Appeal No 128 of 1976
From the Judgment and Order dated 10 12 1975 of the Allahabad High Court in Election Petition No 3574
GN Dikshit MV Goswami SV Goswami and Ambrish Kumar for the Appellant
LM Shinghvi Pratnod Swarup and SK Verma for Re spondent No 1
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GUPTA J
The appellant was one of the eight contest ants from Mat Constituency No 365 in District Mathura in the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly elections held in 1974
February 24 and 26 1974 were the dates when poll was taken and the result was declared on February 28 1974
The first respondent who was sponsored by Bhartiya Kranti Dal it will be referred to as BD hereinafter was elected securing 33565 votes
The appellant who came next was a nominee of the Congress party he polled 20731 votes 12834 votes less than the successful candidate
On April 14 1974 the appellant presented an election petition in the Allaha bad High Court calling in question the election of the first respondent alleging that he was guilty of adopting corrupt practice within the meaning of sub sections 2 3 and 3A of section 123 of the Representation of the People Act 1951
The first respondent in his written statement denied all the allegations
The High Court held that the election petitioner had failed to prove the charge of corrupt prac tice alleged against the successful candidate and dismissed the election petition
The election petitioner challenges the correctness of the decision in this appeal under section 116A of the Representation of the People Act 1951
Certain principles governing election disputes are now well settled
One such principle is that proceedings arising out of election petitions are quasi criminal in character and the allegations made in the petition must be proved beyond reasonable doubt Another is that in an appeal under section 116A of the Representation of the People Act 1951 this Court will not interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the trial court except for very strong and cogent reasons
A third is that it is unsafe in an election case to accept oral evidence at its face value without looking for assurance from some surer circumstances or unimpeachable documents
see Rahim Khan vs Khurshid Ahmed  656
Of the issues framed upon the pleading of the parties issues 1 2 3 and 4 only are relevant for the purposes of the present appeal
These issues are as follows 1 Whether the respondent No 1 his agents workers and supporters with his consent promoted feeling of hatred between different classes of the citizens of India particularly between fats and Thakurs of the Constituency on the one side and other Castes and 414 communities on the other for furtherance of the prospects of his election and thereby committed corrupt practice as defined in section 123 3 A of the Act  2 Whether the respondent No 1 his agents workers and supporters with his consent promoted caste feeling and appealed to the voters to vote or refrain from voting on the basis of caste and community for furtherance of the prospects of his election and thereby committed corrupt practice as defined in section 1233 of the Act 3 Whether the respondent No 1 his agents and workers with his consent directly or indirectly interfered with free exercise of electoral rights of the voters and committed corrupt practice of undue influence as defined in section 1232 of the Act 4 Whether the respondent No 1 his agents and workers with his consent committed corrupt practice of bribery for inducing Muslim voters to vote for the respondent No 1 by paying several thousands of rupees for construction of a school building and a mosque as alleged in para 13i ii and IV of the petition  The first two issues are interconnected The allegations relating to these issues are based on three pamphlets Exhibits P and P 22 and oral evidence of meet ings where speeches were delivered appealing to voters on the ground of caste and attempting to promote hatred between different castes
There is no reference however to these pamphlets in the election petition
Of the pamphlets exhibits P 20 and P 22 contain an appeal to all the resi dents of the constituency to vote for the first respondent and the High Court rightly held that these two pamphlets cannot be called objectionable
Exhibits P 21 appeals to the voters not to vote for outsiders such as the appellant but to one who belonged to the constituency like the first respondent
It is difficult to say that this is an appeal on the ground of caste or community
But it is not neces sary to pursue this matter further because there is no evidence to connect the first respondent with this pamphlet and as the High Court has found it is not proved as to at whose instance this pamphlet was printed or distributed
The oral evidence on these two issues seeks to prove that meetings were held at three villages Bajna Neemgaon and Surir Kalan where speeches were made asking the votes to vote on the basis of caste and community and attempting to promote feelings of enmity between different castes and communities in the constituency
