VERMA - (1.) THESE appeals u/S. 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the R. P. Act") are against the judgment dated 30/03/1993 in Election Petition No. 2 of 1991 (E. V. alias Balasaheb Vikhe Patil v. Gadakh Yashwantrao Kankarrao and others) passed by A. A. Halbe, J. of the Bombay High Court at the Aurangabad Bench. By the impugned judgment, the election of Gadakh Yashwantrao Kankarrao as a member of the Lok Sabha from 39 Ahmednagar Parliamentary Constituency held in June 1991 has been set aside for commission of the corrupt practice under S. 123(4) of the R. P. Act; and E. V. alias Balasaheb Vikhe Patil has been declared elected. Civil Appeal No.2115 of 1993 is by Gadakh Yashwantrao Kankarrao (Gadakh) against declaration of his election to be void and the further declaration of E. V. alias Balasaheb Vikhe Patil (Vikhe Patil) to have been duly elected. Civil Appeal No. 2116 of 1993 is by Deshmukh Bhagwan Rangnath (respondent No. 5 in the Election Petition) against declaration of Vikhe Patil to have been duly elected. Similarly Civil Appeal No.2444 of 1993 is by Najan Rambhau Maruti (respondent No. 6 in the Election Petition) against declaration of Vikhe Patil to have been duly elected. Civil Appeal No. 1758 of 1993 is by Sharadchandra Govindrao Pawar (Sharad Pawar) to whom a notice under S. 99 of the R. P. Act was issued, against naming him for commission of the corrupt practice under S. 123(4) of the R. P. Act along with the returned candidate Gadakh.
(2.) THE material facts are now stated : Programme for election of a member of the Lok Sabha from 39 Ahmednagar Parliamentary Constituency known locally as Ahmednagar South Constituency was as under:- JUDGEMENT_682_1_1994Html1.htm However, due to the assassination of Shri Rajiv Gandhi, former Prime Minister of India on 21/05/1991, the remaining election programme was modified by fixing 12/06/1991 as the date of polling in that constituency and 16/06/1991 for the counting of votes and declaration of result. For the election from that constituency, the election petitioner Vikhe Patil, the returned candidate Gadakh, respondent No. 1 and respondents 2 to 10 in the election petition were candidates. THE polling took place on 12/06/1991 and the result was declared on 16/06/1991 wherein Gadakh was declared elected having secured 2,79,520 votes against his nearest rival Vikhe Patil who secured 2,67,883 votes. . Vikhe Patil then filed an election petition (E.P. No. 2 of 1991) at the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court praying that the election of Gadakh be declared as void and the election of petitioner Vikhe Patil be declared to have been duly elected from that constituency. Challenge to the validity of the election of Gadakh was made by Vikhe Patil on the ground that Gadakh had committed the corrupt practice under sub-section (4) of Section 123 of the R. P. Act. This ground was based on the allegation that Gadakh had made certain false statements in his speeches relating to the personal character and conduct of Vikhe Patil attributing the use of corrupt methods by him, with a view to prejudice the prospects of Vikhe Patil's election, in meetings held by him at Sonai on 30/04/1991, Ahmednagar on 2/05/1991, Newasa on 3/05/1991 and in an interview given to a journalist on 10/05/1991 which was published in the daily newspaper "Maharashtra Times" on 13/05/1991. It was also alleged by Vikhe Patil that in the public meetings held at Newasa on 3/05/1991 and at Srigonda on 11/05/1991, Sharad Pawar, the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra had made similar statements relating to the personal character of Vikhe Patil, in the presence of and along with Gadakh. It was alleged by Vikhe Patil that these statements relating to the personal character of Vikhe Patil made by Gadakh and Sharad Pawar amounted to corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the R. P. Act on account of which Gadakh's election was void and Sharad Pawar was liable to be named in accordance with Section 99 of the R. P. Act. After the evidence was recorded at the trial and Gadakh had also been examined on commission on account of his illness, the High Court issued a notice under Section 99 of the R. P. Act to Sharad Pawar to show cause why he should not be so named. . Sharad Pawar challenged the issuance of this notice under Sec. 99 of the R. P. Act to him by a special leave petition filed in this Court, but the same was dismissed requiring Sharad Pawar to raise his objections to the notice in the first instance at the trial of the election petition in the High Court itself. Sharad Pawar then raised his objections before the High Court but chose not to adduce any evidence or to apply for recall of any witness already examined for further cross-examination. Sharad Pawar denied the commission of any such corrupt practice as did Gadakh at the trial of the election petition.
(3.) . The High Court at the end of the trial allowed the election petition and declared the election of Gadakh to be void making a further declaration that Vikhe Patil was duly elected. The High Court also named Sharad Pawar for commission of the corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Act along with the returned candidate Gadakh. The conclusions of the High Court on the basis of which these reliefs have been granted are summarised in paragraphs 223 and 224 of the impugned judgment, which are as under "From the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, it has to be concluded that the respondent No. 1 and Sharad Pawar did make supplementary statements of each other. Those statements can be enumerated as below : (1) Petitioner was to spend Rs. 3 crores for his election; (2) Petitioner had paid Rs. 50 lakhs to Janata Dal; (3) Petitioner had paid Rs. 20 lakhs to Janata Dal candidate for withdrawing fromNagar Constituency and to contest from Beed Constituency; (4) Petitioner was to take out rally of 5000 cycles and distribute the cycles amongst the participants; (5) Petitioner was to spend for repairs of Chawadies and had sent Rs. 5,000.00 for repair of Chawadi at Ganganagar, Tq. Newasa; (6) Petitioner was to distribute sarees, dhoties, liquor amongst the workers obviously with a view to attract them; (7) Voters must accept them and vote for Congress. These are the statements made by the respondent No. 1 and Sharad Pawar in various meetings. The foregoing discussion has clearly indicated as to what was spoken by either of them at different meetings. That portion would be again reconsidered at the end but suffice it to say that they would certainly touch upon the personal character and conduct of the petitioner." . It is these conclusions and reliefs granted on this basis which are challenged by the returned candidate Gadakh and the notice Sharad Pawar, while respondent No. 5 Deshmukh Bhagwan Rangnath and respondent No, 6 Najan Rambhau Maruti have challenged merely the further declaration of Vikhe Patil to have been duly elected, in their appeals..;