 01.01.2019 produced by P.W.8
Ex.P.14(a) : Certified copy of the relevant entry in
respect of value of land in Sy.No.3
situated at Srirampura Village, Mysore
(Sl.No.306 at page No.242)
ANNEXURE
List of documents on behalf of the petitioner
in E.P. No.2/2019
Ex.P.1 : Copy of the Voters List
Ex.P-1(a) : The name of petitioner-Sri Devaraje Gowda is in
the copy of the voters list.
Ex.P-1(b) : Copy of Voter I.D. card of
petitioner-Sri Devaraje Gowda
Ex. P-2 : Certified copy of Form No.21C
Ex.P-3 : Certified copy of objection dated 27.03.2019
filed by the petitioner - A. Manju
Ex.P-4 : Certified Copy of acceptance of nomination
(Form No.2A) of Respondent No.1
Ex.P-5 : Certified Copy of the Affidavit (Form No.26) of
Respondent No.1
Ex.P-5(a) : Certified copy of details in respect of investment
made in the Bonds, debentures/shares etc. by the
respondent No.1
Ex.P-6 : Copy of Pamphlet
Ex.P-7 : Certified copy of complaint filed to the
Chief Electoral Officer dated 29.04.2019
Ex.P-7(a) : True copy of complaint given to Chief
Electoral Officer dated 17.05.2019
Ex.P-8 : Certified copy of the report of the Deputy
Commissioner dated 17.05.2019
Ex.P-9 : Certified copy of the report of Deputy
Commissioner dated 12.11.2020
Ex.P-9(a) : Certified copy of Annexure-B(i) in the
report of Deputy Commissioner dated 12.11.2020
Ex.P-9(b) : Certified copy of Annexure-B(ii) in the
report of Deputy Commissioner dated 12.11.2020
Ex.P-9(c) : Certified copy of Annexure-B(iii) in the report of
Deputy Commissioner dated 12.11.2020
Ex.P-9(d) : Certified copy of Annexure-B(iii) in the
report of Deputy Commissioner dated 12.11.2020
Ex.P-10 : Copy of Sale deed dated 15.09.2010
Ex.P-10(a) : Typed copy of Sale deed dated 15.09.2010
Ex.P-11 : Copy of Sale deed dated 15.09.2010
Ex.P-11(a) : Typed copy of sale deed dated 15.09.2010
Ex.P-12 : Certified copy of RTC in Sy.No.9/7
Ex.P-12(a) : Certified copy of RTC in Sy.No.16/4
Ex.P-13 : Certified copy of RTC in Sy.No.16/3
Ex.P-13(a) : Certified copy of RTC in Sy.No.13/2
Ex.P-13(b) : Certified copy of RTC in Sy.No.17/2
Ex.P-13(c) : Certified copy of RTC in Sy.No.3/1
Ex.P-13(d) : Certified copy of RTC in Sy.No.3/3
Ex.P-14 : Certified copy of letter dated 27.05.2015 issued
by Town Municipality, Holenarasipura in respect
of Chennambika Convention Hall.
Ex.P-14(a) : Certified copy of license in respect of
Chennambika Convention hall
Ex.P-14(b) : Certified copy of plan of the building in
respect of Chennambika Convention hall
Ex.P-15 : Certified copy of Company Master data
pertaining to M/s.Adhikarah Ventrures LLP.
