Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(8) That the offence of bribery at the election had been committed by the respondent and his supporters with his connivance; and (9) That the result of the election had been materially affected by the commission of the offence of bribery by persons other than the respondent.

In addition to these allegations it was alleged that the offence of undue influence had been committed at the election with the connivance of the respondent. In any event the result of the election had been materially affected by the commission of this offence. We will elaborate the pleadings on this point when we come to deal with the issues arising out of that allegation. We have read the judgment prepared by Bhargava, J. He has dealt fully with the issues arising out of the allegations other than the allegation of undue influence and, as we agree with him, it is not necessary to add anything to his reasoning. We may, however, reproduce the issues and the conclusions thereon.

Issues Nos. 9, 9A and 10 in E.P. No. 5/1969

9. Whether the respondent or any other person with his connivance committed the offence of bribery as alleged in paragraph 15 of the petition ?

9A. Whether the allegations in para 15 constitute bribery within the meaning of the Act ?

10. Whether the offence of bribery was committed at the election by any other person without the connivance of the respondent as alleged in paragraph 15 of the petition, and if so, whether it materially affected the result of the election ?

We hold that no offence of bribery was committed in the matter of grant of licence for the Polyester Factory to Swadeshi Cotton Mills.

This leaves Issues Nos. 4 in Election Petition No. 4 and Election Petition No. 5. These read as follows

(a) Whether all or any of the allegations made in paragraphs 8(e) and 13(a) to (m) of the petition constitute in law an offence of undue influence under section 1 8 (1)(a) of the Act ?

(b) that the result of the election has been materially affected (i) by reason that the offence of bribery or undue influence at the election has been committed by any person who is neither the returned candidate nor a person acting with his connivance....

the Supreme Court shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void."

Under s. 18, therefore, the election has to be declared to be void if, amongst other things, undue influence has been committed (i) by the returned candidate himself, (ii) by a person with his connivance or (iii) by any person who is neither the returned candidate nor one having acted with his connivance, if the result of the election has been materially affected. Section 18(2) declares that for the purposes of this section the offences of bribery and undue influence at an election have the same meaning as in Chapter IX-A of the Indian Penal Code.