Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the election petition disclosed the essential averments for corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; and whether the allegation of bribery under Section 123(1)(A)(b) could be tried in the absence of the affidavit required by Section 83(1) of the Act.
Analysis: The pleadings concerning Section 123(4) did not contain the necessary averments that the statement complained of was published by the returned candidate, his agent, or another person with consent, and that the statement was false and believed to be false or not believed to be true. The omission went to the root of the charge, because a corrupt practice must be pleaded with full material facts and particulars before evidence can be led. As to the allegation under Section 123(1)(A)(b), the election petition was not supported by a proper affidavit in the prescribed form and did not disclose the source of information for that charge. The statutory requirement under Section 83(1) is mandatory, and in its absence no issue on bribery could be framed for trial.
Conclusion: The election petition was liable to be dismissed at the threshold for want of necessary pleadings and the mandatory supporting affidavit; the challenge to the election failed.