Ex.P-15(a) : Certified copy of Company Master data
pertaining to M/s.Drona Work Force LL.P
Ex.P-16 : Certified copy of the FIR in Crime No.59/2019
and complaint dated 16.04.2019
Ex.P-17 : Copy of the complaint of Sri Gavirangegowda
Ex.P-17(a) : Copy of acknowledgment dated 14.6.2019
Ex.P-17(b) : Copy of work order issued for the project
of Kaveri Neeravari Nigama Limited (CNNL)
Ex.P-18 : Copy of transcribed version of conversation
between the petitioner-Devaraje Gowda and
Assistant Flying Squad
Ex.P-19 : Certified copy of the letter dated
04.05.2018 issued by the Public Information
Officer
(dictated as - Certified copy of suspension orders
issued by the District Election Officer dated
04.05.2018)
Ex.P-19(a) : Certified copy of suspension orders issued by the
Deputy Commissioner, Hassan District dated
27.04.2019
Ex.P-20 : Certified copy of FIR in Cr. No.41/2019 and
complaint dated 12.04.2019
Ex.P-20(a) : Certified copy of Complaint dated 11.04.2019
Ex.P-20(b) : Certified copy of the Proceedings issued by
the Deputy Commissioner dated 10.04.2019
Ex.P-21 : Copy of FIR in Crime No.24/2019 dated
03.04.2019 along with Complaint
Ex.P-22 : Copy of FIR in Crime No.26/2019 dated
09.04.2019 along with Complaint
Ex.P-23 : Certified copy of expenditure declared by
Respondent No.1
Ex.P-24 : Certified copies of the news paper cuttings of
Vijaya Karnataka dated 16.04.2014
Ex.P-25 : Certified copy of the extract of fixed deposit
details of respondent No.1 produced by witness
No.6 (PW-6)
Ex.P-25(a) : Signature of the witness No.6 (PW-6)
Ex.P-26 : Certified copy of the extract of fixed
deposit details of respondent No.1 produced by
witness No.7 (PW-7)
Ex.P-26(a) : Signature of the witness No.7 (PW-7)
Ex.P-27 : Certified copy of the extract of fixed deposit
details of respondent No.1 produced by witness
No.5 (PW-5)
Ex.P-27(a) : Signature of the witness No.5 (PW-5)
Ex.P-28 : Certified copy of the extract of fixed deposit
details of respondent No.1 produced by PW-5
Ex.P-28(a) : Seal and signature of the witness No.5 (PW-5)
Ex.P-29 : Certified copy of the extract of fixed deposit
details of respondent No.1 produced by PW-10
dated 29.04.2011
Ex.P-30 : Certified copy of ITR for the assessment year
2017-18 in respect of respondent No.1.
Ex.P-30(a) : Signature of P.W.11
Ex.P-31 : Certified copy of ITR for the assessment year
2018-19 in respect of respondent No.1.
Ex.P-31(a) : Signature of P.W.11
Ex.P-32 : Certified copy of ITR for the assessment year
2020-21 in respect of respondent No.1.
Ex.P-33 : Certified copy of ITR in respect of Smt.Bhavani
Revanna for the Assessment year 2018-2019
Ex.P-33(a) : Signature of P.W.11
Ex.P-34 : Certified copy of ITR in respect of Smt.Bhavani
Revanna for the Assessment year 2020-21
Ex.P-34(a) : Signature of P.W.11
Ex.P-35 : Certified copy of ITR in respect of Sri.H.D
Revanna for the assessment year 2009-2010
Ex.P-35(a) : Signature of P.W.12
Ex.P-36 : Certified copy of ITR in respect of Sri.H.D
Revanna for the assessment year 2010-2011
Ex.P-36(a) : Signature of P.W.12
Ex.P-37 : Certified copy of ITR in respect of Sri.H.D
Revanna for the assessment year 2011-2012
Ex.P-37(a) : Signature of P.W.12
Ex.P-38 : Certified copy of ITR in respect of Sri.H.D
Revanna for the assessment year 2012-2013
Ex.P-38(a) : Signature of P.W.12
Ex.P-39 : Certified copy of ITR in respect of Sri.H.D
Revanna for the assessment year 2013-2014
Ex.P-39(a) : Signature of P.W.12
Ex.P-40 : Certified copy of ITR in respect of Sri.H.D
Revanna for the assessment year 2014-2015
Ex.P-40(a) : Signature of P.W.12
Ex.P-41 : Certified copy of ITR in respect of Sri.H.D
Revanna for the assessment year 2015-2016
Ex.P-41(a) : Signature of P.W.12
Ex.P-42 : Certified copy of ITR in respect of Sri.H.D
Revanna for the assessment year 2016-2017
Ex.P-42(a) : Signature of P.W.12
Ex.P-43 : Certified copy of ITR in respect of Sri.H.D
Revanna for the assessment year 2017-2018
Ex.P-43(a) : Signature of P.W.12
Ex.P-44 : Certified copy of ITR in respect of Sri.H.D
Revanna for the assessment year 2018-2019
Ex.P-44(a) : Signature of P.W.12
Ex.P-45 : Certified copy of work details containing in a
booklet issued by Chief Engineer, CNNL.
