- (1.) THIS appeal which is directed against the order of the Election Tribunal, Karnal, dated 6-3-1959 dismissing the election petition filed by Shri Rulia Ram defeated candidate relates to the election to the Punjab Legislative Assembly (Vidhan Sabha) from Gharaunda Constitutency held in 1957. There was a triangular contest between Chaudhri Multan Singh, the successful candidate, Rulia Ram petitioner and Puran Sing respondent No. 2; and Chaudhri Multan Singh, the successful candidate, won the election by a very narrow margin of votes as against Shri Rulia Ram; Multan Singh having secured 16,943 votes and Rulia Ram 16,719. Polling in the constituency took place on 24-2-1957 and votes were counted on the following day i. e. , 25-2-1957 on which date the result was also declared.
(2.) SHRI Rulia Ram, one of the defeated candidates, feeling aggrieved, filed the present election petition challenging the election of Chaundhri Multan Singh on a number of grounds giving rise to the following 24 issues; 1. Did respondent No. 1 himself, and Arjan, Risala and Ranjit Singh, Published statements contained in poster 'a' and 'ai'? 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the statements contained in annexure 'a' and 'ai' are false, which respondent No. 1 belives to be false and does not believe to be true? 3. Whether the statements referred to above relate to the personal character and conduct of the petitioner? 4. Whether respondent No. 1 published these posters on 20-2-1957 and the same were distributed on the same day in the morning at village Kohand by respondent No. 1 and by risala? 5. Whether Shri Risala distributed and pasted the above posters in village Kohand at some houses and Chaupal in the morning and in the evening on the same day in village Sheikhupura? 6. Did Ranjit Singh on 20-2-1957 distribute and paste these posters in villages Kemla Pundri and Alipur Khalsa in the morning, noon and evening respectively? 7. Did respondent NO. 1 and Shri Arjan on 21-2-1957 distribute and paste in villages Balla, gagsina and Bal these posters in the morning, in the noon and in the evening respectively and whether that has materially affected the result of the election? 8. Did respondent No. 1 and Shri Ranjit Singh distribute and paste the posters in villages Padha and Gharaunda on 22-2-1957 in the morning and in the evening respectively? 9. Did respondent No. 1 heir or procure on payment tongas of Mulkh Raj and Daryai Lal of gharaunda for carrying the voters from their residence to the polling stations? 10. Did respondent No. 2 carry any voter for the same purpose in the tongas mentioned above? 11. Whether respondent No. 2 on 18-2-1957 gifted and paid gratification of Rs. 200/- to the bairagi caste voters of village Goli through Chandgi Ram for construction of a Chaupal? If so, whether the same has materially affected the result of the election? 12. Whether the polling at booth No. 20 could not be started till 9:30 A. M. at village Arainpura? if, so, has to materially affected the result of the election? 13. Whether at booth Nos. 28 and 29 at village Balla the polling could not be started till 10 A. M. and at booth No. 30 till 9 A. M. and at booth No. 31 till 9:25a. M. ? If so, has it materially affected the result of the election? 14. Whether the polling was stopped at 3:30 P. M. at booths Nos. 28 and 29, at 3:45 P. M. at booths Nos. 30 and 31 at village Balla? If so, has it materially affected the result of the election? 15. Whether the polling at village Gagsina was started at 10 A. M. and stopped at 3:45 P. M. at booth No. 36 and whether the polling at booth No. 37 of the same village was started at 9:30 a. M. ? If so, has it materially affected the result of the election? 16. Whether the Polling Officers on polling stations Nos. 28 and 29 in village Balla stopped the polling at 3:30 P. M. and on booth Nos. 30 and 31 at 3:45 P. M. and if it is proved, ahs it materially affected the result of the election? 17. Did Shri Mul Chand Jain, Ex-Minister meet the Polling Officers and held out promises and favours to the voters, if they would vote in favour of respondent No. 1, and exercise undue influence? If so, has it materially affected the result of the election? 