Civil Appeal No 32 of 1969
Appeal under section 116 A of the Representation of the People Act 1951 from the judgment and order dated November 19 1968 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Election Petition No 14 of 1968
HL Sibal Ram Sarup SC Mahanta KC Sharma and JC Talwar for the appellant
Naunit Lal for respondent No 1 887 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ray J
This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 19 November 1968 of the High Court of Punjab  Haryana at Chandigarh dismissing the election petition of the appellant
The appellant contested the Assembly seat from Ellenabad Constituency in the District of Hissar in the mid term election held in May 1968
The appellant challenged the election of Lalchand the first respondent
The other defeated candidate in the election was the second respondent Prithvi Raj
The appellant obtained 15485 votes
The successful candidate Lalchand secured 20816 votes and Prithvi Raj obtained 5726 votes
The polling was on 14 May 1968
The results were announced on 16 May 1968
At the hearing of the appeal counsel on behalf of the appellant canvassed three grounds
First that the poster being Exhibit PW 11 was against the personal character of the appellant and therefore constituted a corrupt practice within the meaning of sub section 4 of section 123 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act
Secondly the religious head Sat Guru
Jagjit Singh of the Namdhari sect issued an appeal and a farman and thereby the provisions contained in sub section 2 of section 123 of the Act are attracted
Thirdly the respondent Lalchand is guilty of corrupt practice of bribery by having given Rs 20000 in cash to Prithvi Raj to contest the election
I shall at the outset deal with the second and the third grounds
Counsel on behalf of the appellant pressed allegations contained in sub paragraphs b and d of paragraph 10 of the petition which were to the effect that Sat Guru Jagjit Singh issued a farman on or about 20 April 1968 to the effect that it was the Guru s desire that all followers should oppose the appellant who
was the son of Choudhury Devi Lal an enemy of Namdhari Guru
Further if any of the followers did not obey the farman they would stand ex communicated and their Prasad  would not be accepted in the Gurdwaras and that they would be spiritually censured by naming them as traitors of Dharma and befallen persons in Sabha s of Namdharis
In sub paragraph d of paragraph 10 of the petition it was alleged that on 21 April 1968 the followers of Namdhari sect were called to Sant Nagar where a big Dewan of Namdharis was convened and Sat Guru Jagjit Singh made a speech there that he had taken a vow to defeat the appellant because he was the son of Choudhury Devi Lal whose family was an avowed enemy of Namdhari sect and that it should be treated as a vow by every Namdhari
888 The respondent Lalchand denied that there was any meeting and further denied that there was any farman
The appellant it may be stated did not adduce any documentary evidence in support of the allegations
The appellant s entire case was based on oral evidence
The appellant relied on the oral testimony of PW 29 and PW 30
PW 29 Ram Dayal was formerly a member of the Punjab Legislative Assembly
Ram Dayal was formerly a member of the Congress Committee
He resigned from the Congress and contested the seat as an independent candidate against Choudhury Devi Lal and won the election in the year 1957
An election petition was filed by Choudhury Devi Lal against the witness Ram Dayal
Ram Dayal was eventually unseated as a result of the decision of this Court
The witness Ram Dayal helped the respondent Lalchand in the election of 1967 and also
in the mid term election in the month of May 1968
The witness Ram Dayal spoke of the Sat Guru Maharaj having exhorted the Namdharis to vote for Lalchand and warned them about the consequences if they failed to do so
The witness also spoke of the meeting at Rania village on 28 April 1968
It is indeed strange and significant that Ram Dayal who
supported respondent Lalchand and also
attended meetings on his behalf came and gave evidence in favour of the appellant about the utterances of Sat Guru Jagjit Singh of the Namdhari sect
It is extremely unsafe and hazardous to rely on the uncorroborated and isolated oral testimony of such a person
PW 30 Parma Nand Sharma spoke of the meeting at Sant Nagar on 21 April 1968 and said that Guru Jagjit Singh spoke at the meeting and proclaimed that it was the