Ex.P-46 : Covering Letter dated 16.08.2022
Ex.P-46(a) : Signature of P.W.13
Ex.P-47 : Certified copy of Statement of Accounts of
Channambika Convention Hall dated 02.09.2022
Ex.P-48 : Certified Copy of account opening form in respect
of Chennambika Convention Hall along with
Annexures
Ex.P-49 : Certified copy of Statement showing the zonal
grant and expenditure for the month of March
Ex.P-50 : Certified copy of list of Directors - 59th Board
meeting (Cauvery Niravari Nigam Limited) dated
08.07.2017
Ex.P-51 : Certified copy of list of Directors - 61st Board
meeting (Cauvery Niravari Nigam Limited) dated
27.01.2018
Ex.P-52 : Certified copy of grant released by the Finance
Department for the Year 2017-2018
Ex.P-52(a) : Certified copy of grant released by the Finance
Department for the Year 2018-2019
Ex.P-53 : Copy of Certificate of P.W.19 under Section 65B
of Evidence Act
Ex.P-53(a) : Signature of P.W.9
Ex.P-53(b) : Signature of P.W.9
Ex.P-53(c) : Signature of P.W.9
Ex.P-54 : Copy of Prajavani News paper dated 16.04.2019
Ex.P-54(a) : Copy of the relevant page 7B of Prajavani News
paper dated 16.04.2019
Ex.P-55 : Copy of Tax invoice/Bill issued by the Printers
(Mysore) Pvt. Ltd. dated 21.04.2019
Ex.P-56 : Copy of Vijaya Karnataka Newspaper dated
16.04.2019
Ex.P-56(a) : Copy of the relevant page of Vijaya Karnataka
News paper dated 16.04.2019
Ex.P-57 : Copy of Certificate of P.W.21 (under Section 65B
of Evidence Act, 1872)
Ex.P-57(a) : Signature of P.W.21
Ex.P-58 : Copy of Tax Invoice dated 17.04.2019
Ex.P-58(a) : Copy of Advertisement release order dated
15.04.2019
Ex.P-58(b) : Copy of covering letter dated 15.09.2022
Ex.P-59 : Copy of Vijayavani news paper dated 06.04.2019
Ex.P-60 : Copy of Vijayavani news paper dated 15.04.2019
Ex.P-61 : Copy of Vijayavani news paper dated 18.04.2019
Ex.P-62 : Certified copy of receipt dated 05.04.2019 of VRL
Media Limited Receipt
Ex.P-62(a) : Certified copy of tax invoice dated 02.04.2019
Ex.P-62(b) : Certified copy of release order dated 27.03.2019
Ex.P-63 : Certified copy of Kannada Prabha news paper
dated 16.04.2019
Ex.P-64 : Certified copy of tax invoice dated 16.04.2019
Ex.P-64(a) : Certified copy of advertisement Receipt dated
20.05.2019
Ex.P-64(b) : Certified copy of e-mail dated 26.09.2022
Ex.P-64(c) : Certified copy of agency ledger from 05.04.2019
to 16.04.2019
Ex.P-65 : Certified copy of Statement of account
(Karnataka Bank Ltd., Holenarasipura Branch) in
respect of Respondent No.1
Ex.P-65(a) : Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P-66 : Copy of voter's list of Holenarasipura, Hassan
Constituency, booth No.244.
LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
RESPONDENT (R.W.1 - PRAJWAL REVANNA)
in E.P. Nos.1/2019
Ex. R-1 : Certified copy of nomination Form (Form 26) of
Petitioner Sri.A.Manju dated 23.03.2019
Ex. R-1(a) : Certified copy of total income shown in income
tax return for 2017-18 in respect of the petitioner
- A Manju and his wife (Sl. No.5)
Ex.R-2 : Certified copy of nomination Form (Form 26) of
Petitioner Sri.A.Manju dated 18.04.2018
Ex. R-2(a) : Certified copy of total income shown in income
tax return for 2017-18 in respect of the petitioner
- A Manju and his wife
Ex.R-3 : Certified copy of letter of Karnataka Bank Ltd.
