Appeal No 1517 of 1968
Appeal under section 116 A of the Representation of the People Act 1951 from the judgment and order dated March 13 1968 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Indore Bench in Election Petition No 45 of 1967
K A Chitaley Y section Dharmadhikari section section Khanduja and KB Rohatgi for the appellant
G N Dikshit for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat J
This appeal is directed against the judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissing an election petition for setting aside the election of the respondent Chaudhury Nitiraj Singh to the Hoshangabad Parliamentary Constituency No 27
The appellant was the Praja Socialist Party candidate with the election symbol hut
The respondent was the Congress Party Candidate with the election symbol Two bullocks with voke on
The voting took place on February 20 1967
The votes were counted on February 21 and February 20 1967
The respondent having got a majority of about 20000 votes was declared duly elected
The petition charged the respondent with several corrupt practices
The appellant no presses before us only the charge under paragraph 5 i ii iii and iv paragraph 5v paragraph 6 and paragraph 7ii
815 At the time of the election the Congress Party was in power and the Chief Minister Shri D P Mishra belonged to the Congress Party
In November 1966 the respondent was nominated by the Congress Party as its candidate for the Hoshangabad Parliamentary Constituency
The substance of the charge as made in paragraph 5 i ii iii and iv and as pressed before us is that on December 23 1966 the Government of Madhya Pradesh headed by Shri D P Mishra promulgated an Ordinance No 19 of 1966 exempting agriculturists holdings and less than 750 acres or paying land revenue not exceeding Rs 5 from payment of land revenue that Shri D P Mishra as the agent of the respondent and with his consent made speeches at Narsinghpur and Piparia on February 16 1967 announcing the benefit of such exemption and that the respondent thus committed the corrupt practice under section 123 1 A of the Representation of the People Act 1951
The evidence shows that the question of exemption of uneconomic holding from payment of land revenue was being agitated for some time past Towards the close of 1966 a resolution was moved by the members of the opposition parties in the Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha
urging such exemption
But no bill to that effect was then passed
The Government reconsidered the matter and when the Vidhan Sabha was not in session it passed Ordinance No  19 of 1966 granting the exemption
The Ordinance was later replaced by Act
No 6 of 1967 which was published on April 26 1967
The exemption was advocated by the Praja Socialist Party also and was welcomed by all parties
Nevertheless on the eve of the election the opposition parties started a campaign stating that the object of the exemption was to forfeit the land to the State and raised the slogan Lagan Maaf Zamin Saaf
The propaganda was refuted by the Congress Party
In an election speech on February 16 1967 Shri D P Mishra raised the slogan Lagan Maaf Sab Party Saaf
His object was to tell the voters that the exemption should be granted and that the opposition parties should be routed in the election
It also appears that one Shri section K Dixit a member of the Congress Party published a pamphlet exhibit P 2 on or about February 7 1967 refuting the false propaganda that the exemption was temporary and was granted with a view to forfeit the lands and urging the electors to vote for the congress
On the materials on the record it is impossible to hold that the respondent committed the corrupt practice under section 123 1 A The ordinance was passed by the Government of Madhya Pradesh
As a result of the Ordinance a large number of agriculturists got exemption from land revenue
Such an exemption does not amount to a gift offer or promise of any gratification within the meaning of section 123 1 A
Nor is it possible to say that the government was the agent of the respondent
It is true that the Congress Party was then in power
But the exemption was not given by the Congress Party
It was given by the Ordinance which was passed by the Government
Nor does 816 the announcement of the declaration at the meeting held on February 16 1967 or by the pamphlet exhibit P 2 carry the matter any further  On the materials on the record it is not possible to say that either Shri D P Mishra or Shri section K Dixit acted as the agent of the respondent
The charge under paragraph 5i ii iii and iv is not established
Some additional embellishments of the charge were dealt with by the learned Judge and they were not pressed before us
The substance of the charge as laid in paragraph 5 v and as pressed before us is that on the eve of the election the Government of Madhya Pradesh headed by Shri D P Mishra declared that Class III and Class IV government employees would get increased dearness allowance from April 1 1967 according to the rates sanctioned for Central Government employees that Shri D P Mishra  with the consent of the respondent and as his agent announced the grant of these benefits at the meetings held on February 16 1967 at Narsinghpur and Piparia and that the respondent thus committed the corrupt practice under section 123 1 A
It appears that Class III and Class IV employees gave a notice to the government stating that they would go on strike with effect from February 13 1967
Without their co operation the entire election would have been at a standstill
The Government thought that the demand of the employees for increased dearness allowance was legitimate and therefore announced on or about February 11 1967 its decision to grant the increased dearness allowance with effect from April 1 1967
The grant of the increased dearness allowance cannot be regarded as a gift offer or promise of any gratification within the meaning of section 123 1 A nor is it possible to say that the Government or Shri D P Mishra was the agent of the respondent
The announcement of the grant of the increased dearness allowance at the meeting held on February 16 1967 does not carry the matter any further
The charge under paragraph 5 v is not established
The charge under paragraph 6 is that the respondent or his agent distributed dummy ballot papers with the respondent s name and his election symbol of Two bullocks with yoke on  an  so the appellant s name without his election symbol printed thereon that those papers conveyed to the voters the impression that the appellant had withdrawn his candidature that the appellant and his agents on the eve of the election told the voters that the appelant had withdrawn his candidature and that the respondent thereby committed the corrupt practice under section 123 4
