Case: Shri Bam Development Vs. Smt. Sarla Prashar and Another

Bam Dev through the Jan Sangh Party. 6. Reliance was also placed on the evidence of witnesses who deposited that there was an arrangement between Bam Dev and Munshi Ram that the former will meet the election expenses of the latter. Charanjit Lal and Khushal Singh have deposited to that effect. Part of the evidence is hearsay and should not have been admitted. Even otherwise, the evidence was so infirm that no reliance be placed upon that evidence. The two witnesses admitted that they were ordered by their party organization to appear as witnesses and to support the case of the first respondent. The story was again not put in cross-examination to Munshi Ram who was examined as a witness more than a week after the two witnesses were examined in Court. 7. The third payment of Rs. 18/- on which reliance has been placed requires a detailed analysis of the evidence. It was claimed by the first respondent that Rs. 125/- were paid by Bam Dev to Kapila Printing Press on January 31, 1969, for getting posters printed for Munshi Ram. At the trial counsel for the first respondent said that there was no evidence in support of the case except as to the amount of Rs. 18/- which it was alleged was paid by Bam Dev to the Kapila Printing Press on account of Bill (Ex. P.W. 6/3) drawn in favour of Munshi Ram. The owner of the Kapila Printing Press, Atma Ram deposited that Bam Dev did not get any printing work done by him during the mid-term election, but work was got done by the Jan Sangh Party; that Munshi Ram had also got some work done at his printing press; that he has brought the relevant record; that the credit memo, a carbon copy of which had been marked as Ex. P.W. 6/1 was issued by him and that pertained to the printing done for the Jan Sangh Party; Ex. P.W. 6/2 was a carbon copy of the credit voucher of Munshi Ram; Ex. P.W. 6/3 was the original of Ex. P.W. 6/2. He further deposited that the payment regarding Ex. P.W. 6/3 was made by Munshi Ram and those bills related to the material published regarding the election in the mid-term poll. Atma Ram P.W. 6 was examined on behalf of the first respondent. The witness was not sought to be treated as hostile and his testimony completely destroyed the case of the first respondent. 8. Munshi Ram stated that he ordered that a pamphlet be printed. In respect of that pamphlet Ex. P.W. 6/3 was issued and that he (Munshi Ram) had made the payment and not Bam Dev. Bam Dev also bore similar testimony. In respect of this part of the case the first respondent had no personal knowledge. The oral testimony and the contents of the receipt Ex. P.W. 6/3 clearly established that the bill related to a pamphlet published by Munshi Ram and not by Bam Dev. 9. Bam Dev had, however, included an amount of Rs. 18/- paid on January 31, 1969, to the Kapila Printing Press and this apparently related to Ex. P.W. 6/3. Bam Dev explained that there was a mistake committed by his accountant an including that amount in his election expenses. He asserted that he had not paid that amount. Bam Dev claimed that all the accounts were maintained by his election agent. We do not think that merely from the inclusion of the amount of Rs. 18/- paid to the Kapila Printing Press on January 31, 1969, in the account filed under Section 72 of the Representation of People Act of his election expenses, it must follow that Bam Dev had entered into an arrangement with Munshi Ram under which the latter agreed not to withdraw his candidature on promise or payment of a bribe. To make out a case under Section 123(1) of payment of a bribe or promised gratification to Munshi Ram with the object directly or indirectly of inducing Munshi Ram not to withdraw from being a candidate at the election, the oral evidence with regard to the payment of Rs. 18/- negative the plea. The case of Bam Dev that it was due to some mistake of his accountant that the voucher Ex. P.W. 6/3 was included in the election expenses is not improbable. Again there is no evidence to prove that payment was made with the object of directly inducing Munshi Ram to withdraw his candidature from the election. 