Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.17 seconds)Keshav Laxman Borkar vs Devrao Laxman Anande on 30 September, 1959
The view that we are taking is consistent with the
implication of d. (b) of s. 101. When in an election
petition which complies with s. 84 of the Act it is found at
the hearing that some votes were obtained by the returned
candidate by corrupt practices, the Court is bound to
declare the petitioner or another candidate elected if, but
for the votes obtained by the returned candidate by corrupt
practice, such candidate would have obtained a majority of
votes. In cases falling under cl. (b) of s. 101 the Act
requires merely proof of corrupt practice, and obtaining
votes by corrupt practice: it does not require proof that
the voters whose votes are secured by corrupt practice had
notice of the corrupt practice. If for the application of
the rule contained in cl. (b) notice to, the voters is not a
condition precedent, we see no reason why it should be
insisted upon in all cases under cl. (a). The votes
obtained by corrupt practice by the returned candidate,
proved to be guilty of corrupt practice, are expressly
excluded in the computation of total votes for ascertaining
whether a majority of votes had been obtained by the
defeated candidate, and no fresh poll is necessary. The
same rule should, in our judgment, apply when at an election
there are only two candidates and the returned candidate is
found to be under a statutory disqualification existing at
the date of the filling of the nomination paper.
We are of the view that Keshav Laxamn Borkar's case(1)
was not correctly decided. We. therefore, restore the
order passed by this Court by judgment dated July 19, 1968.
Reddy will pay the costs of the review petition as well as
of the appeal.
The Representation of the People Act, 1951
Section 9A in The Representation Of The People Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
1