TMI Blog1953 (11) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , what is contended by the petitioner before us is that the Election Tribunal failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it to determine whether certain corrupt and illegal practices had been committed in the course of the election; and the main contention urged before us by the petitioner, who appeared before us in person, is that one Dahyalal Mehta, who was the full-time Secretary of the District Rural Development Board, Banaskantha, and as such a Government servant, took part in the election and materially helped and assisted the first respondent in the election. 2. There are certain admitted facts to which attention may be drawn. This Dahyalal Mehta performed two separate and independent roles. He was not only the full-time Secr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should have applied its mind to the question as to whether Dahyalal Mehta was an agent of the candidate according to the Election Rules. The expression agent has been defined in the Act itself, and the definition as given in section 70 is that agent includes an election agent, a polling agent and a counting agent and any person who, on the trial of an election petition or of an offence with respect to any election, is held to have acted as an agent in connection with the election with the knowledge or consent of the candidate; and the question is whether Dahyalal Mehta under the circumstances of the case satisfies this definition. 4. Respondent No. 1 was an official Congress candidate. A Propaganda Board was set up to support him a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidered this question and had come to the conclusion that this constitutes major corrupt practice as defined in section 123, serious consequences would have followed, and those consequences are that under section 140 both the candidate and the agent would have been precluded from standing for any election to the Parliament and the Legislature of any State for a period of six years. Also under section 141 both Mehta and respondent No. 1 would have been disqualified from voting at any election for a period of six years. 7. Section 99 provides for the procedure that has got to be followed by the Tribunal in deciding whether a corrupt practice is committed or not. Section 99, so far as it is material, says: At the time of making an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sub-section (1) of section 125, which is to the following effect: (1) The incurring or authorisation by any person other than a candidate or his agent of expenses on account of holding any public meeting, or upon any advertisement, circular or publication, or in any other way whatsoever, for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of the candidate, unless he is authorised in writing so to do by the candidate. 10. Therefore, even assuming that Mehta was not an agent o the candidate, admittedly he spent ₹ 2-13-0 on postage in posting letters to various voters asking them to vote for respondent No. 1; and the case of respondent No. 1, as it seems to have been before the Tribunal, was that he never authorised Mehta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the rejection of ballot papers. 12. The petitioner relied upon Exs. 26 and 28, which, according to him, were countersigned by Shah and Sardarsingh. No evidence was led to prove that in fact those documents had been countersigned by Shah or Sardarsingh. The petitioner points out that those two documents were admitted by the 1st respondent and therefore no proof was called for from him. Now, when a document is allowed to go into the evidence and is admitted by the other side, it does not necessarily mean that the other side admits the countersigning of that document, by certain persons. These letters were written by Dahyalal Mehta and to the extent that Dahyalal Mehta wrote these letters that fact is admitted by respondent No. 1, but i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the point urged before us is not by way of appeal or disputing any finding of the Tribunal. But what has been urged before us, and the view which we have accepted, is that the Tribunal has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under section 99, under which it is obligatory upon the Tribunal to make an order with regard to a corrupt practice or an illegal practice; and, as in our opinion, the Tribunal has not considered the various aspects of the matter and thereby failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it, we are sending the matter back to them asking them to exercise the jurisdiction which in law is vested in it under section 99 and to give the necessary findings under that section. No order as to costs. - - Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
