Srinivasan, J. - (1.) These two appeals have been filed under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dated the 27th day of September, 1991 in Election Petition No. 15 of 1990. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 4272 of 1991 is the first respondent in the other appeal and the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 4379 of 1991 is the first respondent in the former appeal. The parties will be referred to in this judgment in accordance with their ranking in Civil Appeal No. 4272 of 1991.
(2.) The appellant was the successful candidate in the election held in November, 1989 to 101 Nagamangala Assembly Constituency in the State of Karnataka having polled 48654 votes as against 17165 votes polled by the first respondent. The appellant contested the election as an independent candidate while the first respondent represented the Congress-I party. The election was challenged by the first respondent on grounds of corrupt practices by the appellant falling within the scope of Section 123 of the Act. In short, the following were the allegations made by the first respondent in the Election Petition: "The appellant was a member of the Congress Party till he was expelled on 10/15-11-89. But he held out that he was representing the said party and canvassed as such thereby making the voters believe that he was the Congress candidate. The appellant set up and induced the second respondent to contest in the election with the sole intention of dividing the votes of minority community and thereby damaged the prospects of first respondent's success. The appellant held out a promise of securing Congress ticket to one Ramalingegowda in order to contest Zilla Parishad election for the vacancy that might be caused by his election to the Assembly and thus induced him to withdraw his support to the first respondent. The appellant got certain pamphlets printed with national symbol on them to promote his candidature and was guilty of corrupt practice. The appellant was also guilty of publishing pamphlets containing false statements of his achievements with regard to securing of loans to the needy people of the weaker section in loan melas, benefits to coconut growers etc. with a view to promote his candidature. The appellant also got printed and published pamphlets in the name of Kuruba Janangada Vedike arousing communal passion among the voters of other community people making them believe that the first respondent was guilty of issuing such pamphlets. Thus the prospects of the first respondent in the election were affected. The appellant did not file correct and true accounts of his election expenses with the District Election Officer as required under the Rules and thus violated the relevant provisions of law. The appellant also spent for the election by way of hiring more than ten vehicles between 6-11-89 and 24-11-89 for his election purposes, printing thousands of pamphlets, purchasing thousands of copies of newspaper 'Nagamangala Mitra' and giving advertisements in the newspapers and spending on postage in order to promote his candidature. Thus he was guilty of a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123(6) of the Act." On the above allegations the first respondent prayed for a declaration that the appellant had committed corrupt practices under Section 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(ii), 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and to declare that the first respondent was duly elected to the said Assembly Constituency.
(3.) The petition was contested by the appellant who denied all the allegations contained therein. The High Court framed as many as eight issues for consideration and after trial decided the first six in favour of the appellant. While answering Issue No. 7 in the affirmative the High Court held that the appellant had not maintained true and correct account of expenditure incurred or authorised by him which amounted to corrupt practice. On issue No. 8, the High Court observed that the expenditure incurred by the appellant was not proved to have crossed the prescribed limit but the appellant was guilty of suppression of true accounts. On the aforesaid findings the High Court declared that the election of the appellant was void and set it aside. However, the High Court found that the prayer of the first respondent that he be declared elected could not be granted in view of the number of votes polled by him being considerably low and that the voters must have a free choice to elect their representative to achieve which, fresh election for the constituency became imperative.;