At Bajna two meetings are said to have been held on February 5 1974 one at 1230 PM at the canal inspection house and the other at 8 PM at the local BKD office
PW 6 Ganga Sahai PW 8 Gandalal and PW 22 Jaipal Singh are the witnesses who were examined by the 415 election petitioner to prove this allegation
From the evidence of PW 8 it does not appear that any appeal was made to the voters on the ground of caste or community in either of the two meetings
PW 6 and PW 22 wanted the court to believe that though they had heard offending speeches being delivered at the meetings they did not report the matter to anyone earlier but disclosed what they heard for the first time in court
If the High Court found their
testimony unbelievable we do not think any exception can be taken to it
The High Court also
found that neither PW 8 nor PW 22 was a disinterested witness PW 8 being an active member of the Congress and PW 22 was a polling agent of the appellant
At Neemgaon a meeting is alleged to have been held on February 19 1974 at 12 noon in the primary school premises
Of the two witnesses who speak about this meeting PW 16 Lotan appears to have admitted on cross examination that he had not attended the meeting and PW 15 Raghubir says like PWs 6 and 22 that what he heard in the meeting he was disclosing for the first time in court
The High Court further finds that PW 15 was a man in the confidence of the appellant and PW 16 was admittedly a man of Congress
If in these circumstances the High Court refused to rely on the evidence of these two witnesses no interfer ence is called for
The meeting at Surir Kalan is said to have been held at 2 PM on the Ramlila platform in the village
PW 4 Harpal Singh and PW 5 Badan Singh are the two witnesses for the petitioner as to what happened at this meeting
From the testimony of PW 4 Harpal Singh it seems extremely unlikely that he was present at the meeting
PW 4 is the Head Master of a junior high school
The school was open on that day
The schools hours were from 10 AM to 4 PM
The witness says that he was able to attend the meeting as it was held during the interval period
He admits that there are eight periods of forty minutes duration each and the interval is after the fourth period for about forty five minutes
It is dear therefore that he could not possibly attend the meeting at 2 PM
The witness however attempts to prove his presence at the meeting by saying that the meeting started at about 1 PM thus contradicting his earlier statement
The attempt to shift the time makes
his evidence more suspect
He also states that he does not know who ultimately won the election
This apparent unconcern suggesting that he was an impartial witness which is hardly believable marks him out as thoroughly unreliable
The other witness PW 5 Badan Singh says that the meeting was held at 2 PM
According to him a pamphlet Exhibit A was distrib uted at the meeting
This pamphlet which contains the description Decision of Kashatriya Mahasabha contains an appeal to all the members of the Kashatriya caste to attend the meeting to be held on February 8 at 2 PM at Surir Kalan
The pamphlet does not disclose the name of the place where it was printed
There is no evidence to connect it with the first respondent
There is also no mention of this pamphlet in the election petition
PW 5 does not make any secret that he was opposed to Chandan Singh being elect ed a member of the assembly
Further he admits that he did not complain of what happened at the meeting to the authori ties or to the petitioner
If the High 416 Court did not find it possible to rely on PW 4 and PW 5 we do not think any legitimate grievance can be made
We therefore find no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the High Court on issues 1 and 2 that no corrupt practice within the meaning of section 1233A or section 1233 has been proved against the first respondent
Issue No 3 relates to the alleged undue influence exercised by the successful candidate or with his consent by his agents and workers within the meaning of section 1232 of the Act
The allegations relating to this issue are contained in paragraph 12 of the election petition and the particulars are in schedule III and IX thereto
The evi dence adduced on this issue falls into three categories 1 evidence of witnesses who speak about the threats at the meetings held in support of the first respondent 2 wit nesses who speak about the actual interference and 3  circumstantial evidence of a corroborative nature
As re gards the first category these witnesses have been found unreliable by the High Court while dealing with issues Nos 1 and 2
No further reference therefore need be made to their evidence
As regards the second category of witnesses who speak of actual interference by the agents and workers of the first respondent the High Court after a detailed examination of the evidence adduced found that many of these witnesses were interested witnesses and that their testimony did not inspire confidence
