- (1.) At a bye erection held in April 1967 to elect a member of the Lok Sabha from the Srikakulam parliamentary constituency there were two contesting candidates -Boddepalli Rajagopala Rao-hereinafter called "the appellant"- and N. G. Ranga - hereinafter called "the respondent". The respondent was declared elected. The appellant filed an application in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to set aside the election of the respondent on the ground that the respondent had committed diverse corrupt practices described in Section 123 (l) (A) (a), (b), (5) and (6) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The respondent denied the allegations made in the petition. He also submitted that the allegations were vague and indefinite and some of those allegations did not constitute any corrupt practice within the meaning of the Representation of the People Act, l951. The appellant amended the petition and submitted particulars of certain corrupt practices set out in the original petition. The appellant then filed his additional written statement. The High Court held on a detailed consideration of the evidence that the corrupt practices alleged by the appellant in the petition were not proved, and dismissed the petition. The appellant has appealed to this Court under S. 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
(2.) Counsel for the appellant restricted his argument to the following charges set out in the petition: (1) A charge of bribery in respect of an amount of Rs. 4,000/- paid to a candidate in the election as gratification for not standing for election, Rs. 10,000/- for constructing a high school building in the village Kothakotha with the object of inducing the voters in the village and three other contiguous polling stations to vote for him; and Rs. 1,000/- paid for completing the excavation of a well in consideration of promise of votes for the respondent. Thereby corrupt practices of bribery within the meaning of S. 123 (A) and (IB) were committed; (2) Providing on the day of polling a number of motor-vehicles for the free transport of voters to the polling stations, and especially motor-jeep No. APK-9486, motor-lorry No. APK-9250, motor-lorry No. APG-3511 and motor-bus No. APS-1315. Thereby a corrupt practice under S. 123 (5) was committed; (3) Causing the printing and publication of a leaf-let containing false and defamatory statements in relation to the personal character of the appellant. Copies of the leaflet were distributed at several meetings held by the Swatantra Party at Srikakulam and other places. The respondent and his election agent also exhorted, with the object of tarnishing the image of the appellant and lowering him in the estimation of the voters, the voters at those meetings not to vote for the appellant who it was alleged had misappropriated public funds. Thereby the respondent committed a corrupt practice under S. 123 (4) of the Representation of the People Act. (4) That the account of the expenditure returned by the respondent did not disclose many items of expenditure which were incurred in connection with the election. The respondent had expended a sum exceeding Rupees 3 lakhs, and the expenditure returned was a gross under estimate of the expenses incurred by the respondent in connection with his election. Thereby he committed a corrupt practice under S. 123 (6) read with S. 77 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. In respect of the charge of bribery there were three heads - (i) that the respondent and his election agent G. Latchanna induced one Suvari Sanyasi Apparao not to stand as a candidate at the election by paying him Rs. 4,000/-as gratification. According to the appellant Suvari Sanyasi Apparao who was defeated in the contest for a seat in the Legislative Assembly of Andhra Pradesh in the general elections held in 1962 and February, 1967, intended to contest for the Lok Sabha seat in the bye-election and was canvassing support before the appointed date for filing nominations, but the respondent and his election agent at a meeting on March 29, 1967 in the travelers bungalow at Amadalvalasa dissuaded Survari Sanyasi Apparao from contesting the election in consideration of payment of Rs. 4,000/- This was denied by the respondent. In support of his case the appellant examined Suvari Sanyasi Apparao P. W. 24 and B. Suryanarayana P. W. 25. He relied also upon two documents Exts P-41 and P-83. In rebuttal the respondent relied upon his own testimony and of his election agent Latchhana. Suvari Sanyasi Apparao was also examined as a witness R. W. 2. The respondent examined a number of other witnesses K. Chalapatirao Patnaik R. W. 1, Bendi Appalla Suri R. W. 3 Dola Jagannatha Rao, R. W. 6, Sylada Pyditalli Naidu R. W. 9, B. Achuta Raju R. W. 10, B. Narayana Swamy R. W. 15, Kolanganti Sathi Raju R. W. 25 and Cokina Chandra Rao R. W. 26 and relied upon certain documents. The two witnesses examined on behalf of the appellant deposed to the circumstances leading to their presence at Amadalavalasa travellers' bungalow and payment of 4,000/- to Suvari Sanyasi Apparao by Latchanna after the respondent and Latchhana had requested him not to la the nomination paper and to help the respondent in the election. The learned Trial Judge made a detailed analysis of the evidence and held that there were "contradictions and material discrepancies" in the statements of the witnesses for the appellant, and that the statements of the witnesses "did not inspire confidence". The burden of proving that the respondent and his election agent went to Amadalvalasa travellers' bungalow and persuaded Suvari Sunyasi Apparao not to file his nomination paper in consideration of receiving a bribe lay upon the appellant. The witnesses examined on his behalf are, as found by the High Court, "highly interested and their testimony was rebutted by the witnesses named by him as the persons present at the time". Besides, the evidence of the witnesses as found by the High Court. "was discrepant and did not accord with probabilities. Both the oral and documentary evidence falsified it. There were inherent improbabilities in the allegation itself." No substantial argument was advanced before us to persuade us to take a different view.
(3.) (ii) In respect of the charge of bribery of Rs. 10,000/-, it was alleged in the petition that Latchhana, election agent of the respondent visited Kothakota at 8-00 p.m. on April 26,1967 and paid Rs. 10,000/- to one D. Jaganatha Rao a resident of that village for constructing a "High School building" in that village. The payment, it was said, was made with the object of inducing the voters of Kothakota and three contiguous polling stations to vote for the respondent. This was denied by the respondent. In support of the allegation the appellant examined Dhavala Appalla Suri P. W. 7, Kusumanchi Adinarayana P. W. 8 Galala Ramulu P. W. 9 and Amballa Appalla Suri P. W. 11 and relied upon some documentary evidence also. In answer the respondent examined himself, his election agent and witnesses K. Chalapatirao Patnaik, R. W. 1, Dola Jagannatha Rao R. W. 6, D. Kondaih Choudari R. W. 8 and Alla Venkatarao R. W. 16, and relied upon certain documentary evidence. On a consideration of the evidence the learned Judge observed that the entire oral evidence in support of the appellant's case was "highly discrepant and did not "merit credence". The High Court observed that. "the petition did not refer to the place of incident, whether it was rice mill premises or outside the rice mill where the payment is alleged to have been made. While some of the witnesses said it was rice mill premises itself, others said that it was near the rice mill". The High Court also observed that "apart from the interested nature and the fact that their testimony was replete with material contradictions there were inherent improbabilities in the story told, which made it highly difficult to accept the testimony." After considering the testimony of the respondent and his witnesses the Court observed that the oral testimony on behalf of the appellant was inconsistent and did not make out a case of corrupt practice, that the probabilities of the case were strongly against the appellant's contention and there was no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the witnesses for the respondent. Even in respect of this charge of corrupt practice no argument seeking to persuade us to take a different view was advanced by counsel for the appellant.;