Gupta, J. - (1.) In the general election held in 1972 the appellant contested unsuccessfully the Assembly Seat in 39 Teliamura Scheduled Caste Constituency, Khowai Sub-Division, in Tripura. Poll was taken on March 11, 1972, the counting took place on March 14 and the result was announced the same day. The first respondent who secured 5458 votes was declared elected; the appellant polled 3847 votes. There were two other contestants, but it is not necessary to refer to them for the purpose of this appeal. On April 28, 1972 the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur and Tripura, Agartala Bench, calling in question the election of the first respondent on three grounds, two of which relate to corrupt practices referred to in sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and the other alleges contravention of Sec. 58 of the Act. It was stated that the first respondent and his agents with his consent offered bribes to the voters to induce them to vote for him at the election which is a corrupt practice under Section 123 (1). It was also alleged that to prejudice the prospects of the appellant's election, the first respondent, or some other persons with his consent, published certain posters containing statements about the appellant's personal character which were false and which the first respondent did not believe to be true. This is a corrupt practice under Section 123 (4). It was further alleged in the election petition that the ballot boxes in polling stations Nos. 3 and 14 had been tampered with after the closing of the voting and before the commencement of the counting of the votes, but the returning officer failed to report the matter to the Election Commission which he was required to do under Section 58 of the Act.
(2.) The allegation that the first respondent himself had offered bribe to the voters was not pressed before the High Court, and the High Court disbelieved P.W. 9 Mani Ram Biswas and P. W. 11 Brajabashi Sarkar who sought to prove that Kulak Haldar, who worked at the election for the party of which the first respondent was a candidate, had paid Rs. 30/- each to three voters including these witnesses. Having gone through the evidence of P.W. 9 and P.W. 11 we share the view with the High Court that they are entirely unreliable. Kulak Haldar deposing as R.W. 6 denied the allegation against him and the High Court from the "manner of his deposition" found him a truthful witness.
(3.) Two letters, Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4, stated to have been written by one Arabinda Lahiri, were produced in support of the allegation that some voters were bribed. Admittedly Arbinda Lahiri was one of the counting agents of the first respondent. Kulak Haldar also stated in his evidence that Arabinda Lahiri had occasionally worked for the party to which both Kulak Haldar and the first respondent belonged. The first letter, Exhibit 3 written on March 7, 1972 was addressed to one Dinabandhu Sarkar (P.W. 2). The letter is as follows: "On account of some urged work I could not come; I have sent one of my own persons to you with some money. You must purchase the votes of Krishnapur area in whatsoever manner you can. I have sent this money, according to the direction of Anilda (first respondent). The votes of Krishnapur must be cast in the symbol of Anilda by any means." The writer of the letter signed his name as "Shri Arabinda Lahiri", and his address is given as "C.P.M. Office". C.P. I (M) is the party to which the first respondent belonged. The other letter, Exhibit 4, was written on March 8 to Debendra Chandra Biswas (P.W. 3). This letter says: "Please accept this special message that the messenger of this letter Rabindra Sutradhar is sent to you. In accordance with the direction of Anilda I have also sent some money with him to you with the request that in whatsoever manner possible you must see that the votes of your village are cast in favour of hammer, sickle and star. Do not ignore this." This letter is also signed as "Shri Arabinda Lahiri". It was argued on behalf of the appellant that these letters proved that they were written with the consent of the first respondent. Arabinda Lahari has not been examined. P.W. 8, Saraj Bhattacharjee, who calimed to be a classmate of Lahiri was examined to prove that the letters were in his handwriting. A cousin of Arabinda Lahiri, Sudhir Lahiri (R.W. 5), was examined on behalf of the first respondent. His evidence is that Arbinda used to stay in his house till he (Arabinda) passed the Higher Secondary Examination in 1972. The witness stated that he was well acquainted with Arabinda's handwriting and denied that the two letters were written by Arabinda. The witness added that Arabinda after he had passed the Higher Secondary Examination was looking for a job and was "moving in ministerial circle" for that purpose. From the evidence of P.W. 8, Saraj Bhattarcharjee, it appears that he was not on intimate terms with Arabinda and there was no special reason why he should be able to recognise Arabinda's handwritting when he confessed his inability to recognise the handwriting of the other 70 students in his class. Further, this witness was apparently not correct when he said that Arbinda passed the Higher Secondary Examination in 1971; Arabinda's cousin Sudhir Lahiri in whose house Arbinda was staying when he appeared at the examination stated that Arabinda passed the examination in 1972. In these circumstances the High Court accepted the evidence of R.W. 5 Sudhir Lahiri and found that the letters, Exhibits 3 and 4, were not written by Arabinda Lahiri. The very clear and express words saying that money was being sent for the purpose of purchasing votes, leaving nothing to guess or to be inferred, also appear to us as unnatural and therefore suspicious, and we are inclined to agree with the High Court that these letters are not safe to rely on.;