No presiding officer of the polling stations where such undue influence is alleged to have been used has been examined
One of the witnesses examined by the election petitioner PW 37 Rajendra Kumar Pathak who was Sector Magistrate in Neemgaon which includes five polling stations says that he was making a continuous round of the polling stations staying for about 15 minutes at each and that whenever any complaint was made to him about any difficulty felt by the voters in the matter of the free exercise of their right to vote he saw that the cause for complaint was removed
His evidence is that he did not receive any complaint about anyone being prevented from casting his vote
He adds that instructions were given to the Sector Magistrates by the Government that voters should be allowed to cast their votes freely no Sector Magistrate was examined by the election petitioner to prove that this was not done
The High Court therefore did not place any reliance and in our view rightly on these witnesses
The circumstantial evidence which is claimed as corroborative of the oral evidence on this issue consists of certain let ters namely Exhibits P7 P8 P9 P 10 and P14 Exhib its P7 and P8 are two letters sent to the appellant by PW 14 Habura and PW 29 Brij Mohan Bhardwaj respectively complaining about the various irregularities at the polling stations
On a scrutiny of their testimony the High Court found both of them unreliable witnesses and was of the view that these two letters were brought into existence for the purpose of this case after the result of the election had been declared
Exhibit P9 is a copy of a letter dated February 23 1974 addressed to the Superintendent of Police Mathura
by the District Magistrate Mathura
The copy was proved by PW 30 Was ud din Quareshi who was a Stenographer to the District Magistrate at the relevant time
The High Court doubted the authenticity of this copy as the date February 23 appearing on the letter was admittedly not in the hand 417 writing of the District Magistrate nor of the witness
Exhibit 14 is another letter dated February 23 1974 ad dressed to the District Magistrate Mathura by the appel lant
In this letter the petitioner expressed his general apprehension about the irregularities likely to be committed at some polling stations on the day of poll and requested the District Magistrate to
make necessary arrangements to prevent the same
Exhibit P 10 dated February 25 1974 was also addressed to the District Magistrate Mathura by the petitioner
This letter of course contains reference to a number of specific cases of irregularities in certain poll ing stations
The oral evidence adduced to prove these irregularities we have found already is not creditworthy
That the election petitioner did not examine any of the Sector Magistrates within whose jurisdiction such irregular ities had taken place has already been mentioned
The only Sector Magistrate examined on behalf of the election peti tioner PW 37 Rajendra Kumar Pathak does not support the petitioner s case
Having considered the two letters Exhibits P 14 and P 10 the High Court observed If the two letters are read and consid ered together an inference may well be drawn that the former was sent as a precautionary measure advance to give support to the latter one with a view to create some sort of an evidence in case an election petition was necessitated to be filed These letters put in evidence to corroborate the oral testi mony on the issue of undue influence have themselves no intrinsic merit and are far from reliable and therefore do not advance the petitioner s case any further than what the oral testimony does
We therefore affirm the finding of the High Court on issue No 3 that the petitioner has failed to prove the allegation of undue influence
This leaves only issue No 4 concerning the allegation of bribery
This is the issue which was pressed before us as the main ground in support of the appeal
The allegations relating to the corrupt practice of bribery are contained in paragraph 13ii and iv of the election petition and the particulars are set out in schedule X thereto
Paragraphs 13ii and iv state 13
That the material facts relating to corrupt practice of bribery committed by respondent No 1 his workers and agents with his consent are given hereinafter
i    ii That Sri Chandan Singh in order to get the support of the Muslim voters of village Naujhil offered a bribe Rs1200 ostensibly for the erection of the building for Islamia school to Sri Aijaz Hussain Ida and Idris The order was made to induce the Muslim voters to vote for respondent No 1
iii    iv That village Bishambara is also a Muslim dominated village in which there are about 2000 Muslim voters belonging to Meo community
Respondent No 1 paid a sum of Rs 3000 to the Pradhan of the said village Sri Niamat 418 Khan for inducing the voters of Meo community to vote in his favour
The said amount was paid for constructing a mosque for use of this community of this village
Full particulars of this corrupt practices are given in Sched ule X to this petition
