Appeal No 799 of 1975
From the Judgment and Order dated 31 1 75 of the Gauhati High Court Imphal Bench in Election Petition No 274
Janardhan Sharma and Jitendra Sharma for the appellant
section V Gupte Naunit Lal and Miss Lalita Kohli for Respondent No 1 574 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KHANNA J
In the mid term poll to Manipur Legislative Assembly held in February 1974 respondent No 1 hereinaf ter referred to as the respondent was declared  elected from the Patsoi Assembly constituency
The appellant who was one of the rival candidates filed an election petition to challenge the election of the respondent
The election petition was dismissed by the Gauhati High Court
The appellant has now come up in appeal against the judgment of the High Court
The respondent who was a candidate sponsored by the Manipur people s Party secured 5033 votes while the appellant who was Iris nearest rival secured 2473 votes
There were some other candidates but we are not concerned with them
The respondent was the Speaker of Manipur Legislative Assem bly at the relevant time
The Assembly was dissolved in 1973
The respondent however continued to hold the office of the Speaker fill March 8 1974
The appellant chal lenged the election of the respondent on two main grounds
One of the grounds was that the respondent being Speaker of the Assembly held an office of profit in the State Govern ment and as such was disqualified to seek election
The other ground was that the election expenses of the respondent exceeded the prescribed limit of Rs 2500
It was also stated that some of the expenses incurred by the respondent for the purpose of election had not been shown by him in the return filed by him and as such he was guilty of corrupt practice
The High Court repelled all the grounds and in the result dismissed the election peti tion
In appeal before us Mr Sharma on behalf of the appellant has not challenged the finding of the High Court insofar as it has held that the respondent was not disqualified from seeking election because of the fact that he held the office of the Speaker
The appellant indeed could not challenge this finding as we find that the Manipur Legislature has now passed the Manipur Legislature Removal of Disqualifica tions  Amendment Act 1975 Manipur Act 1 of 1975
As a result of this amendment a person holding the office of Speaker of Manipur Legislative Assembly shall not be dis qualified from seeking election to the Legislative Assembly of that State because of his holding that office
The amend ing Act according to clause 2 of section 1 shall be deemed to have come into force on February 6 1973
The fact that the legislature is competent to enact such a law with retrospective operation is now well established see Kanta Kathuria vand Smt Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Shri Rat Manak Chand Surana1 above amending Act the respondent Narain2
In view of
the above from seeking election to the respondent cannot be held to be disqualified on account of his having held the office of the Speaker of the Legis lative Assembly of Manipur on account of his having held the office of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly
1 1970 2SCR 830
2 575 Mr Sharma has assailed the finding of the High Court inso far as it has held that the election expenses of the re spondent did not exceed the prescribed limit of Rs 2500
According to the return filed by the respondent he incurred a total expense of Rs 2160 in connection with his elec tion
It is urged
by Mr Sharma that though the respondent paid Rs 500 to the Manipur People s party for securing a ticket of that party he did not show that amount in the return filed by him
Adding that sum of Rs 500 to the amount of Rs 2160 would take the expenses beyond the prescribed limit of Rs 2500
The said amount of Rs 500 we find was paid by the respondent to Manipur People s party on December 5 1973
According to an amendment made in section 77 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 by Act 40 of 1975 every candidate at an election will either by himself or by his election agent keep a separate and correct account of all the expenditure in connection with the election incurred or authorised by him or by his election agent between the date on which he has been nomi nated and the date of the declaration of the result thereof both dates inclusive
The respondent admittedly filed his nomination on January 23 1974The amount of Rs 500 was paid by the respondent on December 5 1973 long before the date on which the respondent filed his nomination
The said amount of Rs 500 consequently need not have been shown in the return of expenses filed by the respondent nor could the said amount be taken into consideration in calculating the total expenses of the respondent with a view to judge as to whether his expenses exceeded the prescribed limit
It has not been disputed that Act 40 of 1975 by which amendment was made in section 77 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 has a retrospective effect and was in operation at the time the election with which we are concerned was held
Mr Sharma has next contended before us that an amount of Rs10155 paise was spent for the purchase of petrol and mobil oil by the respondent in addition to the amount of Rs 586 which was shown by the respondent to have been spent by him on the purchase of petrol and mobil oil
According to Mr Sharma petrol and mobil oil worth Rs 10155 were purchased by the respondent from Singh  Co Imphal during the dates January 18 to 23 1974
In this respect we find that the evidence adduced by the appellant is not at all satisfactory
Two witnesses were examined by the appellant in this connection
One of them was the appellant himself who came into the witness box as PW 1
It is apparent that this witness has no personal knowledge in the matter
The other witness examined by the appellant is RB Shukla PW 21
The evidence of Shukla shows that he sold petrol and mobil oil
worth Rs 10155 paise for vehicle bearing number 194
The respondent undoubtedly used jeep NLM 194 during the elections
There is nothing in the record of Singh  Co or in the evidence of PW Shukla to indicate that the petrol and mobil oil worth Rs 10155 paise were sup plied for jeep NLM 194 and not for another vehicle beating that number
The respondent in the course of his deposition has denied having purchased petrol and mobil oil from Singh  Co 576 Mr Sharma has also assailed the finding of the High Court regarding the expenses incurred by the respondent
on microphones
