BALMUKUND SINGH GAUTAM Vs. SMT.NEENA VIKRAM VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A question was raised before both the Counsels by this Court and their respective views were sought on the following question. At what stage of trial, notices are to be issued to the persons, who have been proved at the trial guilty of any corrupt practice and who are to be named under section 99 (1) (a) (II) of the Representation of People Act, 1951.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner referred judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Dwarka Prasad Mishra v. Kamal Narayan Sharma and another, 1970 MPLJ 872. In this case, for Shyamacharan Shukla, who was then printer, proprietor, publisher and keeper of the Mahakoshal Press, a Hindi daily was sought to be named under section 99 of the Representation of the People Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Hon'ble the Supreme Court made following observations in paragraphs 36 to 38 of the judgment:--

(3.) Placing reliance on the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that in para 37 of the judgment, the words used are 'who is proved at the trial to have been guilty of any corrupt practice' implies that first finding has to be given by the Court that the person to be named is guilty of any corrupt practice and thereafter, notice to be issued to him and after giving him opportunity to cross examine the witness, who deposed against him and also adducing necessary evidence on his behalf, final finding about him should be given.