- (1.) In the elections held on 15th June, 1994 to the Maharashtra Legislative Council from the Local Authorities Constituency, Nashik, Maharashtra, the appellant, who had contested as an official candidate of the Indian National Congress (I), was defeated by the respondent who had contested as an independent candidate. The appellant challenged the election of the returned candidate through an election petition on various grounds of commission of corrupt practices. The election petition was resisted and the returned candidate denied all the allegations made against him. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : (1) Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent had consented to the campaigning and canvassing alleged to have been done by Dr. Hiray and-or Yogesh Aher and or Prasad Hiray (2) Whether any amount was given to the electors by Dr. Hiray and Yogesh Aher as gratification which directly induced the electors to vote for the respondent (as alleged in paragraphs 8(a) to 8(k) of the petition) and whether with the consent of the respondent (3) Whether the contents of the cassette contained in sealed covers and marked as Articles 'I' and 'II' are the tape recorded conversations between the lady Corporators Mrs. Nafiza, Mrs. Najma, Mrs. Akhtarunissa, Mrs. Khairunissa, Dr. Hiray his son Prasad Hiray, Rashid and Yogesh Aher and whether the same is without any interpolation or erasures. (4) Whether Dr. Hiray and Yogesh Aher promised and offered Rs. 12,000/- or any other undisclosed sum to Shri Godke and Shri Sawale (5) Whether Dr. Hiray and Yogesh Aher have directly interfered with the electoral right of an elector as alleged with the consent of the respondent (6) Whether on 14th June, 1994 Shri Uttamrao Dhikale along with Shri Yadavrao Tungar approached Smt. Latabai at her residence and offered her a sum of Rs. 10,000/- so as to vote for the respondent and whether any such offer was made with the consent of the respondent (7) Whether Shri Yogesh Aher and Maharu Aher had approached Shri Shivaji Raundal with any offer as and by way of bargain to induce Mr. Raundal to vote for the respondent and not to vote for the petitioner and whether any such offer/bargain was made with the consent of the respondent (8) Whether the respondent with Shri Uttamrao Dhikale went to the residence of Shri Laxman Savji on 13th June, 1994 and offered him Rs. 10,000/- or any sum so as to induce him to vote in favour of the respondent (9) Whether respondent has committed corrupt practices as defined in Clauses (1), (2) and (6) of section 123 of the Representation of Peoples Act either by himself or through any other person with the respondent's consent (10) What orders
(2.) After the evidence was led by the parties, learned Designated Election Judge decided all the issues against the appellant and dismissed the election petition. Hence, this statutory appeal.
(3.) Mr. A.M. Khanwilkar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has confined his submissions in this appeal to the allegations relating to the commission of corrupt practices under sections 123(1), 123(2) and 123(6) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The submissions have been confined to the incidents covered by Issues 1 to 5.;