Kailasam, J. - (1.) This appeal is preferred by Gurdev Singh, unsuccessful candidate in election to the Punjab Assembly from Shautrana Reserve Constituency which was held in 1977 under Section 116-A of the Represention of the People Act, 1951 against the judgment of the Punjab High Court dismissing his election petition.
(2.) The election to the Punjab Assembly from the Shutrana reserve constituency was held in June, 1977. The polling took place on 12th June, 1977. The appellant Gurdev Singh secured 22422 votes and the returned candidate Baldev Singh, the respondent, secured 22557 votes getting a majority of 135 votes and was declared elected. The election was challenged mainly on the ground that the respondent hired vehicles for carrying the votes from their respective villages to the polling booths for casting their votes which is a corrupt practice, under Section 123 (5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The other grounds on which the election was challenged were that the respondent procured help of Sukhdev Singh, P.W. 13, who is a Gazetted officer of the State of Punjab, for the furtherance of his election prospects. It was also stated that the petitioner's polling agent Sher Singh, P.W. 19,was not allowed to enter the polling booth No.7 situate at village Buzarak by Shri Sukhdev Singh who was acting as the Presiding Officer of the said polling booth. It was further alleged that 50 votes were short-received by the Returning Officer from this polling booth, which were not accounted for and many votes were improperly received and many voters were disallowed to cast their votes. All the allegations were denied by the respondent. Several issues were framed by the learned Judge who tried the election petition. He decided all the issues against the petitioner and dismissed the petition.
(3.) In the appeal before us Mr. Tarkunde, the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner confined himself to the second issued raised before the learned Judge. Issue No. 2 is as follows:- "Whether the respondent procured vehicles for free conveyance of the electors to the polling booths and back - The allegation regarding this issue is contained in paragraph 7 of the petition which reads as follows:- "On 11-6-1977 at noon time Baldev Singh, 'respondent' came to the office of the Truck Operators' Union, Patran, with the assistance of Marpal Singh. He hired truck No. HUP 1879 owned by Harbans Singh Randhawa resident of Patran, truck No. PUP 9635 owned by Mewa Singh of Patran, truck No. PNP 3331 owned by Hardial Singh of Patran and truck No. PUV 2749, owned by Jagir Singh and Zore Singh resident of village, Nial. These trucks were hired to carry voters from their villages free of charge to cast their votes at the polling stations meant for those villages on 12-6-1977. The fare was fixed @Rs. 100 per each truck." The details regarding various trucks used at the various polling booths with the names of the witnesses that travelled in the trucks were also furnished. The allegations were denied by the respondent who stated that the names given in the petition are strong supporters of Akali Dal and the names are given for the basis to lead false evidence. The learned Judge rejected the evidence produced by the petitioner mainly on the gorund that though the petitioner saw the voters being carried by the respondent's supporters to polling stations he did not make any written complaint about this matter to the Returning Officer. The learned Judge also pointed out that the petitioner had on an earlier occasion contested the election to the Punjab Assembly and could be fixed with the knowledge of legal position that hiring of vehicles for carrying voters to the polling booth by the candidates constitutes a corrupt practice. If in fact the respondent had hired and used any trucks for carrying the voters to the polling station, the learned Judge observed, he would certainly have lodged complaint with the concerned presiding officer and the returning officer of the constituency. It is pointed out by the learned Judge that the petitioner did lodge a complaint about the conduct of P.W. 13 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Samens,who held an inquiry the result of which went against him. In such circumstances, the petitioner would not have failed to make a complaint about the use of hired vehicles for carrying out voters by the respondent. The learned Judge proceeded to consider the evidence of the witnesses that spoke about the hiring of the vehicles by the respondent and rejected it on the ground that they are interested and unacceptable.;