PURUSHOTTAMLAL KAUSHIK Vs. VIDYACHARAN SHUKLA
LAWS(MPH)-1980-9-21
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on September 05,1980

PURUSHOTTAMLAL KAUSHIK Appellant
VERSUS
VIDYACHARAN SHUKLA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

JAWAHIR SINGH VS. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-1998-1-39] [REFERRED TO]
HARI KRISHNA LAL VS. ATAL BIHARI BAJPAI [LAWS(ALL)-2002-1-15] [REFERRED TO]
VIKRAM ANAND VS. RAKESH SINGHA [LAWS(HPH)-1994-9-1] [REFERRED TO]
BABOOLAL VS. KANKAR [LAWS(MPH)-1986-2-3] [REFERRED TO]
DEBRANJAN MUKHOPADHYAY VS. MANIK CHANDRA MONDAL [LAWS(CAL)-1997-12-12] [REFERRED TO]
BHANUBHAI M RAVAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-1990-2-19] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHU, L. K. VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2002-3-77] [REFERRED TO]
RAVEENDRAN NAIR VS. R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI [LAWS(KER)-2002-3-85] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

J.S.Verma, J. - (1.)The petitioner Purshottamlal Kaushik and the respondent Vidya Charan Shukla were two of the contesting candidates in the last Lok Sabha general elections held in January, 1980 from No. 18, Mahasamund Parliamentary Constituency. The result of the election was declared on 7-1-1980 and the respondent Vidya Charan Shukla was declared elected to the Lok Sabha from that constituency. This election result was notified in the official gazette on 101-1980. The present petition has been filed on 18-2-1980, for declaring the respondent's election to be void on two grounds, namely, under Section 100 (1) (a) and Section 100 (1) (d) (i) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Facts on which both the grounds are based are the same. All the relevant facts are admitted between the parties and the only question is whether on the admitted facts both or any of the grounds on which the petition is based have been made out. These facts are stated hereafter.
(2.)The respondent Vidya Charan Shukla was convicted of several offences in Sessions Case No. 340 of 1978 by the Sessions Judge, Delhi, on 27-2-1979. A copy of the relevant portion of the Judgment of the Sessions Judge is Ex. P. 1. The substantive sentences were to run concurrently and admittedly the respondent was sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years in that case. The respondent was released on bail by the trial Court itself under Subsection (3) of Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, suspending execution of the sentences of imprisonment to enable him to present an appeal and obtain orders of the appellate court under Sub-section (i). During the period so granted by the trial Court, the respondent preferred Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 1979 against his convictions and sentences in the Delhi High Court and made an application for suspension of his sentences under Sub-section (1) of Section 389, Cr. P. C. On 1-3-1979, the Delhi High Court, in that appeal, suspended execution of the sentence. On 21-3-1979, vide order (Ex. B-1), the Delhi High Court admitted the respondent's appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 1979) and further directed that the sentences shall remain suspended.
(3.)This was the existing position when a notification was issued under Section 30 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, calling upon the aforesaid constituency to elect a member to the Lok Sabha. The time table of the election was fixed and notified, according to which 7-12-1979 was the last date for filing nominations and 11-12-1979 was the date of scrutiny. An objection to the validity of the respondent's nomination was raised before the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny of nominations on the basis of the respondent's convictions and sentences as aforesaid on the ground that he was disqualified to be chosen as a candidate by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the R. P. Act, 1951. The Returning Officer rejected that objection and accepted the respondent's nomination as valid vide his order (Ex. P-2) dated 11-12-1979 passed on the date of scrutiny. This election petition was then filed by the petitioner, who is a defeated candidate at the election, on 18-2-1980 for declaring the respondent's election to be void on two grounds, namely under Section 100 (1) (a) and Section 100 (1) (d) (i) of the R. P. Act, 1951, both of which are based on the same set of facts, namely, respondent's disqualification by virtue of Section 8 (2) of the Act, resulting from his convictions and sentences as aforesaid.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.