Minerva Circle, Bengaluru, dated. 10.10.2019
Ex.R-4 : Certified copy of the order of revocation of the
Suspension passed by the Deputy Commissioner
dated 29.11.2021
Ex.R-4 : Certified copy of the order of revocation of the
Suspension passed by the Deputy Commissioner
dated 29.11.2021
Ex.R-5 : Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 15.09.2010
Ex.R-6 : Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 15.09.2010
Ex.R-7 : Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 15.09.2010
Ex.R-8 : Certified copy of the Will dated 04.12.2009
Ex.R-9 Copy of the order dated 09.08.2021 in Writ
Petition No.16510/2018
Ex.R-10 : Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.64/2019 registered
by Arkalgud Police Station dated 10.04.2019
Ex.R-10(a) : Certified copy of complaint dated 10.04.2019
Ex.R-11 : Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.62/2019 at
Sakaleshpur Police Station dated 05.04.2019
Ex.R-12 : Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.66/2019 at
Hassan Extension Police, dated 17.04.2019
Ex.R-13 : Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.34/2019 at
Hassan Extension Police, dated 17.04.2019
Ex.R-14 : Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.65/2019 at
Hassan Extension Police, dated 14.04.2019
Ex.R-15 : Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.171/2018 at
Hassan Extension Police, dated 04.04.2019
Ex.R-16 : Certified copy of bank statement of Karnataka
Bank Ltd, Minerva Circle upto 07.03.2019.
Ex.R-17 : Certified copy of amended agreement pertaining
to Adhikar Ventures LLP
Ex.R-18 : Copy of amended agreement pertaining to M/s.
Drone Work force LLP
Ex.R-19 : Certified copy of death certificate of
Smt.Nagarathnamma dated 29.01.2010
Ex.R-20 : Certified copy of Partnership Deed dated
16.05.2013
LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
RESPONDENT (R.W.1 - PRAJWAL REVANNA)
in E.P. No.2/2019
Ex.R-21 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 23.11.2009 in
respect of Sy. No.9/1 of Bhavikere village
Ex.R-22 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 23.11.2009 in
respect of Sy. No.9/2 of Bhavikere village
Ex.R-23 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 15.09.2010 in
respect of Sy. No.13/1 of Bhavikere village
Ex.R-24 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 15.09.2009 in
respect of Sy. No.17/1 of Bhavikere village
Ex.R-25 : Certified copy of the partnership deed dated
16.05.2013
Ex.R-26 : Certified copy of Akarbandh document dated
08.12.2009 issued by Tahsildar, Nelamangala
Ex.R-27 : Certified copy of exchange deed dated
09.03.2020
Ex.R-28 : Certified copy of bank statement dated
07.10.2022 issued by Karnataka Bank Ltd.,
Minerva Circle, Bengaluru
Ex.R-29 : Certified copy of Gift Deed dated 22.08.2008
Ex.R-30 : Certified copy of proceedings dated 19.04.2019 of
Deputy Commissioner, Hassan
Ex.R-31 : Certified copy of report of Assistant Returning
Officer, Holenarasipura dated 26.04.2019
Ex.R-32 : Certified copy of abstract of statement of
expenditure of Election
Ex.R-32(a) : Certified copy of relevant entry of the election
expenditures (Sl.No.11 of schedule I)
Ex.R-33 : Certified copy of list of JDS Star Campaigners
dated 22.03.2019
Ex.R-34 : Certified copy of list of Congress Star
campaigners dated 26.03.2019
Ex.R-35 : Certified copy of requisition sought by Chipson
Aviation Company dated 21.05.2019
Ex.R-35(a) : Certified copy of permission letter dated
22.05.2019
Ex.R-36 : Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 30.07.2014
in respect of Sy. Nos.62 and 63 of Gowripura,
Hassan
Ex.R-37 : Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 30.07.2014
in respect of Sy. No.46 and 47 of Gowripura,
Hassan
Ex.R-38 : Certified copy of Gift Deed dated 22.08.2008
Ex.R-39 : Certified copy of parties document 8.8.2008
Ex.R-40 : Certified copy of registered release deed dated
01.12.2011
Ex.R-41 : Certified copy of details of loan produced by
R.W.1 in respect of Sri H.D. Revanna
Ex.R-41(a) : Certified copy of bank statement issued by
Karnataka Bank Ltd. Minerva Circle, Bengaluru
dated 17.11.2022
Ex.R-42 : Certified copy of details of loan produced by
R.W.1 in respect of Smt. Bhavani Revanna
Ex.R-42(a) : Certified copy of bank statement issued by
Karnataka Bank Ltd. Minerva Circle, Bengaluru
dated 16.11.2022
Ex.R-43 : Copy of Break up statement of accounts in
respect of loan transaction produced by R.W.1
Ex.R-43(a) : Certified copy of bank statement issued by
Karnataka Bank Ltd. Minerva Circle, Bengaluru
dated 17.11.2022
Sd/-
JUDGE
AKV/CS/GBB
