- (1.) THE appellant's election petition against the return of Shri Rulia Ram respondent 1, to Punjab Legislative Assembly from Gharaunda Constituency at the last elections, has been Dismissed by the learned Tribunal by its order of October 29, 1962, under Sub-section (3) of Section 90 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act 43 of 1951) on the ground of non-compliance with Section 82 in that Shri Jai Singh and Shri Zila Singh were necessary parties under that section and have not been impleaded as respondents to the election petition in these circumstances.
(2.) THE appellant impleaded Shri Rulia Ram as respon dent 1 and Shri Ram Samp as respondent 2 to his election petition. In paragraph (d) (iv) (1) the appellant made this charge of corrupt practice against respondent 1 and Shri Jal Singh-" (D) That your humble petitioner asserts that the election of respondent No. 1 as member of the Legislative Assembly is void and is liable to be declared as such on the following grounds - (iv) that respondent No. 1 himself and through his Election Agent and other persons acting with his consent committed the corrupt practice of bribery in the form of - (1) offering gratification to respondent No. 2 as a reward for having stood in the election and for not withdrawing till the date of election and to Shri Jai Singh candidate who withdrew his name as a reward for supporting his brother in the neighbouring constituency of Samalkha by respondent No. 1. " In annexure 1 to the election petition are given particulars of bribery and paragraph 2 says - "2. Respondent No. 1 approached Shri Jai Singh, who was a candidate, at panipat on 1st February, 1962, that if he and Shri Zila Singh withdrew from the contest from Gharaunda constituency he would actively support Ch. Dharam Singh Rathi in Samalkha constituency. This happened in the presence of Shri Shugan Chand Azad and others. Accordingly they withdrew their names. " There being two respondents to the election petition, Shri Jai Singh and Shri Zila Singh are not respondents to it. .
(3.) IN the Act Section 82 provides "82, Parties to the petition -- A petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition - (a) where the petitioner, in addition to claiming a declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidates is void, claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected, all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner, and where no such further declaration is claimed, all the returned candidates; and (b) any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition. " in Section 85 it is provided that if the provisions of Section 62 have not been complied with, the Election Commission shall dismiss the petition and Sub-section (3) of Section 90 says that "the Tribunal shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of ****** Section 82 notwithstanding that it has not been dismissed by the Election Commission under Section 85. " Section 123 of the Act, so far as relevant for the present purpose, is in these words - "123 Corrupt Practices.-- The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act: (1) "bribery", that is to say - (B) the receipt of, or agreement to receive any gratification, whether as a motive or a reward (a) by a person for standing or not standing as, or for withdrawing from being, a candidate; or (b) ********* Explanation.-- For the purposes of this clause the term "gratification" Is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or gratifications estimable in money and it includes all forms of entertainment and all forms of employment for reward but it does not include the payment of any expenses 'bona fide" incurred at, or for the purpose of, any election and duly entered in the account of election expenses referred to in Section 78. ";