Alagiriswami, J. - (1.) This appeal arises out of the election to the Haryana Vidhan Sabha from the Jhajjar constituency held on 11-3-1973 in which the appellant was declared elected on receiving 24060 votes as against 23975 votes received by the respondent. The respondent thereupon filed the petition challenging the validity of the election.
(2.) The appeal itself is against the order dated 17th August, 1972 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, who heard the election petition in respect of issues 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (a) and 7 (b). Issue 2 itself was not challenged before this Court. Issues 1, 3, 4, and 5 form one group; issue 6 relates to a corrupt practice; issues 7 (a) and 7 (b) stand by themselves. Though they also do not refer to a corrupt practice, we will discuss and deal with them separately.
(3.) We shall first set forth the allegations in the election petition which gave rise to these various issues, The allegation in the election petition with regard to issue (1) is found in para 9 (ii) of the election petition, with regard to issue (3) in para 9 (iv) issue (4) in para 9 (v) and issue (5) in para 9 (vi): " Para 9 (ii) That the respondent got 28 votes of the dead voters polled at Chhapa Booth No. 19, Machhrauli Booth No. 31, Silani Booths Nos. 38 and 39, Silani Pans Zalim Booth No. 40, Silani Panna Keso Booth No. 41, Bhadani Booth No. 56, Ghhudani Booth No. 58, Sheikhupura Jat Booth No. 61 and Badli Booth No. 79. (iv) That a large number of voters, who were either absentees or missing or sick in hospitals or convicts lodged in jail and deserted ladies have been impersonated by the friends and relations of the respondent for whom they have all polled and their total number is 710. (v) That a large number of Government servants numbering 158 who were not present in their respective villages and did not cast their votes In fact, have been impersonated and their votes have been polled in favour of the respondent. (vi) That the respondent got the same votes registered in two or more different places in Haryana Assembly Jhajjar Constituency No. 44. The said persons are near or distant relations or friends of the respondent. The said voters palled their votes at two different places in the same constituency and in other constituencies i.e. Jhajjar Assembly Constituency No. 44, Beri Assembly Constituency No. 42, Salha was (S.C.) No. 43, Bahadurgarh No. 45, Kalanaur No. 41, Hasangarh No 38, Pataudi No. 55, Jattusana No. 58 and outside Haryana in Delhi (Union Territory) in village Ghewra, Mitrau, Dichau and Charagh Delhi. The votes were polled in Jhajjar Constituency and in other constituencies as well..... It may further be added that respondent had arranged some chemicals by which the indelible ink used for identity of a voter on the first finger, that he had already cast his vote had been evaporated and in this manner several of the voters exercised their votes multiple time in the said constituency. For example his sister Mano impersonated for Mitro wife of Mangal, vote No. 934, and Shanti wife of Chhotu vote No. 940 at Booth No. 40. Besides this she herself voted twice i.e. at Booth No. 40 against vote No. 824, and at Booth No. 1 against Vote No. 41." It would be noticed these allegations relate to votes cast in the name of 28 dead persons, votes cast in the name of 710 persons who were absent due to various reasons, those cast in the name of 158 Government servants who were not present in their respective villages and did not cast their votes. Issue (5) relates to the case of about 149 persons who were said to have voted twice and in some cases more than twice either in the same constituency or in more than one constituency. The appellant denied all the allegations made in these paragraphs but he also filed a recrimination petition making the same allegations against the appellant in respect of about 2200 votes. We are not just now concerned with them. The main contention of Mr. Garg, who appeared on behalf of the appellant, was that these issues should not have been allowed to be raised as the election petition did not contain enough material particulars that what was asked for was in the nature of a roving and fishing inquiry and should not be allowed. He was particularly alarmed by the fact that the respondent had cited as many as 1100 witnesses whom he sought to examine in respect of various allegations made in the petition and the issues arising out of them. We shall first of all deal with issues 1, 3, 4 and 5.;