JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner, Smt. Sudha Raina, who contested the election of Jaipur Bani Park constituency of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly held on November 11, 1993, wherein on 28/11/1993, respondent Raj Pal Singh Shekhawat was declared elected, has filed this election petition under Sections 80A. 81, 100 (1) (b) & 123 (3) of the Representation of People Act. 1951 (herein after to referred to as 'the Act') inter-alia alleging that the respondent and his agents with his consent adopted corrupt practices by making an appeal to the electorate to cast vote in his favour on the ground of religion and used religious symbols of Deity Shri Ram and the Goddess of Wealth "Kamla" for the furtherance of the prospects of o his election. The petitioner has averred that the respondent after inspecting the site near Gopalpura bye pass, which falls within Bani Park constituency, directed Hari Kishan Goyal to install it cut-out with BJP flag on an electricity pole nearby his hoarding and directed one Ashok Parnami to get his name painted on the boundary wall hear the electricity pole. There direction were complied with and a 5 cutout of "Shri Ram" was installed on the said electricity pole. The name of the respondent was also painted on the nearby wall with an appeal to vote in his favour near the said cut-out of "Shri Ram". It was further averred that the respondent got published an advertisement in the Rajasthan Patrika, Daily News Paper dated 8/11/93 with his photograph as well as symbol of the B.J.P appealing of the voters of Bani Park constituency to vote for BJP for "Shri Ram and for the work done by the B.J.P. & for achieving the goal of "Ram Rajya". Shri Ram Das Agrawal, President of the Rajasthan State B.J.P. with the consent of the respondent also got published yet another advertisement in the Rajasthan Patrika dated 7/11/93 and the name of religious Deity "Kamla" (Goddess Laxmi) was used as under: "Rashtra Dharam ka Kamal Khilana, Phir 'Kamla' ka poojan karna". 2. Shri Ram Das Agrawal, President of the Rajasthan State B.J.P. with the consent of the respondent also got published yet another advertisement in the Rajasthan Patrika dated 7/11/93 and the name of religious Deity "Kamla" (Goddess Laxmi) was used as under: "Rashtra Dharam ka Kamal Khilana, Phir 'Kamla' ka poojan karna". 2. The petitioner also alleged that the respondent thus used they names of "Shri Ram" and the Goddess of Wealth "Kamla" for the furtherance of his prospects in election and committed corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 (3) of the Act and prayed that his election he declared as void under clause (b) of Section 100 (1) of the Act and the name he set aside. 3. Respondent Raj. Pal Singh in his written statement dated /2/94 controverted the allegation levelled against him and categorically denied to have installed any cutout of "Shri Ram" with B.J.P. Flag on the electricity pole near his hoarding on the Gopalpura bye pass road or to have directed Ashok Parnami to paint his name on the boundary wall, near the cut-out or to have got published the advertisements Annexures 3 & 4 in the Rajasthan Patrika or to have made any communal appeal on the ground of religion. He however, specifically claimed that he has not been supplied with the copies of coloured photographs of the alleged cut-out of 'Shri Ram' and its enlargement and the walled painting. 4. The respondent also separately filed an application under Section 81,83,86 and 11.7 of the Act, wherein he took a preliminary objection that the copies of coloured photograph of cut-out, and its enlargement, as also advertisements alleged to have been published in the Rajasthan Patrika of 7th & 8th November, 1993 were not supplied to him by the petitioner alongwith the copy of the election petition, thus, copy of the election petition served to him is not a true and correct copy of the petition and the provisions of Section 83 of the Act have not been complied with and therefore, this election petition is liable to be dismissed under Section 86 of the Act. 5. The petitioner in her rejoinder dated 15/3/94 reiterated that the copies of the aforesaid documents were annexed with the election petition and those were furnished to the respondent by registered post as also through process server of the District judge, Jaipur City. 6. 5. The petitioner in her rejoinder dated 15/3/94 reiterated that the copies of the aforesaid documents were annexed with the election petition and those were furnished to the respondent by registered post as also through process server of the District judge, Jaipur City. 6. For determination of this objection this Court vide its order dated 21/9/94 framed the following preliminary issue: "Whether the copies of Annexures A, A-2, A-3, and A-4, were not sent, along with the election petition, to the respondent? If so to what effect?" 7. On 21/9/94, the learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the enlargement copy Annexure A/1 i.e. coloured photograph of the cut-out of Lord"Shri Ram' alongwith hoarding of the respondent and the wall painting was not supplied to the petitioner alongwith copy of the election petition. The Court, therefore, observed in its order that no evidence was needed regarding non-furnishing of enlargement Annexure Al and that its effect would be considered while deciding the preliminary issue. 