SITARAM GUPTA Vs. BIJOYESH MUKHERJI
LAWS(CAL)-1957-9-9
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on September 05,1957

SITARAM GUPTA Appellant
VERSUS
BIJOYESH MUKHERJI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE facts in this case are as follows: The petitioner was elected as a member of the West, Bengal Legislative Assembly, during the last General Elections, from the Bhatpara Constituency. On or about the 1st May, 1957, the Respondent No. 2 Dayaram Beri, filed an election petition, challenging the election of the petitioner. This election petition hag been numbered as 406 of 1957, and by a notification dated 4. 7. 57, the Respondent No. 1 was appointed as the sole member of the Election Tribunal, to try the same. Sec. 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (herein after referred to as the 'act') lays down as to what should be the contents of an election petition. The material part runs as follows: "83. Contents of petition- (1) An election petition- (a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies. (b) shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of each such practice; and (c) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the verification of pleadings"
(2.) THE particulars of corrupt practices are set out in paragraph 18 of the petition. It will be necessary to refer particularly to sub-paragraphs (g) and (o) which run as follows: (g) On the day of the purported counting, many of the ballot boxes had in fact been found with their seals already broken open sometime earlier in the presence of the candidates and their counting agents. (o) But for the said irregularities, illegalities, non-observance of the provisions of the Constitution and/or the said Acts and/or rules and/or orders made and passed thereunder, and malpractices herein complained against the results would have been materially different and the results at present have been materially affected by the same. In the petition as filed, all the allegations in paragraph 18 of the petition were verified as submissions.
(3.) ON or about the 3rd August, 1957, the Respondent No. 2, made an application before Respondent No. 1, for amendment of the verification. It was alleged that" the election petition was prepared in haste and the allegations in paragraph 18 were, through inadvertence and oversight, verified as submissions, while they should have been verified as true to knowledge. It was therefore sought to amend the verification clause by substituting the words "true to my knowledge" instead of the words "my submissions", so far as paragraph 18 is concerned. By his order dated the 6th August, 1957, the Respondent No. 1, allowed the amendment, except as to sub-paragraphs (g) and (o) set out above. The material part of the order is as follows: "this tribunal cannot help remarking that if the original election petition were drawn up in a hurry the instant application for amendment has also been drawn up in a hurry. Because there are certain sub-paragraphs in the 18th paragraph of the original petition which can never be true to the knowledge of the petitioner Dayaram Beri. Sub-paragraph (g) for example traverses the allegations that on the day of the purported counting many of the ballot boxes had in tact been found with their seals already broken open, Now from the letter which is a part of annexure 'c' to the instant election petition it appears that Dayaram Beri was not there in the counting arena. He was not allowed to be there. Now if he were not there how could he know that the ballot boxes were found with their seals already broken open. This Tribunal is glad to be able to record that the learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that this is so. There is still another subparagraph (o) one has only to read it to be convinced of the fact that this case never be true to the knowledge of the petitioner or of anybody else. Put at its highest it is a surmise. Say it is a belief which the petitioner holds. Now belief is one thing and knowledge is another". ;


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