 The allegations are denied in paragraph 13 of the written statement
Before turning to the evidence on this issue it is necessary to dispose of a contention raised in the High Court and also before us that the allegations must be taken to have been admitted by the first respondent in view of the vague evasive denial given by him in his written statement
This is how the allegations have been denied in the written statement
That the averments made in para graph 13 of the petition  are vague absurd wrong and baseless
No person can be stopped in donating certain amount in public institution or the charitable one
Donation to an institution does not amount to bribery
The construction of the part 6 indicate igno rance of the petitioner who is not aware in spite the legal advice
The alleged allega tion of bribery is denied in toto and is liable to be dismissed
13ii That the averments made in para l3ii are wrong baseless hence denied
The same being repetition of foregoing sub clause i no need of saying much whatever is said in the previous paragraph i
13iii    13ii That the averments made in para 13ii are wrong false and baseless as if the same is denied
The schedule enclosed marked Annexure X is general in nature and wrong hence denied and the petition is liable to be dismissed
 In paragraph 13iii of the written statement the first respondent refers to the contents in schedule X of the election petition as too vague and incorrect false and baseless
Counsel for the appellant contended that the denial amounted to this only that donation to a public or charitable institution could not constitute bribery
We think that a correct and complete reading of paragraph 13 of the written statement the construction put on it on behalf of the appellant would not be justified
It cannot be overlooked that the allegation of bribery is also denied  in toto and as false and baseless
The additional con tention that donation to public or charitable institutions could not amount to bribery appears to be a legal plea asserting that even on the statements made in paragraph 13 of the election petition the allegation of bribery was not sustainable
The case of bribery rests on two incidents one relating to payment of Rs 1200 to the Muslim voters in village Naujhil for the reconstruction of a Muslim school in that village and the other relating to the payment of Rs 3000 to the Pradhan of village Bishambara which is a Muslim dominated village for the construction of a mosque in the 419 village
The allegation regarding the payment of Rs 1200 for Islamia school in Naujhil is sought to be proved by PW1 Alia Noor who has a motor cycle repairing shop PW 2 Chandra Pal Sharma PW 3 Ashraf Ali PW 7 Fiaz Khan PW 17 Kadhera and some correspondence that passed between some of these witnesses
What is alleged to have happened is like this
Near about midnight between the 23rd and the 24th February 1974 the first respondent Chandan Singh along with Chatur Singh and several others drove in a jeep to Naujhil at a place where about 200 Muslims were sitting around a fire
Some from the crowd went upto the jeep had a talk with Chandan Singh and told him that whoever would donate money for Islamia school the Muslim votes would be cast in his favour Chandan Singh Offered to pay and gave twelve currency notes of Rs 100 each to Chatur Singh who made them over to one Ida who is said to be the president of the school
PW 1 Alla Noor PW 3 Ashraf Ali and PW 7 Fiaz Khan are witnesses to this inci dent
About half an hour later two persons named Nanhey and Habib informed PW 2 Chandra Pal Sharma who was the pradhan of village Naujhil of the incident
On being sum moned the appellant arrived there within a few minutes and Nanhey and Habib repeated the story in his presence
At the instance of the appellant the Station Officer Naujhil was also summoned there but he declined to take any step
The appellant then came to the place visited by the first re spondent earlier and remonstrated with the Muslims crowd still present there for having accepted the money from the first respondent
Certain letters were produced on behalf of the appellant to strengthen the oral evidence relating to the incident
Exhibit P2 appears to be a notice given by Fiaz Khan who is a member of the school committee to Ida accusing him of not utilising for the school the money taken by him from the first respondent asking him to take early steps in the matter and warning him that in default action would be taken against him
Exhibit PI is a letter written by PW3 Ashraf Ali who was a teacher of the school to PW 1 All Noor saying that he had taken the sum of Rs 1200from Ida in the presence of witnesses and pur chased some building material for the school
This letter bears no date
Exhibit P5 is another letter sent by PW 1 Alla Noor to PW 7 Fiaz Khan assuring him that the sum of Rs 1200 taken from the first respondent would be utilised for the benefit of the school
The High Court has disbe lieved the entire story finding that neither the witnesses were believable nor the letters reliable