8. To discharge to burden of this preliminary issue, respondent Rajpal 5 Singh, & his witnesses Sarva Shri KC Sharma, and Jainarain Saini filed their affidavits. They were also cross examined by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, in rebuttal, petitioner Smt Sudha Raina did neither appear in Court for her cross examination on her affidavit nor she examined any witness. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record in extenso. 10. Shri J.S. Rastogi the learned counsel for the respondent has strenuously canvassed that from the evidence adduced in this case, it has been firmly established that copies of the coloured photograph, Annexure A1 and its enlargement Annexure A1, as also advertisements published in the Rajasthan 5 Patrika dated 8/11/93 & 7/11/93, Annexures A3 & A4, respectively, which were integral part of the election petition were not supplied to the respondent alongwith copy of the election petition sent to him through the Court and by registered post, and non furnishing thereof has caused material and substantial prejudice to the respondent. He has pointed out that even in the extra set of the o election petition submitted by the petition for the Court file, the afore mentioned documents are conspicuously missing. He has pointed out that even in the extra set of the o election petition submitted by the petition for the Court file, the afore mentioned documents are conspicuously missing. This fact conclusively proves that the petitioner has not supplied the afore-mentioned documents to the respondents alongwith copy of the election petition, and violated the mandatory provisions of Section 81 (3) of the Act. Shri Rastogi has, therefore prayed that this election petition should be dismissed under Section 86 (1) of the Act. 11. On the other hand, Shri K.N. Sharma, has asserted that the copies of the aforementioned documents were furnished to the respondent alongwith copy of the election petition. He has contended that if the respondent had not received the afore mentioned documents. Then he ought to have made a note thereof on the copy of the summons served by the process server or ought to have informed the Court about non-supply of these documents immediately, but the respondent has taken such a plea as late as on 25/2/95. In the alternative, he has maintained that non-supply of these documents has not caused any material prejudice to the respondent and the same is not fatal. 12. I have given my most anxious and careful consideration to the rival submissions. Section 81 (3) of the Act enjoins that every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition. Section 83 of the Act deals with contents of petition and proclaims that an election petition (a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies; (b) shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of each such practice; and (c) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the CPC for the verification of pleadings; provided that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice, the petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof. Sub-section (2) of Section 83 of the Act specifically lays down that any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition Section 86 (1) of the Act mandates that the High Court shall dismiss such an election petition, which does not comply with the provisions of Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 117. Thus, it is manifestly clear that if there is non compliance of provisions of Section 81 of the Act, then the High Court shall dismiss such an election petition. 13. It would suffice to add that in India, the election law being statutory in character must be strictly complied with and since an election petition is not guided by ever changing common law principles of justice and notions of equity being statutory in character, it is essential that it must strictly conform to the requirements of the Act. Section 81 (1) mandates to protect and safeguard sacrosanct electoral process so as not to disturb the verdict of the voters and there is no room for giving a liberal or broad view of the provisions of S. 81 of the Act. In Dr. (Smt) Shipra v. Shanti Lal Khoiwal, AIR 1996 SC 1691 , the Apex Court has reiterated that the concept of substantial compliance of filing the original with the election petition and the omission thereof in the copy supplied to the returned candidate as true copy cannot be said to be a curable irregularity. Allegations of corrupt practice are very serious imputations which, if proved, would entail civil consequences of declaring that he became disqualified for election to a maximum period of six years under Section 8-A, apart from conviction under Section 136 (2). Therefore, compliance of the statutory requirement is an integral part of the election petition and true copy supplied to the returned candidate should as a sine qua non contain the due verification and attestation by the prescribed authority and certified to be true copy by the election petitioner in his/her own signature. the principle of substantial compliance cannot be accepted in the fact situation. 14. the principle of substantial compliance cannot be accepted in the fact situation. 