Case: Navjot Singh Sidhu Vs. Om Prakash Soni

the election petitioner was that the returned candidate had used posters, banners and wall-paintings canvassing for votes in the name of Hindu religion. The election petitioner specifically averred that he had taken photographs of the wall-paintings which, however, were not enclosed to the Election Petition. The Election petitioner in the said case had prayed for leave to produce the same at a later stage of the case. It is in the above situation, namely, where the wall-paintings itself contained the ingredients of the commission of corrupt practice alleged that the non-furnishing of the same along with the Election Petition was held to be fatal. The above is not the situation in the present case. We, therefore, hold that the averments made with regard to election expenses in paragraph 10 and 11 of the Election Petition require to go for a full-fledged trial and the appeal insofar as the aforesaid part of the decision of the High Court has to fail.12. In paragraphs 12 to 15 of the Election Petition, the respondent-election petitioner, by giving details of expenditure incurred by the appellant in connection with public meetings held on different dates and in different venues, has contended that the expenses incurred on these public meetings is much more than what has been shown in the return of election expenses under the said head (Rs.1,83,466/-). While the details of the meetings i.e. the time, date and venue are mentioned and so is the number of persons who are claimed to have attended the meetings, we do not find any basis as to how the election petitioner had arrived at the quantum of expenses which he alleges to have been incurred by the returned candidate in holding each of the said meetings. What are the source(s) of information of the election petitioner with regard to the details furnished; whether he has personal knowledge of any of the said meetings; who are the persons who informed him of the details of such meetings; what is the basis of the estimate of the number of persons present and the facilities (chairs etc.) that were hired and the particulars of the refreshments served are nowhere pleaded. All such particulars that are an integral part of the allegation of corrupt practice alleged are absent. In the absence of the aforesaid particulars, there can be no doubt that insofar as the allegations made in paragraphs 12 to 15 of the Election Petition is concerned, the same do not disclose any triable issue so as to justify a regular trial of the said allegations. The allegations mentioned in paragraphs 12 to 15, so far as commission of corrupt practice of submission of false/incorrect return of election expenses is concerned, are, therefore, struck off.13. This will take the Court to the second category of allegations on which the Election Petition is founded. The same is with regard to the assistance allegedly received by the appellant, as the returned candidate, from one Jagjit Singh Suchu. The specific case of the respondent-election petitioner in the Election Petition filed is that Jagjit Singh Suchu was posted as the Grid Executive Engineer, Amritsar and he is a gazetted officer in the Punjab State Electricity Board. Shri Suchu was transferred, at the instance of the appellant, as Additional Superintending Engineer, East Division, Verka Circle, Amritsar which is a gazetted post in the State of Punjab. It is also alleged that the returned candidate i.e. the appellant had taken the help of Shri Suchu while he was working in the said capacity so as to further the appellant’s election prospects. The detailed pleadings in this regard are contained in paragraphs 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the Election Petition. We have perused the said pleadings.14. The contention advanced on behalf of the appellant is that the aforesaid Jagjit Singh Suchu, on the pleadings of the election petitioner himself, is admittedly a gazetted officer of the Punjab State Electricity Board and, therefore, under the provisions of Section 123(7) of the R.P. Act, prior to its amendment by Act 41 of 2009 with effect from 1st February, 2010, the assistance of Jagjit Singh Suchu, even if obtained, did not amount to corrupt practice inasmuch as the said person was not in service of the Government.15. The pleadings contained in paragraphs 17 to 20 of the Election Petition makes it clear that it is alleged that while Jagjit Singh Suchu was an officer of the Punjab State Electricity Board the appellant had got him transferred to the post of Additional Superintending Engineer, East Division, Verka Circle, Amritsar under the State of Punjab and that the appellant had received assistance from him so as to further his election prospects. The allegation in the Election Petition is that the post to which Jagjit Singh Suchu was transferred from the Punjab State Electricity Board was under the State Government and the assistance received by the returned candidate from the said person is while he was rendering service as Additional Superintending Engineer, namely, while he was performing the duties in the State Government. If that be so, the aforesaid issue also will have to go for a full trial as ordered by the High Court. The appeal to the aforesaid extent will, therefore, have to be dismissed.16. Insofar as the third allegation of the election petitioner is concerned, we are of the view that it would not be necessary for us to deal with the said question. The said allegation pertains to the action taken by the Returning Officer on the complaint filed by the election petitioner with regard to counting of votes. The election took place in the year 2009. The life of the House for which the election took place has long expired. The third allegation is not one with regard to commission of any corrupt practice. Hence by efflux of time the said issue has become academic rendering it unnecessary for us to enter into any discussion on the said question.17. Consequently and in the light of the above, the