According to the retrun filed by the respond ent he spent Rs 720 on that account
The case of the appellant is that the respondent paid Rs 1130 to Sena Yaima Sarma Rs 1180 to Lockey Sound Equipment and Rs 1000 to Hijam Iboton Singh for use of microphones in connection with his election
As against that the case of the respondent is that he hired microphone from Lockey Sound Equipment and paid Rs 720 only to that concern in that connection
There is no cogent evidence on the record to indicate that respondent paid anything over and above Rs 720 on account of the use of microphones
The High Court found that the representatives of the firms from which the microphones were alleged by the appellant to have been taken on hire by the respondent were not examined as wit nesses and that evidence adduced in this behalf was of a most unsatisfactory character
We find no cogent ground to take a different view
Emphasis has been laid by Mr Sharma upon the fact that in the return filed by the re spondent the date of payment of Rs 720 has been mentioned to be February 26 1974 while according to the evidence of the respondent in the witness box the said payment was made on March 24 1974
In this connection we find that the bill of Lockey Sound Equipment for the hire charges of microphones is dated February 26 1974
It seems that the respondent mentioned the date of the bill in connection with that payment
No inference adverse to the respondent in our opinion can be drawn from the above crepancy regarding the date of payment
Lastly it has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the respondent also used jeep MNS 7343 in addition to jeep NLM 194
It is stated that the expenses incurred by the respondent on account of petrol and mobil oil for jeep MNS 7343 were not shown by him in his return
In this respect we find there was no allegation in the election petition as originally field regarding the use of jeep MNS 7343 by the respondent
This allegation was introduced by the appellant only as a result of the amendment of the election petition
No documentary evidence was placed on the file by the appellant to show that the respondent used jeep MNS 7343 for the purpose of his election
Oral evi dence was however adduced by the appellant for this pur pose
The High Court found the evidence adduced in this conection by the appellant to be wholly unreliable
After hearing Mr Sharma we find no cogent reason to take a contrary view
It is well established that this Court should not normally interfere in an election appeal with the High Court s appraisement of oral evidence of witnesses unless such appraisement is vitiated by some glaring infirmity
No such infirmity has been brought to our notice
Reference has been made by Mr Sharma to first information report dated February 23 1974 which was al leged to have been made by the respondent to the police
No attempt was made by the appellant to bring on record the original first information report or to prove the same
The High Court in the circumstances held that the appellant could not rely upon a copy of the said first information report
577 Mr Sharma then contends that the appellant in any case can rely upon the oral deposition of the respondent when he came into the witness box
We have been taken through that deposition and we find no warrant for the conclusion that jeep MNS 7343 was used by the respondent in connection with his election
All that has been stated by the respondent in the course of his deposition is that on February 23 1974 he came to know of some untoward incident at a distance of a few hundred yards away from the place of his residence
He went in jeep MNS 7343 towards that spot and thereafter returned in that jeep from that spot
Such stray and solitary use of the jeep for visiting the place of incident a few hundred yards away from the residence of the respond ent cannot in our opinion be held to tantamount to the use of the jeep for election purpose
There is no cogent evi dence to show that the jeep was used otherwise by the re spondent for attending his election meetings or for other election purposes
As a result of the above we dismiss the appeal
Considering the fact that the first ground which constituted the principal weapon of attack of the appellant against the validity of the respondent s election is not available because of the change made in law during the pendency of the appeal we direct that the parties should bear their own costs of the appeal
PHP Appeal dismissed


Summary:
Respondent No 1 was declared elected to Manipur Legis lative Assembly
The appellant who was one of the rival candidates filed an Election Petition on two grounds 1 Respondent No 1 was holding office of profit inasmuch he was the speaker of the Assembly and 2 the Respondent No 1 incurred election expenses in excess of what is permissi ble
The High Court negatived both the contentions and dismissed the Election Petition
In an appeal filed by the Election Petitioner to this Court in view of the change in law with retrospective effect the first ground was not available to the appellant in this Court
The appellant contended 1  The sum of Rs 500 paid to his party by respondent No 1 has been wrongly excluded by the High Court from the total expenditure
2 The sum of Rs 10150 spent for the purchase of petrol and mobil oil was not shown by respondent No 1 in his return
3 Respondent No 1 spent Rs 1180 on the microphone
He has however shown Rs 720 only in the return
4 Respondent No 1 used Jeep No 7343 in addi tion to Jeep No 194 and the expenses incurred on that jeep are not known
Dismissing the appeal HELD It is well settled that this Court does not nor mally interfere in an election appeal with the High Court s appraisement of oral evidence of witnesses unless such appraisement is vitiated by some glaring infirmity
In the present case no such infirmity is shown
The evidence led by the Election Petitioner is not cogent and sufficient to come to the conclusion that various amounts mentioned
by him were actually spent by Respondent No 1
As far as the payment of Rs 500 is concerned the same is admitted by respondent No 1 but that was paid before the filing of the nomination and what the Statute requires is the expenses incurred from the date of nomination till the date of the declaration of the result
575 B C 576G Stray and solitary use of a jeep for visiting a place a few hundred yards away from the residence of the respondent where some untowards incident had taken place cannot be held tantamount to the use of the jeep for election purposes
577B C