- (1.) The appellant Ghasi Ram was one of the candidates at the General Elections from the Julena Constituency of Haryana to the State Legislative Assembly. The respondents were other candidates. The election took place on February 19, 1967 and the results were declared two days later. The first respondent was declared elected having secured 9,000 and odd votes more than the appellant. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, on September 12, 1967, by which the election petition was ordered to be dismissed. The petition was based on certain corrupt practices of the answering respondent who was a Minister for irrigation and Power in the Ministry of Shri Bhagwat Dayal Sharma till the result of the election. He was charged with having used his position as Minister in various ways to further his own election. The High Court on an examination of the evidence came to the conclusion that no corrupt practice was, in fact proved against him and the election could not be said to be void. Since the filing of the election petition the Haryana Assembly has been dissolved, but as allegations of corrupt practices were raised in the petition the appeal has been pressed before us. After hearing learned counsel in the appeal we have reached the same conclusion as the High Court and we find the appeal to be unsubstantial. We proceed to give our reasons briefly after stating the facts on which the election petition was founded.
(2.) The corrupt practices charged against the answering respondent can be divided under three heads. The first is that he used certain discretionary funds to bribe the voters. The second is that he used his position to favour some of his villages with a view to securing support for his candidature and the last is that he exercised undue pressure upon two Patwaris to work for him, when they declined, he ordered their suspension. We shall deal with these allegations in the same order.
(3.) After the new State of Haryana was constituted on November 1, 1966, the Government of Haryana placed at the disposal of the Cabinet Ministers, Ministers for State and the Deputy Ministers certain sums of money for distribution at their discretion. This was by a Resolution of the Government dated November, 1966 (Ex RW 14/1). This position is admitted. Since the answering respondent was a Minister, a sum of Rupees 50.000 was placed in his discretionary grant. From this sum the answering respondent made his discretionary grants and a sum of Rs. 12,500 in the aggregate was paid by him for various purposes in his constituency. The allegation is that he made this distribution as a bargain for votes in several villages and this amounted to corrupt practice. The amount was distributed by him between December 8, 1966 and January 9, 1967. In most cases the money was paid after the poll but as promises were apparently made this makes no difference to the allegation of corrupt practice. Section 123 lays down what are to be regarded as corrupt practices and it inter alia provides : " 123. Corrupt practices.-The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act- (1) Bribery that is to say,- (A) any gift offer or promise by a candidate * * * of any gratification to any person whomsoever, with the object directly or indirectly of inducing- (a)* * * * * * * (b) an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an election * * (2) Undue influence, that is to say, any direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere on the part of the candidate * * * * * with the free exercise of any electoral right. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * (7) The obtaining or procuring or abetting or attempting to obtain or procure by a candidate * * * * * * * * * * any assistance (other than the giving vote) for the furtherance of the prospects of that candidate's election, from any person in the service of the Government and belonging to any of the following classes, namely :- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * (f) revenue officers other than village revenue officers known as lambardars, malguzars, patels, deshmukhs or by any other name, whose duty is to collect land revenue and who are remunerated by a share of or commission on the amount of land revenue collected by them but who do not discharge any police functions and * * * * * * * A promise of a gift or offer is equally a corrupt practice but the gift, offer or promise must be made to an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an election, and, similarly, undue influence and obtaining or procuring of the services of any person in the service of the Government must be with the same intention. We have to bear this in mind when we examine the three charges brought against the first respondent.;