- (1.) This appeal, by special leave, is directed against an order passed by the High court of Madhya Predesh, during the trial of an election petition, refusing to examine witnesses sought to be produced by the appellant. The election petition related to the General Elections held for the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly in 1967. Five candidates filed their nomination papers, one of whom was the appellant and the other four are the respondents in this appeal. The appellant withdrew his candidature and was not, therefore, a contestant at the time of the poll. Respondent No. 2, having received the highest number of votes, was declared elected. Respondent No. 1 had received the next highest number of votes and he filed the election petition challenging the election of Respondent No. 2. The appellant was impleaded as one of the respondents in this election petition. In Para 11 of the election petition, it was pleaded that the election of the successful candidate was void inasmuch as, inter alia, the corrupt practices mentioned later in the petition were committed by the candidate, and by the appellant and others with his consent. When giving details, it was pleaded that the appellant, in the presence of and with the consent of the successful candidate, addressed a public meeting organised for the election propaganda of the successful candidate on 2/02/1967, at village Sarvania Masani in the constituency and, in the course of his speech, said : "Joshiji, the Congress candidate, had put me up in the election as a candidate of Hindu Maha Sabha by giving allurement of money. Later on he came to give me Rs. 5,000. 00 and said to contest the election. I did not fall prey to the persuasion and allurement of such a cow-killing (Gohatyari) Congress and did not contest the election. "as a consequence of this pleading which charged the appellant with commission of corrupt practice, the appellant also filed his written statement on 14/07/1967, and denied the commission of this corrupt practice. On 2/08/1967, the court fixed 30/08/1967 for filing of draft issues by the parties and for giving the list of their witnesses. On 18/09/1967, issues were framed and, then, on 7/12/1967, the court drew up a programme for recording evidence of parties according to which, the evidence of Respondent No. 1, the election petitioner, was to be recorded between 15th January and 23rd January, 1968. The further direction was that the respondents' evidence was to be recorded between 25th January and 7/02/1968. Since there was also a recrimination petition, the court further directed that the evidence of the petitioner, who had filed the recrimination, was to be recorded from 12th February to 15th February, 1968, and the evidence of the respondent in that petition was to be taken between 19th february, and 22nd February, 1968 ; arguments were to be heard on 27th and 28/02/1968.
(2.) Hi accordance with this programme, the recording of the evidence of respondent No. 1 was started on 15/01/1968 and continued for somedays. Thereafter, the proceedings had to be stayed because of applications moved in this court against some of the interlocutory orders passed by the high court and because of a transfer application. Ultimately, the recording of the evidence of Respondent No. 1, the election petitioner, was concluded on 16/09/1968. Before the conclusion of this evidence, the appellant, on 26/08/1968, filed in the court a list, dated 24/08/1968, containing names of 10 witnesses whom he proposed to examine in support of his defence. On the same day, the High court rejected the prayer for examination of 9 out of 10 witnesses and only permitted the appellant to examine himself which, according to the court, he could do after Respondent no. 2 finished his evidence. It is this order which is impugned in the present appeal.
(3.) The High court began the impugned order by noting that the appellant had filed process for 10 witnesses and that he had not listed any witness whatsoever at the proper stage. On this view, the High court held that an exception could be made in favour of the appellant for his own examination, but the request for examination of the other 9 witnesses was disallowed, because the appellant had shown no cause why he sought to examine witnesses without having made any prayer or filed any list at the proper stage. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that this order made by the High court is very unjust, because it debars the appellant from giving evidence to refute the evidence given in the trial of the election petition by Respondent No. I to prove that the appellant had committed corrupt practices. Our attention was drawn to Section 99 of the Representation of the People Act No. 43 of 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") , under which the High court is competent to name the appellant as one of the persons who has been proved at the trial of the election petition to have been guilty of a corrupt practice, the result of which under Section 11-A (b) of the Act would be that the appellant will, for a period of six years from the date on which the order under section 99 takes effect, be disqualified for voting at any election. The grievance is that, with such serious consequences threatened by Respondent No. 1 by charging the appellant with commission of corrupt practice, the appellant was entitled to defend himself properly and adduce evidence to show that be had not committed any corrupt practice. The High court purported to deny this right on the ground that the appellant had not filed any list or application for examination of witnesses at the proper stage and had only filed process for 10 witnesses as Late as 26/08/1968. It seems to us that, in making this order, the High court completely ignored the rules of procedure which were applicable to the trial of the election petition.;