14. Respondent Rajpal Singh in his affidavit dated 25.5.94 and cross examination dated 9.7.97 has consistently deposed that the notice of the election petition sent by registered post was received by him in a sealed envelope, in presence of Jain Narain Saini and that photographs of the cut-out, hoarding and wall painting, referred to in para 1 of the election petition were not found in the envelope. He has further deposed that the other copy of the summons alongwith election petition, which was sent through the Court was received by him on 5/2/94 in the presence of Shri K.C. Sharma and that set of documents also did not include the photographs of cut out and wall painting etc. He stated that since at the time of the receipt of the copy of the election he did not know about the relevancy and importance of non furnishing of document annexed with the election petition, he did not contact the advocate immediately. Shri K.C. Sharma has corroborated testimony of respondent Raj Pal Singh and deposed that the copy of the summons and the election petition, which were sent through the Court were received on 5.2.94 in his presence and those did not include photos of the cut-out and wall painting. This witness has been also been cross examined at length but his testimony has remained under shaken. I do not find any valid reason to disbelieve his statement. Shri Jai Narain Saini deposed that the envelope containing the copy of the election petition sent through registered post was opened in his presence by Rajpal Singh. wherein photographs of the cut-out and the wall painting were not found. He has valiantly faced the test of cross examination and his testimony has remained unshattered. 15. In rebuttal, the petitioner has not cared to subject her to cross examination on her affidavit nor adduced any evidence. Thus there is no sufficient reason to disbelieve and discard the evidence of respondent. 16. It will also he pertinent to point out that the original election petition does not have any index of the documents. Moreover, in the extra set of the n election petition furnished by the petitioner in the Court, which is tagged alongwith this file, neither there is any indexing nor paging of the documents not, the coloured photographs. 16. It will also he pertinent to point out that the original election petition does not have any index of the documents. Moreover, in the extra set of the n election petition furnished by the petitioner in the Court, which is tagged alongwith this file, neither there is any indexing nor paging of the documents not, the coloured photographs. Annexures A & A1 have been filed. This ipso fact() corroborates the testimony of respondent Rajpal Singh Shekhawat and his witnesses. Thus, from the evidence adduced in this petition. it stands conclusively 5 proved that the petitioner did not. furnish the respondent with the coloured photograph Annexure A & its enlargement Annexure A1, so also the true copies of the advertisements, which were allegedly published in the Rajasthan Patrika on 8.11.93 and 7.11.93, marked Annexures A3, & A4. 17. Now the most pertinent question, which arises is as to whether the u- documents Annexures A1 to A4 are integral part of the election petition or those are simply an evidence in respect of the averments made in the election petition. In paras 3 (a), (h), (d), & (e) of the election petition, the petitioner has in unambiguous clear and specific terms pleaded that the coloured photographs of the cut-out and wall painting, photostat copies of the advertisements dated t5 7.11.93 & 8.11.93 published in the Rajasthan Patrika have been annexed with the election petition. From the coloured photographs and the enlargement thereof. the exact location of the display of hoardings, wall painting etc. their discussion visual effect of the cut-out of the Lord Shri Ram, hoarding having an appeal by the B.J.P. and the wall painting making an appeal to vote in favour of respondent 54) Raj Pal Singh near the said cut-out and the hoarding can be discerned. 18. On the other hand, photostat copy of the photograph Annexurc At available in the extra set of the election petition submitted in the Court and copy of election petition furnished to the respondent are quite dark, hazy and blurred, wherein details like dimensions and visual effect of the cut-out of Lord Shri Ram in the hoarding and the wall painting cannot be correctly discerned and those do not project the correct and clear picture of Annexure A and its enlargement, Annexure A1. From Annexure A & A1, the petitioner wants to show that the respondent had used corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 (3) of the Act making use of religion symbol. Similarly, typed copies of the advertisements Annexures A3 & A4 supplied to the respondent alongwith copy of the election petition are not even photostat copies of the advertisements published in Rajasthan Patrika dated 7.11.93 and 8.11.93. In such circumstances, in my considered opinion, the documents Annexures A1 to A4 are the integral part of the election petition and non -supply/not furnishing thereof is tantamount to patent violation of the provisions of section 81 (3) of the Act. Apparently, these documents have not been filed by the petitioner as an evidence in support of the election petition the other hand, they constitute material and substantial integral part of the election petition. In my considered view, non-furnishing of such vital documents is not a curable defect and this lapse on the part of the petition is not inconsequential. Non-furnishing of such vital documents has caused prejudice to the respondent in taking appropriate defence. 