Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
26. It is further stated in the reply statement that the election petitioner in para 5 of the petition has stated the particulars of commission of corrupt practice by the first respondent on 07.05.2006 and 08.05.2006 with full details of distribution of gratification by whom to whom, where and when and for what purpose and in para 6 of the petition, the petitioner has mentioned the steps taken by him on knowing the commission of corrupt practice including sending of fax message to the Superintendent of Police and to the Election Officers and also sending registered posts. It is further stated by the Election Petitioner that in para 7 of the Election Petition, he has mentioned the material facts with particulars of the commission of corrupt practice by the first respondent by mentioning the place, person, time of the commission of corrupt practice and in para 8, he has specifically pleaded as to the proof of distribution of gratification and in para 9, he has furnished the particulars of the distribution of cell phone and T.V. set by the first respondent. According to the election petitioner, the case pleaded by him is that the corrupt practice was committed by the first respondent himself and the distribution of gifts was by the first respondent and his supporters and on such averments, the question of consent of candidate may not arise and even otherwise, the consent may be either expressed or implied, which is the question of fact to be proved at the time of trial and if the election petitioner is able to satisfy the Court at the time of trial as to a single bribery atleast to a single person, the election petitioner is entitled for the declaration that the election of the first respondent is void.
3. Whether the election petitioner is entitled for a declaration that the election of the first respondent/returned candidate is void.
4.Whether the election petitioner is entitled for a further declaration that he has been validly elected to the Pondicherry Legislative Assembly, from No.26, Tirunallar Assembly Constituency in the election held on 08.05.2006.
5. To what other reliefs the petitioner is entitled to.
ISSUE NOS.1 AND 2:-
29. Mr.D.Rajagopal, learned counsel for the election petitioner, submitted that the first respondent distributed gold nose screws to the voters of Tirunallar Assembly Constituency on 7.5.2006 and 8.5.2006 by way of bribe and requested the voters to vote for him in the election to be held on 8.5.2006 and the petitioner has furnished the names, dates, time and place of commission of corrupt practice mainly in paragraph Nos.5 and 7 of election petition and the material facts and full particulars of the corrupt practice have been set-forth in the petition and the petitioner has adduced oral and documentary evidence including contemporaneous documents with regard to the allegation of bribery and the petitioner has proved the commission of corrupt practice by the returned candidate/first respondent and hence he is entitled for the reliefs sought for in the election petition. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the election petitioner relied on the following decisions of the Supreme Court:-
RAMJI PRASAD SINGH v. RAM BILAS JHA AND OTHERS (AIR 1976 SUPREME COURT 2573) " Para 23. That leaves the second of the two contentions to be considered, namely, that respondent 1's election is vitiated because he attempted to bribe the voters Sri Narain Prasad and Ram Swarath Raut. ......... In the absence of any evidence of unimpeachable nature and particularly in the absence of any contemporaneous complaint in regard to the allegation of bribery, it would be unsafe to accept the bare word of the appellant and his witnesses on such a serious charge. The charge of bribery is quasi-criminal in nature and in a series of cases this Court has held that such a charge must be proved not by a mere preponderance of probabilities but beyond a reasonable doubt. That proof is lacking here."
33. With so much statement of law, we proceed to deal with the issue relating to corrupt practice. The ground of challenge is that the returned candidate/first respondent had committed corrupt practice of bribery in order to secure his election and the election petitioner has averred instances of distribution of golden nose screws by the first respondent and his supporters to the voters in the villages and also the distribution of cell-phones and T.V. Set by them to the voters in the Constituency as bribe requesting the voters to vote for the first respondent and the alleged instances of bribery are taken up for consideration in seriatim.