Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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.

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.

(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.

(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.