Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (1.29 seconds)People'S Union For Civil Liberties & Anr vs Union Of India on 16 December, 2003
26. On the other hand, the 1st respondent has denied the
EP No.7/16
-:45:-
aforesaid fact and it is argued that no materials are produced and
sufficient pleadings are not available to prove the aforesaid fact.
According to the 1st respondent, Ext.X1 is an incomplete
document and that apart all the witnesses had clearly indicated
that AW5 was only operating the account. Only the petitioner has
a case that it was a joint account. It is further argued that no
steps were taken to prove the contents of Ext.X3 and how the
transactions had taken place. It is also contended that there was
no specific pleading and the best evidence was not produced.
Reference is also made to judgment of the Apex Court in Peoples
Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) (supra) wherein it was held
that the Election Commission's orders relating to disclosure of
assets and liabilities will still hold good and continue to be
operated. Reference is also made by the learned counsel to the
Hand Book for Returning Officer published during the year 2016,
which is issued by Election Commissioner of India wherein
guidelines are prescribed in the matter relating to rejection of
nomination papers. It is mentioned that the nomination paper can
EP No.7/16
-:46:-
be rejected if the prescribed affidavit has not been filed at all by
the candidate. However if it is filed but is found or considered to
be defective or containing false information the nomination
should not be rejected on the said ground.
Union Of India & Anr vs Assn.Of Unified Telecom S.P.Of ... on 11 October, 2011
Reference is also made in this judgment to Union of India v.
Association for Democratic Reforms and another [AIR 2002
Supreme Court 2112].
Krishnamoorthy vs Sivakumar & Ors on 21 January, 2015
(iii) Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar and others [(2015)
(3) SCC 467]. This judgment is cited for the proposition that
once corrupt practice is proved in an election trial, the High court
is bound to declare election of a returned candidate as null and
void.
Kisan Shankar Kathore vs Arun Dattatraya Sawant & Ors on 9 May, 2014
26. Clause 7 of Form 26 relates to the details of movable assets
which includes bank accounts as well. Petitioner's contention is
that at the time of delivering the affidavit to the Returning Officer,
the true translation of which is marked as Ext.A3, the particulars
of joint account of 1st respondent's spouse in the Federal bank has
not been mentioned. The Apex Court in Kisan Shankar Kathore
(supra), held that the directions issued by the Court and
guidelines by the Election Commission are with the purpose that
the citizens have fundamental right to know about the candidates
contesting the elections. It casts an obligation on the candidates
to furnish information regarding the criminal antecedents,
educational qualifications and the assets held by the candidate,
EP No.7/16
-:44:-
his/her spouse and dependent children. In cases where a detailed
enquiry is needed in regard to whether a nomination should be
accepted or not, it would depend upon the outcome in an election
petition to ascertain whether the nomination was properly
accepted or it was a case of improper acceptance. If it is found
that it was a case of improper acceptance as there was
misinformation or suppression of material information, one can
only state that the question of rejection in such a case was only
deferred to a later date and when the Court gives such a finding,
the election becomes void as the candidate was not entitled to
contest the election. It is in this background that the petitioner
had contended that non disclosure of the aforesaid account in the
affidavit of the first respondent in Form 26 has resulted in
improper acceptance of the nomination. Petitioner has a case that
on having come to know about the existence of the bank account
maintained by the spouse of the returned candidate, he had filed
counter affidavit before the Returning Officer.
Ramanbhai Ashabhai Patel vs Dabhi Ajithkumar Fulsinji And Others on 9 October, 1964
30. The corrupt practice pleaded is on the basis that copies
of Ext.A1 bulletin was being circulated by the first respondent and
certain others along with Ext.A2 photograph. Ext.A2 is a
photograph of the 1st respondent taken from the facebook of
EP No.7/16
-:59:-
AW2. As already indicated the photograph shows that the first
respondent was delivering a speech by the side of certain books
and a cross. Only a portion of the cross is visible. The contention
of the petitioner is that as held by the Apex Court in Ramanbhai
Ashabhai Patel (supra), cross is a symbol connected with
Christianity. I have already opined that the said judgment cannot
be taken as a decision on whether cross is a symbol of Christianity
or not. But in general parlance, cross is considered to be a symbol
of Christianity which alone has been stated by the Apex Court.