duty of every Namdhari to vote for respondent Lalchand and any one who violated the said Guru s direction would be ex communicated from the Panth
In cross examination the witness Parma Nand Sharma said that he came to give evidence in favour of the Congress because he was summoned to
appear as a witness and therefore he spoke the truth
It is obvious that when one speaks truth one does not proclaim it
It is obvious that the witness in view of his antecedents wanted to sound truthful because he came forward to give evidence in favour of the appellant
On behalf of the appellant reliance was placed on Exhibit PW 242 to show that there was a meeting on 21 April 1968
The appellant relied on the dairy entry of Gurbhajan Singh being Exhibit PW 242 beating the date 21 April 1968 in support of the contention that there was intrinsic evidence in the dairy entry that there was a meeting on 21 April 1968 where Sat Guru Jagjit Singh spoke and the said entry is in the following terms  Asa Di war was recited at Sh
Jiwan Nagar
He Sant Sahiba Singh remained there for the whole day
889 He listened for some time difficulties of the Singhs who had collected there from outside at 7 pm he appeared before the Sadh Sangat assembled at Muharanwali Dharamsala Santnagar and made an appeal to the audience to cast their votes in favour of Ch
Lalchand independent candidate of Ellenabad Constituency and return him as successful candidate
Then he came back to Jiwannagar
The diary entry is to the effect that the Sat Guru Jagjit Singh appeared before the Sant Nagar Assembly
The diary entry does not mention about any alleged utterance by Sat Guru Jagjit Singh at the said meeting
Exhibits PW 241 and PW 242 are two pamphlets containing articles
Counsel for the appellant relied on the pamphlets to prove that the meeting was held where Sat Guru Jagjit Singh spoke
Both the articles were published after the election had been held on 16 May 1968
These articles suffer from the vice of counting into existence under deliberate motive
We are unable to accept the oral evidence that there was any meeting on 21 April 1968 as alleged by the appellant and that Sat Guru Jagjit Singh spoke at the meeting to cast votes in favour of respondent Lalchand under threat of divine displeasure and spiritual censure
Counsel on behalf of the appellant contended that respondent Lalchand was guilty of offences under section 1231 of the Act by having given Rs 20000 in cash to respondent Prithvi Raj to contest the election
There is no documentary evidence insupport of the allegation
The oral evidence is that of PW 11 PW 12 and PW 13
Kanshi Ram PW 11 said that he was Kumhar and there was a meeting of the Kumhars on 30 March 1968
It was decided that a Kumhar should be made a member of the Legislative Assembly
He also said that the Kumhars decided at the said meeting to put up respondent Prithvi Raj as a candidate
Kanshi Ram s further evidence was that Bawa Bit Singh paid Rs 20000 to Prithvi Raj for election expenses
Kanshi Ram said that the payment was in the presence of respondent Lalchand
Jot Ram PW 12 said that he was a Kumhar and his evidence was also that Bava Bir Singh paid Rs 20000 to Prithvi Raj in the presence of Lalchand
Rawat PW 13 who was also a Kumhar said that Bawa Bir Singh paid Rs 20000 to Prithvi Raj in the presence of Lalchand
The gist of the offence under sub section 1 of section 23 of the Act is that there has to be a gift by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent of any gratification to any person with the object of inducting a person to stand or not to stand as
a candidate at the election
890 The elements required to constitute an offence are first that the gift has to be by a candidate or his agent or by any other person
Secondly the gift is to be with the consent of the candidate or his election agent and the third important element is that the gratification is to
be made with the object directly or indirectly of inducing a person to stand or not to stand in the election
In the present case there is No evidence to hold that any gift was made by the candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of the candidate namely the respondent Lalchand
Secondly there is no evidence that gratification was made with the object of inducing the respondent Prithvi Raj to stand or not to stand as a candidate