18. Whether Shri Mul Chand Jain appealed to the Jain Brotherhood of village Balla in a general meeting at polling stations Nos. 28 to 31 on 23-2-1957 to case their votes in favour of respondent No. 1 and was respondent No. 1 also present in the meeting and actively connived at the unauthorised manner of canvassing? If it is proved, whether the same has materially affected the result of the election? 19. Did respondent No. 1 get persons to impersonate for some dead persons mentioned in annexure 'b'? 20. Did respondent No. 1 and Shri Ranjit Singh get other persons to impersonate for Rati Ram, dalip Singh and Hari Sigh? 21. If issues Nos. 19 and 20 are proved, whether it has materially affected the result of the election? 22. Is Shri Shiv Ram M. A. a public servant within the meaning of S. 123 (7) of the representation of the People Act? 23. If issue No. 22 is proved in the affirmative, then whether Shri Shiv Ram M. A. presided over the meeting in village Gharaunda on 20-2-1957 and on 21-2-1957 in village Kalaram and the same were attended by respondent No. 1 and addressed both by Shri Shiv Ram M. A. and addressed both by Shri Shiv Ram M. A. and respondent No. 1? 24. If issue No. 23 is proved, whether it has materially affected the result of the election? the learned Tribunal decided all the issues against the petitioner and upheld the election. Broadly speaking, the allegations in the election petition related to the following charges: 1. Publication of statements relating to the personal character and conduct of the petitioner. 2. Hiring or procuring of vehicles for the conveyance of voters to polling stations. 3. Giving bribe to Bairagi voters with the object of inducing them to vote for Chaudhari Multan singh. 4. Late starting and early closure of polling at some of the polling stations in contravention of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 5. Undue influence by Shri Mool Chand Jain, Minister P. W. D. , Punjab, for securing success of multan Singh. 6. Impersonation for admittedly dead persons and for some others. 7. Employment of Shiv Ram M. A. a public servant to canvass for Multan Singh etc. On appeal the learned counsel for Shri Rulia Ram has taken us through the record and has reagitated only the first four grounds mentioned above. With respect to the charge relating to publication of false statements of fact relating to personal character or conduct of Shri Rulia ram, along with the election petition. Annexures 'a' and 'ai' were attached by Shri Rulia Ram. The main subject-matter of both the annexures is the same but in Annexure 'a' a photograph purporting to be of Shri Rulia Ram with a lady in black ink appears at the top, and in the righthand bottom corner the name of the press is stated to be "ala Press Chandni, Chowk, delhi", whereas in Annexure "ai' a similar photograph at the top is shown in red ink and at the bottom are printed the following words in bold letters: "pesh Karda Multan Singh". In the left hand bottom corner the names of two printing presses are printed; (i) 'sansar Electric Press, karnal and (ii) "nakal Ala Press Chandni Chowk, Delhi'. So far as the subject matter of these two posters is concerned at the top, is stated "shri Lala Ji Ki kali kartooten" and below the photographs are the following 16 verses purporting to describe and convey the antecedents of lala Ji: "1947 tak Hindu Sabhai mauqa pa kar Congress apnai, mar kat main khub dhan loota aish-o-ishrit ka gulshan loota. Bania, Brahman, Balmiki, Nai jo phansa us ki hajamat banai. Bakhshe nahin Chamar aur Saini jiski phansi hajam kar laini. Mandir, Masjid, Chaupal, Chaubare gande kiye sthan sare. Piara bana ek Brahman loota karja liya aur phir gal ghoonta. Is per bhi kuchh saber na aya zulam-o-sitam kar door bhagaya chhore nahin sage aur piarey un ko bhi dikhliye nazare. Akhar qist kara chutkara daulat ka pakra sahara. Karmashh farm rang rangili dam mohabat phansi chambeli. Pichha kiya Jagadhri ja kar jan bachai hath jor kar. Is per bhi saber na aya sath beth kar photo khichwaya. Thik batao kuchh samajh main ai aya hae Lala bhai. Kali kartooten dhek laina is per vote Congress ko dena. Chhori nahin sarkar bichari 12-3-56 hui griftari. Zamanat de tab bachi bhigi billi ghar ko ai.
