Case: Jagat Kishore Prasad Narain Singh Vs. Rajendra Kumar Poddar And Ors

been set up by the Communist Party of India and the Jana Sangh respectively. (c) In paragraph 28 of the original the following passage occurs: "Particulars of the gifts and gratifications in the form of bribe offered by respondent No. 8 and his election agent and his assent with the connivance and consent of the said respondent No. 8 and his election agent are set out in Annexure D hereto annexed". But the passage in Ext. O reads : "Particulars of the gifts and gratifications in the form of bribe offered by respondent No. 8 and his election agent and his agent with the connivance and consent of the said respondent No. 1 and his election agent are set out in Annexure D hereto annexed" (d) In paragraph 3 of the verification at page 25 of the original, it has been stated, inter alia, that the statements made in paragraph 3 of the election petition are true to the petitioners information, but in Exh. O no verification has been made with respect to the statements made in paragraph 3 of the election petition and instead verification has been made twice with respect to the statements made in paragraph 2, once as true to the petitioners knowledge and again as true to his information. (e) In paragraph 3 of Annexure B a list of 20 persons has been given, one of which is Shri Brindaban Swana, M. L. A., in the original and Shri Brindaban Swansi, M. L A in Ext .O. (f) In Annexure C relating to the particulars of corrupt practice mentioned in paragraph 25 of the election petition, it has been stated in the original that Shri Munshi Hansda, M. L. A. had offered money and promised to pay money to Shri Jehta Kiski, M. L. A. for casting his first preference vote in favour of respondent No. 1 at the M. L. A. Flat on 19-3-1968, but in Ext. O mention has been made of the name of Paul Hansda, M. L. A., as the alleged offerer of money to Shri Jetha Kisku, M. L. A.; and (g) In Annexure C again, the original reads that the offer of money and promise of payment of money was made to Shri Mahabir Paswan by respondent No. 1 and Shri Balwant Nath Singh, M. L. A. on 26-3-1968 but in Ext. O this date has been stated as 28-3-1968" 6. Mr. M. C. Chagla, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that Section 81 (3) is merely directory and not mandatory. We do not think it necessary to go into that question, as in our opinion that provision has not even been substantially complied with. The requirements of Sec. 81 (3) have been laid down by this Court in Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore, (l964) 3 SCR 573 = (AIR 1964 SC 1545 ). In that case this Court ruled that the word copy in Section 81 (3) of the Act did not mean an absolutely exact copy but a copy so true that nobody could by any possibility misunderstand it, and that the test whether a copy was a true one was whether any variation from the original was calculated to mislead an ordinary person. The same view was taken by this Court in Ch. Subbarao v. Member Election Tribunal, Hyderabad, (1964) 6 SCR 213 = (AIR 1964 SC 1027 ).In our opinion, it is not necessary to refer to the discrepancies between the original petition and the copy served excepting that referred to in Clause (f) of paragraph 15 of the trial Courts judgment. Admittedly Shri Munshi Hansda and Paul Hansda are members of the Patna Legislative Assembly. In the election petition it was stated that money was offered to Shri Jetha Kisku, M. L. A. by Munshi Hansda but in Exh. O it was stated that money was offered to the said Jetha Kisku by Paul Hansda. This divergence was bound to mislead the contesting respondents and prejudice their defence. Pleadings in a case has great importance and that is more so in election petitions particularly when the returned candidate is charged with corrupt practice. He must know what the charge against him is so that he may prepare his defence. If relying on the allegations in the copy of the petition served on him that the money was paid to Jetha Kisku through Paul Hansda, the 1st respondent had collected evidence to show that that allegation is false then the entire basis of his defence would have fallen to the ground because at a later stage he had to meet a totally different case. The law requires that a true copy of the election petition should be served on the respondents. That requirement has not been either fully or substantially complied with. Therefore, we have no doubt in our mind that the election petition is liable to be dismissed under Section 86 of the Act. Mr. Chagla tried to extricate his client from the difficult position in which he had placed himself by urging that two copies of the election petition had been served on the 1st respondent as required by the rules of the Patna High Court, one through the Court and another through registered post; the 1st respondent has produced only one of those copies; it is not known whether the other copy was also defective and therefore there is no ground to reject the election petition at the very threshold. We are unable to entertain this contention. If it was the case of the appellant that the 1st respondent was not prejudiced by the service of Exh. O, he should have got summoned the other copy said to have been served on him. No such attempt appears to have been made. No explanation was offered how several wrong statements came to be made in Exh. O. There is hardly any doubt that the relevant papers filed in Court on behalf of the appellant were prepared in a callous manner.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]6. Mr. M. C. Chagla, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that Section 81 (3) is merely directory and not mandatory. We do not think it necessary to go into that question, as in our opinion that provision has not even been substantially complied with. The requirements of Sec. 81 (3) have been laid down by this Court in Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore, (l964) 3 SCR 573  = (AIR 1964 SC 1545 ). In that case this Court ruled that the word copy in Section 81 (3) of the Act did not mean an absolutely exact copy but a copy so true that nobody could by any possibility misunderstand it, and that the test whether a copy was a true one was whether any variation from the original was calculated to mislead an ordinary person. The same view was taken by this Court in Ch. Subbarao v. Member Election Tribunal, Hyderabad, (1964) 6 SCR 213  = (AIR 1964 SC 1027 ).In our opinion, it is not necessary to refer to the discrepancies between the original petition and the copy served excepting that referred to in Clause (f) of paragraph 15 of the trial Courts judgment. Admittedly Shri Munshi Hansda and Paul Hansda are members of the Patna Legislative Assembly. In the election petition it was stated that money was offered to Shri Jetha Kisku, M. L. A. by Munshi Hansda but in Exh. O it was stated that money was offered to the said Jetha Kisku by Paul Hansda. This divergence was bound to mislead the contesting respondents and prejudice their defence. Pleadings in a case has great importance and that is more so in election petitions particularly when the returned candidate is charged with corrupt practice. He must know what the charge against him is so that he may prepare his defence. If relying on the allegations in the copy of the petition served on him that the money was paid to Jetha Kisku through Paul Hansda, the 1st respondent had collected evidence to show that that allegation is false then the entire basis of his defence would have fallen to the ground because at a later stage he had to meet a totally different case. The law requires that a true copy of the election petition should be served on the respondents. That requirement has not been either fully or substantially complied with. Therefore, we have no doubt in our mind that the election petition is liable to be dismissed under Section 86 of the ActMr. Chagla tried to extricate his client from the difficult position in which he had placed himself by urging that two copies of the election petition had been served on the 1st respondent as required by the rules of the Patna High Court, one through the Court and another through registered post; the 1st respondent has produced only one of those copies; it is not known whether the other copy was also defective and therefore there is no ground to reject the election petition at the very threshold. We are unable to entertain this contention. If it was the case of the appellant that the 1st respondent was not prejudiced by the service of Exh. O, he should have got summoned the other copy said to have been served on him. No such attempt appears to have been made. No explanation was offered how several wrong statements came to be made in Exh. O. There is hardly any doubt that the relevant papers filed in Court on behalf of the appellant were prepared in a callous manner.