Counsel on behalf of the appellant contended that respondent Lalchand was guilty of corrupt practices as mentioned in subsection 4 of section 123 of the Act
The four elements in subsection 4 are first that there has to be a publication by the candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of the candidate of any statement of fact
The second element is that the statement of fact is false and a candidate or his agent or any other person either believes it to be false or does not believe to be true
Thirdly the publications is in relation to the personal character and conduct of any candidate
Fourthly the statement is reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate s election
PW 35 Lachhman Das was the Manager Kwality Art Printers
He spoke of a poster which was printed in his Press
He identified the Exhibit PW 11 as a copy of the poster which was printed in his Press
He said that Exhibit PW 342 was a manuscript of Exhibit PW 11
He further said that the pamphlet was printed on the asking of Lalchand who was identified by the witnesses Muni Lal Azad and Jai Gopal Verma
Lachhman Das said that Muni Lal Azad and Jai Gopal Verma signed the manuscript Exhibit PW 342 in his presence
 The further evidence was that 10000 copies of the poster were printed in the said Press
It was suggested in cross examination that the poster was printed after 14 May 1968
PW 36 Jai Gopal Verma identified Exhibit PW 342 as a manuscript of the poster and further said that the witnesses identified Lalchand
Jai Gopal Verma proved his signature on Exhibit PW 342
Jai Gopal Verma said that Lalchand accompanied him to the Kwality Art Printers
Jai Gopal Verma further identified the signature of Muni Lal Azad
It was also suggested to Jai Gopal Verma that the poster was printed after 14 May 1968
Muni Lal Azad PW 37 said that he accompanied Jai Gopal Verma to Kwality Art Printers along with respondent Lalchand
He admitted his signature on Exhibit PW 342
891 Counsel on behalf of the respondent Lalchand contended that Lachhman Das was neither the Printer nor the Publisher and that Lachhman Das joined the Press in the month of April 1968
Lachhman Das was a disinterested person
He sent a copy of the poster to
the Chief Electoral Officer
The letter to the Chief Electoral Officer Exhibit PW 341 was in a sealed cover
It was opened in this Court
It was proved by Muni Lal Jain Accountant in the office of the Chief Electoral Officer
He proved that Exhibit PW 341 was the letter received from Kwality Art Printers on 2 May 1968
The witness Muni Lal Jain further proved the receipt of said letter in the office of the Chief Electoral Officer on 2 May 1968
Muni Lal Jain identified the signatures of the clerks Jagmohan Saran Verma and DN Arora on Exhibit PW 341
Muni Lal jain proved Exhibit PW 342 and Exhibit PW 343 which were the enclosures received along with Exhibit PW 34 1
Counsel on behalf of the respondent Lalchand Contended that the rubber stamp of the Chief Electoral Office bore the date 22 May 1968 and there was intrinsic evidence to show that the first digit 2 was smudged with carbon ink
This argument cannot be accepted because of the dominant reason that no such suggestion was made to the witness from the Electoral Office or any other witness on behalf of the appellant
If such a case had been made the appellant would have had an opportunity of dealing with it
Counsel on behalf of the respondent Lalchand contended that the receipt book and the bill register book of the Press were not produced
Lachhman Das the Accountant of Kwality Art Printers was not asked to produce either the receipt book or the bill book
There was some dispute as to whether the signature of Lalchand on the manuscript poster Exhibit PW 342 was genuine or not
Ratan Lal Aggarwal PW 58 said that the signature of the respondent Lalchand on Exhibit PW 342 was a genuine signature
The respOndent s witness No 2 AS Kapoor said that the signature of Lalchand of Exhibit PW 342 was not the same as the
admitted signature of Lalchand and in the opinion of the witness the signature on Exhibit PW 342 was the work of a person who was well skilled in the art of traced forgery
It is rare for two experts to agree in cases of disputed signature
The Court has to arrive at the conclusion in the light of the entire evidence
Jai Gopal Verma said that Lalchand appended his signature in his presence
That portion of the evidence of Jai Gopal Verma was not impeached in cross examination