The story of the midnight visit of the first respondent doling out money to a crowd of Muslim voters who happened to be present would strike anyone as ridiculous and we agree with the High Court that it cannot be true
Besides neither Ida who is made to appear as a central figure in the dispute over the money nor Nanhey or Habib who conveyed the information to PW Chandra Pal Sharma has been examined
About the letters the High Court s finding is that from their tenor it was clear that these were brought into existence for the purpose of the election petition
We find nothing to justify a different view
The other allegation with regard to the issue of bribery is that a sum of Rs 3000 was paid to Niamat Khan Pradhan of village Bishambara for constructing a mosque to induce the Muslim voters of that 420 village to vote in favour of the first respondent
The only witness examined to prove this allegation is PW 24 Usman
According to him on the evening previous to the date of poll grand father of the first respondent came to Niamat Khan and paid Rs 3000 to him n return for his promise that he would see that all the Muslim votes were cast in favour of the first respondent
On cross examination the witness admits that he does not know what happened to that money and that he was disclosing this fact for the first time in court
He is not named either in the election petition or on the schedule thereto
He came to depose without receiving any summons
Niamat Khan has been exam ined by the respondent as his witness and he denies the allegation as totally false
The High Court therefore did not rightly put any reliance on the evidence of this wit ness
The appellant had no personal knowledge of the facts alleged in support of the case of bribery
Exhibit P 10 the letter he addressed to the District Magistrate on Febru ary 25 1974 of course contains a vague reference to these allegations but this as the High Court has said seems to have been written with a view to create some sort of an evidence in case
election petition was necessitated to be filed
We find no merit in this appeal which we dismiss with costs
PBR Appeal dismissed


Summary:
In the election to the State Assembly the first respond ent was declared elected
The appellant who was one of the defeated candidates impugned the election on the ground that the first respondent was guilty of adopting corrupt practices within the meaning of section 1232 3 and 3A of the Representation of the People Act 1951
It was alleged that i to get support of the Muslim voters of a village the first respondent offered a bribe for the construction of a school building for Muslim boys in the village and ii in another village with predominant Muslim voters he paid a big sum of money for the construction of a mosque
The first respondent in his written statement denied the allega tions as absurd and baseless and denied in toto the allega tion of bribery
The High Court dismissed the petition
On appeal to this Court it was contended that the alle gations against the respondent must be taken to have been admitted in view of his vague and evasive denial
Dismissing the appeal HELD The well settled principles governing election dis putes are 1 proceedings arising out of election petitions are quasi criminal in character and the allegations made in the petition must be proved beyond reasonable doubt 2 in an appeal under section 116A of the Act the Supreme Court will not interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the trial court except for very strong and cogent reasons and 3 it is unsafe in an election case to accept oral evidence at its face value without looking for assurances from some surer circumstances or unimpeachable documents
413F Rahim Khan vs Khurshid Ahmed   656 followed
i In the instant case the contention that donation to public or charitable institutions could not amount to bribery is a legal plea asserting that even on the state ments made in the election petition the allegation of brib ery was not sustainable
The allegation of bribery was denied by the first respondent in toto and as false and baseless
418G ii The story that the first respondent visited the village at midnight and doled out money to a crowd of Muslim voters could not be true
The central figures in the dis pute over the money had not been examined by the appellant and the letters produced by him to strengthen oral evidence relating to the incidents were clearly brought into exist ence for the purpose of election petition
419G iii As regards the amount alleged to have been paid for the construction of a mosque one of the witnesses exam ined deposed without receiving any summons from the court
The appellant had no personal knowledge of the facts alleged in support of the case of bribery
The High Court rightly held that the letter which the appellant addressed to the District Magistrate containing vague references to the allegations had been written with a view to create some sort of evidence in case the election petition was necessi tated to be filed  
420C 413