- (1.) This appeal is brought under Section 116-A of the Re- presentation of the People Act, 1951 (Act No. 43 of 1951) against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High court dated 8/01/1968 in Election petition No. 8 of 1967 whereby the High court dismissed the election petition filed by the appellant under Section 80 of that Act.
(2.) In the General Election for the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly that took place on the 20/02/1967 in the Constituency No. 184 i. e. Banda Constituency in Sagar District, the appellant and the respondent besides four other persons were the contesting candidates. The respondent, mr. Ramcharan Pujari, who was a candidate on behalf of the Jan Sangh party, was declared to be elected on the 21/02/1967 having secured 12 731 votes. The appellant secured 11,908 in that election. The appellant thereafter challenged the election of the respondent on the ground of various corrupt practices alleged to have been committee in Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Election Petition. It was further pleaded that the Polling Officers and the other polling staff did not comply with the provisions of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 (Act No. 43 of 1961) (hereinafter called the Act) andthe Rules thereunder or the orders made under the Act. In his written statement the respondent controverted each one of the allegations made in the election petition. After consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, Mr. Justice S. P. Bhargava held that the allegations made by the appellant were not established. As many as 16 issues were framed in the case, but we are concerned in this appeal only with Issues Nos. 12, 14,5,8 and 4 which are reproduced below: "12 (A) Whether 2 or 3 days before the polling, the respondent got distributed through his polling agent Shri Ramsingh Lodhi rupees one per voter to several electors of village Khaharmau in order to induce them to vote for the respondent by affixing their seal on "deepak" symbol (B) Whether the payment of this gratification with the object of directly or indirectly inducing the voters to vote for the respondent is a corrupt practice done with the consent or connivance of the respondent or his agent and invalidates his election 14 (A) Whether on 18/2/1967 the respondent offered a gift or reward to the Sounr Community of village Budhakhera one patromax lamp and a large size 'farsh' as an inducement for obtaining votes for himself from the voters of that community (B) Whether on 23/2/1967 the respondent through his polling agent birjusingh paid Rs. 120. 00 at Banda to Bijain Sounr of Boodhakhera asking him to purchase and offered patromax of his own choice (C) Whether the offer of gift or reward as well as the payment of gratification of Rs. 120. 00 with the object of directly or indirectly inducing the voters of Boodhakhera to vote for the respondent is a corrupt practice with the consent or connivance of the respondent or his agent invalidating his election 5 (A) Whether on 15/2/1967 at night time in village Baraitha, the respondent with the help of his workers and supporters named in the petition convened a meeting of the Jains at the Jain Temple there and after appealing to them not to vote for the Congress candidate as the congress was not preventing slaughter of cows and thus offending their religious belief and feelings and thereafter made them take oath by their religion not to vote for the Congress, but only for the candidate of Jan sangh which stood for prevention of cow-slaughter (B) If so, does this amount to corrupt practice under Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 8 (A) Whether Laxman Ramdeo, Presiding Officer, at the polling station Mudari-Bujurg was an old associate of the respondent in the rashtriya Swaym Sewak Sangh and was detained along with him in jail about the year 1947-48 when that association was declared unlawful (B) Whether Laxman Ramdeo was specifically warned by the Re- turning Officer not to commit breach of rules (C) Whether Laxman Ramdeo also underwent a training called 'o. T. C' in the Jan Sangh (D) Whether Laxman Ramdeo changed the place of polling booth of Mudari Bujurg from the place initially fixed to another about half a 551 furlong away and also re-allotted the duties of the polling staff assigned to the said booth for the purpose of helping the respondent inside the booth (E) Whether Laxman Ramdeo asked the voters to vote for the respondent by putting their voting mark on "deepak" and even himself put such voting mark on 'deepak' in the voting papers of some voters after taking those from them (F) Whether in these ways he interfered seriously with the free exercise of votes by the voters and further the prospect of the respondent by abusing his office contrary to the provisions of law If so, has the result of the election been materially affected by his alleged irregularity 4 (A) Whether on 15/2/1967 (Wednesday) in the afternoon at the banda Market and on 16/2/1967 (Thursday) at village Bara in the market, and on 17/2/1967 (Friday) in the night at about 8 p. m. in Banda in a meeting addressed by him, the respondent first verbally appealed to the voters to vote for him, who was a Jan Sangh candidate, if they want to prevent the slaughter of cows and their progany and thus save the hindu religion and Hindu civilisation from extinction and not for the congress candidate as the Congress Party was permitting the slaughter of cows and bullocks which are regarded as sacred by Hindu religion and thus destroying Hindu religion, and thereafter he and his workers, named by the petitioner distributed the handbills entitled "savdhan Apki dharmik Bhavanaon par bhayanker vajraghat" a copy of which is filed by the petitioner (B) If so, whether this amount to a corrupt practice under Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951
(3.) Counsel on behalf of the appellant pressed his argument only with regard to these issues, and said that he will not challenge the findings of mr. Justice S. P. Bhargava with regard to other issues. As regards Issue No. 12, two witnesses Ram Singh (P. W. 41) and Dhokal (P. W. 42) were examined on behalf of the appellant. Ramsingh deposed that in the last election he worked as a polling agent of the appellant at kharmau polling station. The respondent had given him Rs. 35. 00 two or three days before the date of the polling. The respondent had told him at that time that he should secure the votes of his acquaintances for him without any payment. If he could not succeed in such an attempt, then he should pay Re. 1. 00 to each voter and get his vote polled for the respondent. In cross-examination, Ramsingh admitted that he had not rendered any account of Rs. 35. 00 which he had received from Ramcharan Pujari, Dhokal (P. W. 42) said that he received Re. l/- from Ramsingh to vote for the respondent and his wife had also received Re. l/- from Ramsingh. In cross-examination he admitted that Ramsingh straight away told him that he should vote for "deepak" and gave Re. l/- each to him and to his wife. According to Dhokal, no attempt was at all made by Ramsingh to persuade him to vote for Ramcharan Pujari without any payment. It is manifest that both Ramsingh and dhokal are participants in an illegal act and therefore unless there is some independent corroboration of their evidence it is not possible to place reliance thereon. No such corroborative evidence was produced in this case on behalf of the appellant. The High court was not hence prepared to accept the statement of either Ramsingh or Dhokal as truthful. We see no reason 552 to differ from the High court in its estimate regarding the credibility of the two witnesses. We hold that Issue No. 12 was rightly decided by the High court against the appellant.;