19. In Masala Eranna v. K. Basappa and others, 77 ELR 224 (SC) . the petitioner challenged the election of the returned candidate on the ground that he did not belong to the Scheduled Caste and was guilty of corrupt practices. The respondent' preliminary objection was on the ground that material parts of the documents which formed an integral part of the allegations made by the appellant were neither mentioned nor extracted in full in the petition nor were copies of the said documents supplied to the respondent. The Apex Court dismissed the petitioner's appeal and held that the booklet annexed with the petition was really an integral part of the election petition and merely by furnishing a part of the contents of the said booklet torn from the context, presented only a distorted version of the booklet, and that the High Court was fully justified in dismissing the election petition Section 86 of the Act. 20. In U.S. Sasidharan v. K. Karunakaran, AIR 1990 SC 924 , the election petition was filed alleging corrupt practice and the material facts contained, in the documents, which were referred to in the election petition, were not pleaded and copies of such document were not supplied to the respondent. 20. In U.S. Sasidharan v. K. Karunakaran, AIR 1990 SC 924 , the election petition was filed alleging corrupt practice and the material facts contained, in the documents, which were referred to in the election petition, were not pleaded and copies of such document were not supplied to the respondent. In that case, a video cassette displaying the alleged practice of the returned candidate was filed alongwith the election petition but copy thereof was not furnished to him, It was held that when a document forms an integral part of the election petition containing material facts or particulars of corrupt practice, then a copy of the election petition without such a document is not complete and cannot be said to be a true copy of the election petition and upheld the order of Kerala High Court dismissing the election petition under Section 86)(i) for non-compliance with the provisions of the Section 81(3) of the Act. 21. In M. Karunanidhi v. H.V. Handa, AIR 1983 SC 558 one of the grounds of the challenge in the election petition was that the respondent incurred or authorised expenditure in contravention of' Section 77 by erecting fancy banners throughout the constituency and the costs of each of banners was not less than Rs. 1,000/- and thus committed corrupt practice under Section 123(6) of the Act. It was averred that the photograph of one such banner was filed alongwith election petition but copy of the photograph of the said banner was not annexed with the copy of the election petition furnished to the returned candidate. It was held by the Apex Court that the photograph was an integral part of the averments contained in the election petition and was not merely a piece of evidence and that failure to supply its copy amounted to total non compliance of the requirements to sub-section (3) of Section St of the Act and dismissed the election petition. 22. In Shantilal v. Gurnan Mal Lodha, (1994) (1) WLC 308 , an elector challenged the election of respondent, who was declared elected as M.P. on the ground of corrupt 'practices and copy of the audio cassette forming integral part of petitioner was not supplied. The copies of the affidavits in support of the election were also not duly signed and verified. The copies of the affidavits in support of the election were also not duly signed and verified. It was held that the copies of affidavits furnished to the returned candidate were not (rile and correct copies, and that non-supply of the documents forming integral part of the election petition offended the mandatory provisions of Section 81 (3) read with S. 83 of the Act and the preliminary objection raised by the returned candidate was sustained and the election petition was dismissed under Section 53 of the Act. 23. In the case on hand, the petitioner did not furnish copies of coloured photographs Annexurc A &, its enlargement. Anncxure A1. and the copies of the advertisement published in the Rajasthan Patrika dated 5th & 7th November, 1993, Annexures A 3 and A 4 to the respondent. which were integral part of the election petition and thus she has not complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 81 and 83 of the Act. This has also caused material prejudice to the respondent. In such circumstances, the preliminary objection raised by the respondent is hereby sustained, and this election petition deserves to be dismissed under Section 80(1) of the Act. 24. The result of the above discussion is that this election petition stands dismissed with costs, which is quantified at Rs. 2.000/- (two thousand only) 25. Authenticated copies of the order he sent to the Chief Electoral Officer, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur and Hon'ble Speaker of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly, Jaipur immediately for information and necessary action.Election Petition Dismissed on Preliminary Objections. *******