TMI Blog1956 (10) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been guilty of the corrupt practices specified in paragraphs 8, 9 and 11 and illegal practice specified in paragraph 12 of the petition, and the second respondent (Dr. Srinivasan) has been guilty of the corrupt practices specified in paragraphs 8 and 11 of the petition. The illegal practice specified in paragraph 12 was that mentioned in Section 126(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (XLIII of 1951), hereinafter referred to as the Act . Particulars of the Illegal practice were given in schedule D to the petition. Briefly they were that Dr. John got printed and circulated, circulars having reference to his election which did not bear on their face the name of the printer. Some of the allegations in the petition fell within Section 100, Sub-section (1) of the Act and were relevant to the relief of declaration that the election was wholly void. Other allegations related to each of the returned candidates and fell within Section 100. Sub-section (2) of the Act. 2. The petition was strenuously contested by both the returned candidates. Though it was filed on the 21st July 1954. it was not finally disposed of till 13th April 1956 by an Election Tribunal at Madras ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction in this behalf does not make-any difference. If, as we have now found, the Tribunal was not competent to entertain the petition so far as that relief is concerned, the appropriate writ will, therefore, be a writ of prohibition prohibiting the Election Tribunal from proceeding with the trial of the election petition, so far as relief (b) in paragraph 18 of the petition Is concerned. 3. When the matter went back to the Election Tribunal for trial, apparently on objection taken by Dr. John and Dr. Srinivasan, the Tribunal framed the following issue: Whether in view of the writ of Prohibition in W. A. Nos. 25 and 26 of 1955, the petitioner can claim to rely on the grounds relating to the validity of the election of respondents 1 and 2 for the declaration sought in paragraph 18 (a) of the petition that the election is wholly void and for the finding sought in paragraph 18 (c) of the petition. The Tribunal decided that the decision of the Division Bench did not preclude it from Investigating matters which were germane to prayers (a) and (c) merely because those matters also happened to be germane to prayer (b). It observed: In the above circumstances, and where the writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceeded with the petition and after elaborately dealing with the several, charges made in the petition found that the election petitioner was not entitled to the relief he sought in paragraph 18 (a) of the petition. But on issue 8, which related to the illegal practice, under Section 125(3) of the Act alleged against Dr. John, the Tribunal held against him. The Tribunal found that Dr. John had issued circulars without the name and address of the printer appearing thereon and he was therefore guilty of the Illegal practice set out in Section 125(3) of the Act. The Tribunal therefore made the following order: From our finding on issue 8 it follows that the first respondent (Dr. John) has committed an illegal practice under Section 125(3) of the Act entailing the consequential statutory disqualifications and we record a finding to that effect. The reference here is obviously to Section 140 of the Act which runs thus: 140. Corrupt and illegal practices entailing disqualification:-- (1) The following corrupt or illegal practices relating to elections shall entail disqualification for membership of Parliament and of the Legislature of every State, namely: (a) Corrupt p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the meaning of circular letter or circular is given as notice, advertisement etc. reproduced for distribution. Obviously, the material letters were such circular letters printed for distribution among the voters. We therefore accent the finding of fact that the petitioner, Dr. John, was guilty of the Illegal practice mentioned in Section 125(3) of the Act. 6. Mr. Nambiar's next and more serious contention was that the Election tribunal had no Jurisdiction, to give a finding on issue 8 relating to the said illegal practice. His argument was that as the Division Bench of this court has prohibited the trial of the petition in so far as it pertained to prayer (b) in paragraph 18 of the petition, the Tribunal would have no jurisdiction to enquire into any allegation which was material and relevant only to that relief and which had nothing whatever to do with the other relief. vis, a declaration that the election was wholly void. This contention was pressed upon Balskrishna Aiyar J. who found that there was something to be said for this point of view, but it seemed to him it was not the whole of the matter, because an election petition differed fundamentally from an ordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allegations of any corrupt or illegal practice not necessarily related to the relief claimed by the petitioner. In our opinion this construction is not sound. Sub-section (1) uses the general expression material facts which would include not merely corrupt or illegal practices, but also allegations of improper reception or refusal of votes and any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of the Act or of any rules made under the Act and any mistake in the use of any prescribed form. The facts which the election petition should contain are facts on which the