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

Explanation:
1[ds]We, therefore, hold that the averments made with regard to election expenses in paragraph 10 and 11 of the Election Petition require to go for a full-fledged trial and the appeal insofar as the aforesaid part of the decision of the High Court has to fail.12. In paragraphs 12 to 15 of the Election Petition, the respondent-election petitioner, by giving details of expenditure incurred by the appellant in connection with public meetings held on different dates and in different venues, has contended that the expenses incurred on these public meetings is much more than what has been shown in the return of election expenses under the said head (Rs.1,83,466/-). While the details of the meetings i.e. the time, date and venue are mentioned and so is the number of persons who are claimed to have attended the meetings, we do not find any basis as to how the election petitioner had arrived at the quantum of expenses which he alleges to have been incurred by the returned candidate in holding each of the said meetings. What are the source(s) of information of the election petitioner with regard to the details furnished; whether he has personal knowledge of any of the said meetings; who are the persons who informed him of the details of such meetings; what is the basis of the estimate of the number of persons present and the facilities (chairs etc.) that were hired and the particulars of the refreshments served are nowhere pleaded. All such particulars that are an integral part of the allegation of corrupt practice alleged are absent. In the absence of the aforesaid particulars, there can be no doubt that insofar as the allegations made in paragraphs 12 to 15 of the Election Petition is concerned, the same do not disclose any triable issue so as to justify a regular trial of the said allegations. The allegations mentioned in paragraphs 12 to 15, so far as commission of corrupt practice of submission of false/incorrect return of election expenses is concerned, are, therefore, strucksame is with regard to the assistance allegedly received by the appellant, as the returned candidate, from one Jagjit Singh Suchu. The specific case of the respondent-election petitioner in the Election Petition filed is that Jagjit Singh Suchu was posted as the Grid Executive Engineer, Amritsar and he is a gazetted officer in the Punjab State Electricity Board. Shri Suchu was transferred, at the instance of the appellant, as Additional Superintending Engineer, East Division, Verka Circle, Amritsar which is a gazetted post in the State of Punjab. It is also alleged that the returned candidate i.e. the appellant had taken the help of Shri Suchu while he was working in the said capacity so as to further theelection prospects. The detailed pleadings in this regard are contained in paragraphs 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the Election Petition. We have perused the said pleadings.The pleadings contained in paragraphs 17 to 20 of the Election Petition makes it clear that it is alleged that while Jagjit Singh Suchu was an officer of the Punjab State Electricity Board the appellant had got him transferred to the post of Additional Superintending Engineer, East Division, Verka Circle, Amritsar under the State of Punjab and that the appellant had received assistance from him so as to further his election prospects. The allegation in the Election Petition is that the post to which Jagjit Singh Suchu was transferred from the Punjab State Electricity Board was under the State Government and the assistance received by the returned candidate from the said person is while he was rendering service as Additional Superintending Engineer, namely, while he was performing the duties in the State Government. If that be so, the aforesaid issue also will have to go for a full trial as ordered by the High Court. The appeal to the aforesaid extent will, therefore, have to be dismissed.16. Insofar as the third allegation of the election petitioner is concerned, we are of the view that it would not be necessary for us to deal with the said question. The said allegation pertains to the action taken by the Returning Officer on the complaint filed by the election petitioner with regard to counting of votes. The election took place in the year 2009. The life of the House for which the election took place has long expired. The third allegation is not one with regard to commission of any corrupt practice. Hence by efflux of time the said issue has become academic rendering it unnecessary for us to enter into any discussion on the said