Venkatarama Aiyar, J. - (1.) This appeal arises out of a petition filed by the first respondent. Harish Chandra, under S. 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, hereafter referred to as the Act, for setting aside the election of the appellant to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Rajasthan from the Hanumangarh Constituency, in the General Election which was held in February and March 1957. Two candidates contested the seat, the appellant and one Ramchandra Chowdhury. The appellant polled 18,530 votes and Ramchandra Chowdhury 17,136 votes. The appellant was accordingly declared elected on March 18, 1957. On April 29, 1957 the first respondent who is a voter in the Constituency filed the petition, out of which the present appeal arises, alleging therein that the appellant had committed a number of corrupt practices in the conduct of the election, and praying that his election might accordingly be declared void. The appellant denied the allegations in the petition.
(2.) Though before the Election Tribunal and in the High Court the controversy ranged over several charges, before us it is limited to only one of them, and that was thus stated in para 3(d) of the petition: "That the respondent committed corrupt practice by procuring and using mechanical vehicles for the transport of voters to and from the polling stations, details whereof are given in Schedule C appended to this petition." In that Schedule, eleven instances were given. Issue No. V, which was framed with reference to this question is as follows: "Did the respondent procure and use mechanical vehicles detailed in Schedule C and E for the transport of voters to and from the polling stations - The Election Tribunal held that one of these instances was lacking in definiteness, and by order dated September 3, 1957 directed it to be struck out. Evidence was adduced by both parties on the other ten instances set out in Schedule C. The Tribunal first addressed itself to one of them. viz., the transport of voters from the village Lambi Dhab to Bholanwali polling station on March 1, 1957 in jeeps Nos. 849 and 935, and held on a consideration of the evidence that these jeeps had been used for transporting voters and that they had been procured by the appellant. On that finding, and without discussing the evidence relating to the other instances, the Tribunal held that the charge against the appellant had been established.
(3.) Against this order, the appellant preferred an appeal under S. 116-A of the Act to the High Court of Rajasthan, and that was heard by a Bench consisting of the Chief Justice and Jagat Narayan, J. Dealing with this issue, the learned Judges observed that the order of the Tribunal dated September 3, 1957, striking out one of the instances was not proper, because if it was vague and indefinite, the petitioner should have been called upon to give further particulars and that the order striking it out, without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to do so was not justified. Then they proceeded to discuss the other ten instances on which evidence had been recorded, and held that in seven out of them it had been established that mechanically propelled vehicles had been used for transporting voters to the polling booths. The learned Judges further held that as regards the polling which took place at Bholanwali, jeeps had been procured by the appellant himself. With reference to other instances, they held that though it had been proved that mechanically propelled vehicles had been used, there was no direct evidence to prove that the appellant had procured them. This is how they state their conclusions: "We thus find that seven instances out of the 11 the particulars of which were given in Schedule C have been proved. They relate to 1-3-57, 3-3-57, 5-3-57, 7-3-57 and 9-3-57 and 7 different polling stations. There is no direct evidence to show that the vehicles used were procured by the appellant himself except in one instance relating to Bholanwali Polling Station where jeeps Nos. 835 and 849 were used. These jeeps were admittedly procured by the appellant himself. Most of the vehicles used in the other instances belonged to persons who worked for the appellant during this election. Balwant Singh and Birbaldass out of them were his polling agents who acted as such with the express consent of the appellant. Others like Ramdutt and Chunilal were his canvassers who must be taken to have acted as agents in connection with the election with the implied consent of the candidate." The learned Judges then proceeded to consider whether, on these facts, the election of the appellant was liable to be set aside. They observed: "The question which arises for consideration is whether it can be said in the circumstances of the present case that the corrupt practice in question has been committed by the returned candidate or by any person with the consent of the returned candidate as required under section 100(1) (b) of the Act." And they expressed their conclusion in these terms: "From the numerous instances in which voters were carried in mechanically propelled vehicles by the agents of the appellant some of whom were quite close to him, we are of the opinion that the appellant could not have been unaware of this transport of his voters by mechanically propelled vehicles and did nothing to stop it. We accordingly infer that they were so carried with his implied consent.";