petitioner relies presumably to enable him to obtain the specific relief which he claims. All that Sub-section (2) says is that if and when a corrupt or Illegal practice is alleged certain particulars have to be furnished. That sub-section should not be construed to justify the Inclusion of any corrupt or illegal practice which may have no relation whatever to the relief claimed by the petitioner. To give an obvious instance, a petitioner files an election petition praying that the election of one of three returned candidates may be declared void; can it be contended with success that the petition can c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid: The next question argued was whether an election tribunal can enquire into minor corrupt practice if it is of such a nature that, standing by itself, it could not have been made the basis of an election petition because it could not materially affect the result of the election. We need not go Into that because the question, is purely academic in this case. The allegations about the minor corrupt practice does not stand by itself. There are also allegations about major corrupt practices which require investigation and the minor corrupt practices alleged are reasonably connected with them. Section 143 of the Act is a complete answer to the question of the tribunal's jurisdiction on this point when it is properly seized of the trial of an election petition on other grounds. Whether It could be properly seized of such a trial if this had been the only allegation, or if the minor corrupt practice alleged was not reasonably connected with the other allegations about major corrupt practices, does not therefore arise. As the trial is proceeding on the other matters the Tribunal is bound under Section 143, now that the issue has been raised, also to enquire into the question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nary courts of law. Their duty under Section 99 is: 'Where any charge is made in the petition of any corrupt or Illegal practice having been committed at the election' to record; 'a finding whether any corrupt or Illegal practice has, or has not, been proved to have been committed....and the nature of that corrupt or illegal practice.' Also, 'to give the names of all persons, if any, who have been proved at the trial to have been guilty of any corrupt or illegal practice and the nature of that practice.' Their duty does not end by declaring an election to be void or not, because Section 99 provides that in addition to that: 'at the time of making an order under Section 98 the Tribunal shall also make an order, etc......' A number Of allegations were made in the petition about corruption and illegal practices, undue Influence and bribery. It was the duty of the Tribunal not only to enquire Into those allegations, as it did, but also to complete the enquiry by recording findings about those allegations and either condemn or clear the candidates of the charges made. These observations cannot be understood as Justifying the inclusion of allegations of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In this contention. What may be relevant is the particular circular as a piece of evidence and not the illegal practice itself which consists in the absence of the name and address of the printer on the circular. Indeed, even if the circular had contained the name of the printer, and therefore no illegal practice had been committed, nevertheless, the circular, might be used as evidence in support of the charge' of propaganda. 13. We hold that the Election Tribunal had no jurisdiction to enquire into the charge of the Illegal practice mentioned in Section 125(3) of the Act made against Dr. John. We therefore allow W. P. No. 478 of 1956 and quash that portion of the order of the Election Tribunal which relates to this charge covered by issue 8 and the finding 'that Dr. John had committed an illegal practice under Section 125(3) of the Act entailing the consequential statutory disqualifications. The order for coats made under Section 99(1)(b) of the Act is also quashed. There will be no order as to costs to the petition before us. 14. Mr. Nambar also contended in the alter-native that even accepting the finding of the Election Tribunal that Dr. John was guilty of the Il ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll the date of the coming into force of the Amending Act. In the view we have taken that the Election Tribunal had no jurisdiction to enquire into the charge under Section 125(3) of the Act and the consequential order we have made quashing the finding of the Election Tribunal on this point. It is not necessary for us to decide the question as to the effect of Section 72 of the Amending Act. 16. Nor is it necessary for us to discuss the effect of Section 84 of the Amending Act which excludes the application of the Amending Act to pending elections and pending election petitions, save as otherwise provided in that Act. 17. Writ App. No. 19 of 1956 must be, and is hereby, dismissed on the ground that the appellant sought for a writ of prohibition to which he will not be entitled as the election tribunal has completed the enquiry. This dismissal however docs not mean that we agree with all that is contained in the order of Balakrishna Aiyar J., against which the appeal has been filed. Actually, in dealing with W. P. No; 478 of 1958, we have expressed our dissent from one part of the learned Judge's judgment. The order for costs passed against the appellant will be set asid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