(3.) THE counsel for the appellant has taken us through the evidence of Hukam Chand P. W. 4, proprietor of the Sansar Electric Press, Karnal, for the purpose of showing that he had printed the poster, Exhibit P. D. , at the instance of Chaudhari Multan Singh on 19-2-1957. He has deposed that Chaudhari Multan Singh brought to him the poster, Exhibit. P. C. , and a photograph of a lady and a gentleman. It may be mentioned that Exhibit P. C. is a copy of Annexure 'a' minus the photograph and the line at the top "shri Lala ji ki kali kartooten". On this document there are notes in red ink purporting to connote as to what was intended to be done or printed by Hukam Chand, Proprietor of the above Press. Exhibit P. D. , purports to be the final shape given to the poster, Exhibit. P. C. , this witness. He has deposed that Chaudhri Multan Singh came to him on 19-2-1957 and asked him to prepare 500 copies of the poster on that very day. The witness expressed his ability to complete the job only 4 or 5 P. M. on the following day. The charges were settled at Rs. 33/- in all. After making over the poster, Exhibit. P. C. , to his compositor, Hukam Chand took the photograph to Delhi for preparing the block. The following day he handed over the finished posters to Chaudhri Multan singh at 4 or 5 P. M. In cross-examination the witness has admitted that it was 8 or 8-30 A. M. on 19th of February, when Chaudhri Multan Singh went to him; he, however, did not remember if chaudhri Multan Singh was accompanied by anyone else. It has been admitted that he did not take signatures of Chaudhri Multan Singh anywhere but because the order had been placed by chaudhri, Multan Singh, he wrote "pesh karda Multan Singh" on the poster. He has further stated that he does not keep any order from nor has he got any printed receipts. He has also denied maintenance of any rokar or khata. Indeed, he has said that he does not keep any accounts with him. That his real brothers, Shri Ram Sarup, was a Congress M. L. A. from 1951 to 1957 and that he (Ram Sarup) did not succeed in securing Congress ticket for the election in dispute, in spite of best efforts, has also been admitted by him. His memory, however has conveniently failed him when asked about the katib of the poster in question. When questioned about his visit to Delhi for getting the block prepared he stated that he left for Delhi at 9 or 9-30 A. M. and returned to Karnal on the same day by train reaching Karnal at about 1-30 in the morning. His memory again failed him when he was asked about the name of the firm from which he got the block prepared. He, therefore, admitted block. He would also have us believe that he did not care to read the poster in question except when that he had paid approximately Rs. 4/- for the proof was brought to him. The statement made by this witness was not believed by the Tribunal and the counsel for the appellant has completely failed to convince us that the Tribunal was in any way wrong in doing so. His statement was recorded in July 1957 with respect to an incident which had taken place just five months earlier. The subject-matter of this poster was not an ordinary stereotyped or common place material and it would certainly have attracted the attention of any average human being in the position of hukam Chand as soon as an order for printing the poster with the photograph and the heading "lala ji ki kali kartooten" was given to him. The statement of this witness that he did not care to read the poster till the proof was placed before him does not seem to be natural or reasonable. Similarly his failure to remember the name of the firm from where he had got the block prepared at Delhi has a very unnatural ring about it. The sum of Rs. 33/- in all, for doing the whole job including a visit to Delhi, which entailed absence for a whole day from the witness's place of business would also appear to be rather inadequate, for printing the prima facie defamatory material. I have therefore, no hesitation in holding Hukam Chand P. W. 4 to be a wholly untrustworthy witness. In this view it is hardly necessary to refer to the testimony of R. W. 18 Man Singh who has stated in the witness-box that he had got the poster like Exhibit P. L. printed through a friend of his, by name, Jaidev Singh of Khajur Road, Karol Bagh,. Delhi. Chaudhri Multan Singh respondent as R. W. 30 has of course denied having anything to do with the printing or publishing of the posters in question. Exhibit P. F. a letter dated 28-3-1957 purporting to have been written by Hukam Chand to Shri Kidar Nath Sawhney, counsel for the petitioner-appellant, appears to me to be a clumsy attempt at creating evidence. The letter in reply to which Exhibit P. F. was written has, curiously enough, not been produced. In any case this letter certainly suggests that in March 1957 Hukam Chand must have come to realize the importance of these posters, and his memory, had the facts been true, would, normally speaking, not have failed him.;