Lachhman Das the Accountant of the Kwality Art Printers said that the pamphlet was printed at the request of Lalchand who was identified by Muni Lal Azad and 892 Jai Gopal Verma
This portion of the evidence of Lachhman Das was also not challenged in cross examination
The poster on which the appellant relied is Exhibit PW 11
Exhibit PW 11 is as follows Appeal to the Voters of the Ellenabad Vidhan Sabha Constituency
Election Rising Sun Symbol Brothers Just after one year election is being held
I hope will get more support from public than before
Because you have seen the Adlu Badlu  policy of Ch
Partap Singh son of Ch
Devi Dayal Ch
Devi Lal has put up the second son as a candidate because of this fear
The deeds of Om Prakash are well known to the public
Under the auspices of his father Ch
Devi Lal he had been indulging in smuggling and today he is asking for votes in the name of his father
I hope the people will show the face of defeat to such an obnoxious person
My election symbol is rising sun put stamp only on that
Yours LAL CHAND KHOD Ellenabad Constituency
Ganga Dhar Sharma PW 31 said that a memorandum of appeal in favour of respondent Lalchand was printed
He spoke of Exhibit
PW 341
The appeal which was published and distributed is Exhibit PW 342 which is the same as Exhibit PW 11
This appeal leaves No room for doubt that there were allegations against the personal character and conduct of the appellant Om Prakash who was described as having been  indulging in smuggling
In the said appeal it was further said that the appellant was an obnoxious person
Various witnesses PWs 14 16 18 19 21 23 29 30 and 31 gave evidence of the distribution and publication of the appeal
They identified Exhibit PW 241 which is the same as Exhibit PW 342 and the evidence of distribution and publication is overwhelming
The evidence in the present case established beyond any measure of doubt first that Exhibit PW 11 which is the same as Exhibit PW 342 was published secondly that Lalchand got the same printed and published thirdly that the statement 893 was in relation to the personal character and conduct of the appellant fourthly the statement is false and fifthly the same was calculated to prejudice the prospects of the appellant s election
For these reasons we are of opinion that the appeal is to be accepted on the ground that respondent Lalchand is guilty of corrupt practice under section 1234 of the Act
The appeal is allowed with costs throughout and the election of the respondent Lalchand is declared void 
GC Appeal allowed


Summary:
The first respondent was the winning candidate from an assembly constituency in Hissar District of Haryana State at the mid term election held in May 1968
The appellant who was one of the losing candidates filed an election petition urging the following grounds in its support 1 that the poster Exhibit PWI was against the personal character of the appellant and therefore constituted a corrupt practice within the meaning of section 1234 of the Representation ore the People Act 1951 2 That the religious head of the Namdhari sect issued an appeal and a farman and therefore the provisions contained in section 1232 were attracted 3 That the first respondent was guilty of corrupt practice of bribery by having given Rs 20000 in cash to one of the candidates for contesting the election
The petition was dismissed by the High Court
In appeal this Court found that the allegations in grounds Nos
2 and 3 aforesaid were not proved by the evidence on record
Allowing the petition on ground No 1 HELD i The evidence in the present case established first that Exhibit PWI1 was published secondly that respondent No 1 got the same printed and published thirdly that the statement therein to the effect that the appellant was indulging in smuggling and was an obnoxious person was in relation to the personal character and conduct ore the appellant fourthly that the statement was false and fifthly that the same was calculated to prejudice the prospects of the appellant s election
The appeal therefore had to be accepted on the ground that respondent No 1 was guilty of corrupt practice under section 1234 of the Act
892 H893 B ii It is rare for two
experts to
agree in cases of disputed signature
The Court has to arrive at the conclusion in the light of the entire evidence
The signature of respondent No 1 on the manuscript of Exhibit PWII was sufficiently proved by the evidence of witnesses
891 G H