P.N.BHAGWATI - (1.) THE controversy in this appeal relates to the validity of election to the Lok Sabha from the Sadar Parliamentary Constituency in the Union Territory of Delhi. Eleven candidates originally offered themselves for election from this constituency but out of them, six withdrew their candidature with the result that only five remained in the field as contesting candidates. THEy were the petitioner and respondents Nos. 1 to 4. THE petitioner was put up as a candidate by the Jan Sangh, while the candidature of the first respondent was sponsored by the Congress, which at that time, on account of the split in the organisation, was known as the ruling Congress or the new Congress. Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 were independent candidates. Though there were nominally five candidates, the real contest was between the petitioner and the first respondent. THE polling took place on 5/03/1971 and the result of the poll was declared on 11/03/1971. THE petitioner secured 55305 votes, while the first respondent polled 98108 votes. THE first respondent thus won by a large majority and was declared elected. THE petitioner thereupon filed an election petition challenging the validity of the-election of the first respondent on various grounds. THE election petition was contested by the first respondent and, as the voluminous mass of record shows, it was fought out to a bitter end with great industry and thoroughness on both sides. Mr. Justice Andley of the Delhi High Court, who heard the election petition, found in an elaborate judgment that none of the grounds on which the election was sought to be invalidated was established and he accordingly dismissed the election petition with costs. THE present appeal preferred by the petitioner impugns this judgment of Mr. Justice Andley.
(2.) THE election petition was based on numerous grounds which were summarised in paragraph 9 and subsequently elaborated in paragraphs 12, 14, 18 to 21 and 24 to 26. THE ground set out in paragraph 12 was that the electoral rolls, on the basis of which the election had been held, were imperfect and defective, and that vitiated the election. Paragraph 14 alleged the invalidity of the amendment in R. 56 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and paragraphs 18 and 19 challenged the validity of the election on the ground that about a lac or more ballot papers, which had been chemically treated, were fraudulently introduced and that had materially affected the result of the election. THE charge in paragraphs 20 and 21 was that the first respondent was guilty of corrupt practice, in that the first respondent, his election agent and other persons with his consent, including the first respondent, had printed and published a hand bill and a poster containing statements in relation to the personal character or conduct of the petitioner which were false and which the first respondent did not believe to be true, and which were reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the petitioner's election. Paragraph 24 also charged a similar corrupt practice on the allegation that these statements were repeated by the first and the fifth respondents in public meetings as also during the course of canvassing. And lastly, it was-alleged in paragraphs 25 and 26 that the first respondent had incurred or authorised expenditure in excess of the prescribed limit of Rs. 10,000 in contravention of Sec. 77 of the Representation 'of the People Act 1951. THEse were broadly the grounds on which the election of the first respondent was sought to be declared void by the petitioner. Though the first, second and fifth respondents filed their respective written statements, the contest was only on behalf of the first and fifth respondents. The second respondent supported the petitioner: his support was however not of much value since he did not take any active part in the petition. Respondents 3 and 4 were obviously not interested in the petition and they did not even care to appear or file any written statement. The first and fifth respondents raised in their written statements certain preliminary objections and also denied the various allegations made in the petition and contested the grounds on which the petitioner claimed to set aside the election of the first respondent. We shall deal with the contents of these written statements a little later when we examine the specific charges levelled against the first respondent. Suffice it to state for the present that on the basis of the preliminary objections raised in the written statements, the learned Trial Judge framed four preliminary issues and they were decided by an order dated 6/08/1971. So far as the first preliminary issue is concerned, the learned Trial Judge held that paragraphs 9, 12, 18 to 21 and 24 to 26 did not suffer from lack of concise statement of material facts, but they did not give full particulars of the allegations and he accordingly directed the petitioner to furnish further particulars with respect to paragraphs 18 to 21, 24 and 25 as specified in the .schedule to the order. The second and the fourth preliminary issues do not survive for consideration; they were decided against the petitioner and the petitioner does not challenge the decision in appeal. The third preliminary issue was decided in favour of the petitioner but it is now meaningless to discuss it because the petitioner is not pressing the ground set out in paragraphs 18 and 19 in support of the appeal. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 6/08/1971, the petitioner furnished particulars of the allegations contained in paragraphs 18 to 21, 24 and 25 by an affidavit dated 19th August, l971. A reply to these particulars was given by the first respondent on 26/08/1971. We shall have occasion to refer to these particulars and the reply made to them when we examine the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties.
(3.) THE learned Trial Judge then framed issues on the merits by an order dated 3/09/1971. Issues 1 to 7 of these issues relate to the ground set out in paragraphs 18 and 19. It is not necessary to refer to them since they were decided against the petitioner by the learned Trial Judge and the correctness of this decision is not assailed on behalf of the petitioner in the present appeal. Issue 8 raised the question whether the first respondent, his election agent and other persons with the consent of the first respondent or his election agent committed the corrupt practices charged in paragraphs 20 and 21 and Issue 9 raised a similar question in regard to the corrupt practices set out in paragraph 24. THE question whether the first respondent incurred or authorised expenditure in excess' of the prescribed limit of Rs. 10,000/. in contravention of Section 77 as alleged in paragraph 25, was put in issue in Issue 10. Issues 11, 12 and 13 raised certain subsidiary questions but it appears from the judgement of the learned Trial Judge that they were not pressed by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner before the Trial Court. We need not, therefore, spend any time on these issues. THE last issue was issue 14 which was directed against the fifth respondent who was alleged to have committed- corrupt practices. There was enormous oral as well as documentary evidence led on behalf of both sides. This evidence discloses certain curious and unusual features to which we shall advert in course of time, but there can be no doubt that it evidences very careful and thorough preparation of the case on either side. Not an inch of ground appears to have been conceded by one side to the other and every move in this long and bitter contest, from one side or the other, seems to have been well thought out and relentlessly pursued. The learned Trial Judge, on a consideration of the evidence presented before him, came to the conclusion that issues 8, 9 and 10 were not established by the petitioner and there was also no satisfactory proof in regard to issue 14 and accordingly, by a judgment D/- 19-5-1972 he rejected the charges of corrupt practice against the first and fifth respondents and dismissed the election petition with costs. The petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Trial judge preferred the present appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.;