Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Mr. Umesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner with reference to the nomination paper as well as the annexure which forms a part Annexure-3 submits that the respondent no.8 has struck off the information regarding his criminal involvement in any case which is a blatant lie. Learned counsel with reference to F.I.R. in Bela P.S. Case No. 127 of 2001 present at Annexure-1 submits that the respondent no.8 was chargesheeted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 325, 379, 353, 332, 333 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosives Substance Act, Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel again with reference to Annexure 2 submits that the cognizance was taken by the Court below on 28.9.2002. He submits that all these relevant information has been suppressed by the respondent no. 8 while filing his affidavit in response to the query so made and which amounts to corrupt practice thus rendering his nomination fit to be rejected. Learned counsel with reference to the impugned order of the Joint Registrar submits that although an issue of ineligibility of the respondent no.8 to contest the election was raised on grounds of his non-disclosure in the nomination form rendering it nullity on the grounds of corrupt practice as held by the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (2015) 3 SCC 467:AIR 2015 SC 1926 (Krishnamoorthy vs. Shivakumar and others) but the Joint Registrar has mis-directed itself and has rejected the election case on completely different ground and even when the petitioner never questioned the election of the respondent no.8 on voter list rather the challenge was specifically on account of suppression in the nomination but the Joint Registrar has perversely dismissed the case.