Vie evidence shows that dummy ballot papers as mentioned above were printed and distributed on behalf of the respondent
Such dummy ballot papers were in contravention of the instructions issued by the Election Commission of India
The appellants name should not have 817 been printed in them
But it is impossible to say that the dummy ballot papers conveyed to the voters the impression that the appellant had withdrawn his candidature
On this issue the appellant examined PW 6 PW 7 PW 10 PW 23 PW 25 PW 27 PW 29 PW 30 PW 31 and PW 32 and the respondent examined RW 2 RW 3 RW 1 1 and RW 13
In agreement with the learned Judge we do not accept the statement of the appellant s witnesses that on the eve of the election the respondent and his agents informed the voters that the appellant had withdrawn his candidature
The voters knew that there were two candidates in the field viz the appellant and the respondent
Even on February 16 1967 Shri D P Mishra stated that the appellant was contesting the election
The respondent carried on a vigorous election propaganda until Februay 18 1967
If the respondent or his agent had informed the voters that the appellant had withdrawn his candidature it was not likely that such intensive propaganda would be carried on until that date
The charge under paragraph 6 is therefore not established
The charge under paragraph 7 ii was that Chaudhary Diwan Singh the Station House Officer at Sohagpur and a member of the police force in the service of the government with the consent of the respondent actively canvassed for the respondent and that the respondent thereby committed corrupt practice under section 123 7
To prove this charge the appellant examined PW 3 PW 4 and PW 9
Chaudhary Diwan Singh and the respondent denied the charge
For the reasons given by the learned Judge it is impossible to accept the testimony of PW 3 PW 4 and PW 9
Their evidence does not ring true PW 3 never spoke to anybody that he was asked by Chaudhary Diwan Singh to vote for the respondent
It is not likely that Diwan Singh would approach PW 4
It is impossible to believe that P W 9 could overhear a conversation between Diwan Singh and the respondent when the respondent is said to have asked Diwan Singh to canvass for him
The charge under paragraph 7 ii is also not established
In the result the appeal is dismissed with costs
YP Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellant an unsuccessful candidate filed an election petition for setting aside the election of the respondent who got elected as a Congress candidate to a Parliamentary constituency
The respondent was chraged with several corrupt practices viz i by an ordinance the Government of the State in which the Congress Party was in power granted exemption to certain agriculturists  holdings from payment of land revenue and the Chief Minister announced the benefit though the exemption was claimed for sometime past by the opposition parties the ordinance was passed prior to the election the opposition parties started a campaign stating that the object of the exemption was to forfeit the land the Chief Minister refuted the charge and told the voters that the exemption should be granted and that the opposition parties should be routed in the election a member of the Congress Party D published a pamphlet refuting the false propaganda that exemption was temporary and urging the electors to vote for the Congress ii the Chief Minister on the eve of the election announced increased dearness allowance to certain Government employees iii the respondent or his agent distributed dummy ballot papers with the respondent s name and his election symbol and also that of appellant s name but without his election symbol printed thereon thereby conveying an impression that the appellant had withdrawn his candidature and further that the respondent and his agents on the eve of the election told the voters that the appellant bad withdrawn so the respondent had committed corrupt practice under section 1234 and iv a member of the police force in the service of the Government with the consent of the respondent actively canvassed for the respondent thereby committing corrupt practice under section 1237
High Court dismissed the petition HELD The appeal must be dismissed
iOn the materials on the record it was impossible to hold that the respondent committed the corrupt practice under section 1231A
The ordinance was passed by the Government of Madhya Pradesh
As a result of the ordinance a large number of agriculturists got exemption from land revenue
Such an exemption did not amount to a gift offer or promise of any gratification within the meaning of section 1231A nor was it possible to say that the Government was the agent of the respondent
The Congress Party was then in power
But the exemption was not given by the Congress Party
It was given by the Ordinance which was passed by the Government
Nor does the announcement of the declaration by the Chief Minister or by the pamphlet carry the matter any further
It was not possible to say that either the Chief Minister or D acted as the agent of the respondent
815 G 814 iiThe grant of the increased dearness allowance could not be regarded as a gift offer or promise of any gratification within the meaning of section 123 1  A nor it was possible to say that the Government or the Chief Minister was the agent of tie respondent
The employees of the Government had given notice to go on strike a week before the election and without their cooperation the entire election would have been at a standstill
The Government thought that the demand of the employees was legitimate and therefore announced it on the eve of the election to meet it
816 D F iiiThe dummy ballot papers were in contravention of the instructions issued by the Election Commission of India
The appellant s name should not have been printed in them
But it was impossible to say that the dummy papers conveyed to the voters the impression that the appellant had withdrawn his candidature
The statement of the appellant s witnesses could not be accepted that on the eve of the election the respondent and his agents informed the voters that the appellant had withdrawn his candidature
The voters knew that there were two candidates in the field
Even a few days prior to the election the Chief Minister stated that the appellant was contesting the election
The respondent carried on rigorous election propaganda till the last day
816 H ivOn the evidence the charge that the member of the police force canvassed for the respondent was not established