Learned counsel for 2nd respondent submits that there are
different types of crosses all over the world and therefore merely
because a portion of the cross is seen in the photograph does not
indicate that the request is made to vote on the ground of
religion. As already stated there is no material in the case to
indicate that 1st respondent had posted the photograph in her
facebook account as alleged by the petitioner. Therefore, it is not
possible to conclude that the photograph was posted by the 1st
respondent for the purpose of election. In her evidence, RW3 has
EP No.7/16
-:60:-
clearly stated that she has not posted the photograph. Even
otherwise, a photograph showing a candle and a cross by itself
would not indicate that the 1st respondent was asking for vote on
the ground of religious sentiments.
S.Harcharn Singh vs S. Sajjan Singh And Ors on 29 November, 1984
(vi) S.Harcharan Singh v. S.Sajjan Singh and others
(AIR 1985 SC 236). While considering what amounts to corrupt
practice, the Apex Court observed that the line has to be drawn
by the Court between what is permissible and what is prohibited
after taking into account the facts and circumstances of each case
interpreted in the context in which the statements or acts
complained of might have been made. It is further observed that
EP No.7/16
-:33:-
the Court has to examine the effect of the statement made by the
candidate upon the minds and feelings of the ordinary average
voters of the country.
Birbal Singh vs Kedar Nath Sharma on 2 November, 1976
The Apex Court in Birbal Singh (supra) has held that
interested witnesses are not necessarily false witnesses though
they may have a personal interest in the matter. Therefore, their
evidence should be closely scrutinized and the evidence could be
either rejected or the Court can look for corroboration from an
independent source. On analysis of their evidence, as already
EP No.7/16
-:63:-
indicated that they are members of the Congress party, and even
in their evidence it is stated that several other persons who are
non Congress persons were also present in the premises of the
respective Churches. No such independent witnesses are
examined. AW1 and AW3 had given evidence stating that they
were present in the respective Churches and immediately after 1st
respondent and their group left the church, they gave the
information to AW2. According to AW2, the petitioner, his
knowledge is based on the information given by AW1 and AW3.
The question to be considered is whether Exts.A1 and A2 were
published by the 1st respondent or any person with her consent.
On an appreciation of the entire evidence on record, I am of the
view that the evidence of AW1 and AW3 cannot be accepted in
the absence of any corroborative evidence from at least some
independent witnesses. As far as AW2, petitioner is concerned,
he has even submitted before Court that he is unable to disclose
the source of information he received in regard to the bank
statement of the 1st respondent's spouse. Unless it is found by
EP No.7/16
-:64:-
this Court that there was a publication of Exts.A1 and A2 by the
1st respondent, it may not be possible to arrive at a finding that
she had asked for vote on the basis of religion. In fact the 1st
respondent had even examined a witness RW2 who says that he
was present in the Church and the 1st respondent or her husband
had not come there during the relevant time. Therefore, I am of
the view that evidence is lacking in the case to arrive at a
conclusion that Exts.A1 and A2 were distributed by the 1st
respondent or by any person with her consent. Therefore the
allegation that the 1st respondent had asked for votes on the basis
of religion is totally unfounded. Further, the Supreme Court has
given sufficient caution in the matter relating to declaring an
election void.
Dr. (Smt.) Shipra vs Shri Shanti Lal on 30 August, 1994
(viii) Dr.(Smt.)Shipra v. Shri Shanti Lal [AIR 1995
Rajasthan 50]. This judgment is relied upon to contend that the
object of verification in an election petition is to test the
genuineness and authenticity of the averments made in the
election petition and to fix responsibility for the allegations made
on the person who verifies it and to ensure that false allegations
are not made recklessly.
F.A. Sapa Etc. Etc vs Singora And Ors. Etc on 10 May, 1991
Referring to the judgment in F.A.Sapa
v. Singora [AIR 1991 SC 1557], it is held that it is not essential
that the verification clause on the foot of the election petition or
the affidavit accompanied to the election petition should disclose
the grounds or the source of information in regard to the
averment or allegation which are based on the information
believed to be proved.