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

1. This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) from the judgment and order dated July 14, 1969 of the Patna High Court in Election Petition No. 1 of 1968.    2. A biennial election to the Rajya Sabha was held in March 1968. In that election, Bihar Legislative Assembly had to elect seven members to the Rajya Sabha. Twenty persons contested for those seven seats. The appellant is one of them. The appellant failed to get the required number of votes. By means of an election petition which has given rise to this appeal, he challenged the validity of the election of the 1st respondent on two grounds viz. (1) that the nomination of respondent No. 1 was improperly accepted inasmuch as he was not qualified to be enrolled as an elector in the electoral roll of West Patna Assembly constituency for the time being in force on the ground that he was then not ordinarily resident in the said constituency, but was on the other hand, ordinarily resident in Alipur constituency of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly and (2) that he was guilty of corrupt practice within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 123 of the Act, inasmuch as he had not only made offers but also payments of money to various electors as motive or reward for voting in his favour.    3. The election petition was resisted by the 1st respondent on various grounds. One of the contentions taken by him was that the petition was not in accordance with the provisions of Sections 81, 82 and 117 of the Act and therefore it was not maintainable. The High Court has accepted that contention. It has also rejected the other pleas taken by the appellant as we are in agreement with the High Court that the election petition is liable to be dismissed under Section 86 of the Act, we do not think it necessary to go into the merits of the case.

Reasoning: 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.