- (1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of an Election Tribunal dismissing the election petition filed by Ch. Amar Singh, appellant, challenging the election of the respondents, Balbir Singh and Karam Chand,to the Punjab Legislative Assembly from the Hoshiarpur constituency in the last general elections. In the Hoshiarpur constituency two members were to be elected, one for the general seat and one for the seat reserved for the Scheduled Castes. Out of the eight candidates whose nomination papers were accepted one of the four who stood for the general seat, Lachhman Singh, retired from the contest before polling day, which was the 1st of March, 1957. Votes were counted on the 2nd of March and the result declared on the 3rd of March. The result of the polling was that Balbir Singh headed the poll with 41,399 votes and was declared elected for the general seat while Karam Chand polled 31,961 votes and was declared elected for the reserved seat. The appellant, who was a candidate for the general seat, polled 26,806 votes and he has challenged the election of the two successful candidates on various grounds, the nature of which is indicated in the following issues framed by the Tribunal: 1. DID Balbir Singh respondent, or his agents and supporters named in the amended election petition approach Harijan voters of village Pandori, Rajputan on 14th February, 1957, with a request for votes and was a sum of Rs. 200 paid in that connection to Minh Mal by Balbir Singh respondent, as consideration for securing those votes? 2. DID Balbir Singh respondent, or his agents and supporters named in the amended election petition collect Harijan voters of village Nurpur on 14th February, 1957, at about 2 -00 p.m. and canvass for votes by offering utensils for the common use of the Harijan community? Did Balbir Singh offer Rs. 100 on 14th February, 1957, to Dhana Singh of Mauza Chalopur, as a consideration for securing the votes of the Harijans of that village? 3. DID Balbir Singh or his agents and supporters named in the amended election -petition make a general appeal to the Hindu voters not to vote for the petitioner as he was a Sikh, by appealing to the sentiments of the Hindu voters that voting for the petitioner would be dangerous for the growth of Hindu religion? 4. DID Balbir Singh or his agents and other workers named in the amended petition canvass against the petitioner on the ground of caste and community and did they in pursuance of that policy make a general appeal to the Saini voters not to vote for the petitioner as he did not belong to that community? Did Balbir Singh or his agents or supporters named in the amended petition carry on propaganda that the petitioner being a Congress candidate was responsible for the killing of cows by urging that the Congress itself was gauhitiari? 5. WAS the poster annexure "A" published by Balbir Singh or at his instance or by his connivance? 6. DID Balbir Singh secure the support of Jan San -ghites and in that connection get a meeting arranged which was addressed by Yag Datt in the words contained in paragraph 3, clause (iv), sub -clause (i), of the petition? Did rickshaw -drivers named in the amended petition at the instance of Balbir Singh respondent, carry voters and supporters of Balbir Singh, shouting "Dusht Amar Singh ko vote na do. Us ne aurton ka apman kiya hai - 7. DID Karam Chand respondent, get it propagated by Yashwant Rao Bhim Rao Ambedkar that the petitioner and Sudarshan, unsuccessful Scheduled Caste Congress candidates, were murderers of his father the late Dr. Ambedkar? 8. WAS annexure "B" published by Karam Chand respondent, or at his instance or by his connivance? Did Yashwant Rao, at the instance of Karam Chand respondent, in meetings held in Sahri, Phuglana, Kotla Nodh Singh, Shamchaurasi, Chak Raju Singh, and Nandachaur on 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th and 25th February, 1957, respectively, canvass Harijan voters against the petitioner by propagating that the Congress had murdered Dr. Ambedkar by poisoning on account of his demanding Achhutstan? 9. DID Balbir Singh procure on payment or otherwise the vehicles, detailed in the amended petition, for conveyance of electors? 10. DID Balbir Singh respondent, obtain and procure or abet or attempt to procure assistance for the furtherance of the prospects of his election from persons in the service of the Government as detailed in paragraph E of the election petition? If issues Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 12 be proved, then do the allegations covered by these issues constitute such corrupt practices as to render the election of the respondents void within the meaning of section 100 of the Representation of the People Act of 1951?
(2.) IN a lengthy judgment the Tribunal after examining the evidence produced has found that no corrupt practice as alleged has been established against either of the respondents and the petition was dismissed.
(3.) BEFORE us the learned counsel for the appellant has not attempted to attack the findings of the Tribunal on the first three issues relating to alleged acts of bribery by Balbir Singh respondent. One of his main attacks on the order of the Tribunal related to issue No. 8, regarding which the allegations in the petition were as follows: (i) On the 25th of February, 1957, an election meeting was held in Kanak Mandi, Hoshiarpur, which was organised by the respondent Balbir Singh and his agents and supporters including the Jan Sanghis of the town. The names of these persons are mentioned above. The Jan Sangh Leader, Yag Datt, also attended and addressed this meeting besides Karam Chand and Balbir Singh, respondents. It was a huge gathering and voters for this constituency were present in large numbers. The said speakers appealed to the voters in terms given below: Amar Singh is responsible for the dishonour meted out to the womenfolk of Hoshiarpur town as well as for the lathi charge. Amar Singh is Dusht. He himself was present at the time the ladies were dishonoured and lathi -charged on the 17th of June, 1956, and it was he who prompted the police to beat and molest the ladies, Havana committed acts of sin and Lanka was burnt on account of his mis -behaviour towards Mata Sita. Similarly, Drau -padi's disgrace by Duryodhan led to the war of Maha -bharata in which 18 akshunis of army were destroyed. In Hoshiarpur similar acts were done by Amar Singh against hundreds and thousands of Sitas and Draupadis. The action of Amar Singh is a challenge to your self -respect. Any person claiming himself to be a Hindu has a religious duty not to vote for Amar Singh, rather it would be a great sin to vote for such a Dusht. In support of these allegations the petitioner examined witnesses [names omitted Ed.].;