10. The High Court observed that the following seven circumstances support the conclusion that there was such an arrangement. They are -(i) that Bam Dev was a candidate of the Jan Sangh Party; (ii) that the election office of Bam Dev and the Jan Sangh Party office were in the same building at Nangal; (iii) that out of the total number of vouchers, i.e., 156, filed with the return of the election expenses, 45 are drawn in the name of the Jan Sangh Party and that Bam Dev has admitted that the payment regarding these vouchers was made by him; (iv) that payment of Hazura Singh, P.W. 9 was made by the Jan Sangh Party; (v) that Bam Dev has not disclaimed that the Jan Sangh Party was actively helping him; (vi) that no money was paid to the workers by the Jan Sangh Party but the workers had money and they paid the price of petrol used in connection with election work of Bam Dev; and (vii) that though Bam Dev maintained accounts regarding his election expenses, he has not produced the same and also has not produced his election-in-charge who kept those accounts. No accounts was maintained by the Jan Sangh Party. These circumstances taken separately or collectively do not prove that Bam Dev had entered into a bargain with Munshi Ram by giving him any gift or offer to pay him any gratification in consideration of the latter agreeing not to withdraw his candidature from the election.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]3. In our view the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. Ram Sarup deposited that his tonga was engaged by Munshi Ram for his election campaign; that he (Ram Sarup) used to "take the hire from the office of Bam Dev"; that the money was received from the President of Jan Sangh and "at that time Bam Dev was standing". This evidence does not support the case that the payment was made by Bam Dev "through the Jan Sangh". Munshi Ram was a candidate at the election. The testimony of witness Ram Sarup only establishes that payment for the tonga engaged by Munshi Ram was made by the President of the Jan Sangh Party.Mr. Hardev Singh on behalf of the first respondent contended that the Jan Sangh Party had no funds and Bam Dev alone was the financier of the Jan Sangh Party.On this part of the case our attention has not been invited to any evidence4. The testimony of Hazura Singh also is infirm. The witness stated that his "loudspeakers" were used by the Jan Sangh Party in them poll, and "a loudspeaker" was fitted to the tonga of Ram Sarup and the hire charge for the "loudspeaker" was paid by the Jan Sangh Party. He claimed that he had received as hire an amount of Rs. 1, 450/which was paid by the President of the Jan Sangh Party. The witness admitted that he maintained no accounts, and that he had no conversation with Bam Dev in regard to the payment. The testimony of the witness is unreliable and there is nothing to connect the alleged payment by the President of the Jan Sangh Party with Bam DevThe witness was not sought to be treated as hostile and his testimony completely destroyed the case of the first respondentThe oral testimony and the contents of the receipt Ex. P.W. 6/3 clearly established that the bill related to a pamphlet published by Munshi Ram and not by Bam Dev9. Bam Dev had, however, included an amount of Rs. 18/paid on January 31, 1969, to the Kapila Printing Press and this apparently related to Ex. P.W. 6/3. Bam Dev explained that there was a mistake committed by his accountant an including that amount in his election expenses. He asserted that he had not paid that amount. Bam Dev claimed that all the accounts were maintained by his election agent. We do not think that merely from the inclusion of the amount of Rs. 18/paid to the Kapila Printing Press on January 31, 1969, in the account filed under Section 72 of the Representation of People Act of his election expenses, it must follow that Bam Dev had entered into an arrangement with Munshi Ram under which the latter agreed not to withdraw his candidature on promise or payment of a bribe. To make out a case under Section 123(1) of payment of a bribe or promised gratification to Munshi Ram with the object directly or indirectly of inducing Munshi Ram not to withdraw from being a candidate at the election, the oral evidence with regard to the payment of Rs. 18/negative the plea. The case of Bam Dev that it was due to some mistake of his accountant that the voucher Ex. P.W. 6/3 was included in the election expenses is not improbable. Again there is no evidence to prove that payment was made with the object of directly inducing Munshi Ram to withdraw his candidature from the election10. The High Court observed that the following seven circumstances support the conclusion that there was such an arrangement. They are(i) that Bam Dev was a candidate of the Jan Sangh Party;(ii) that the election office of Bam Dev and the Jan Sangh Party office were in the same building at Nangal;(iii) that out of the total number of vouchers, i.e., 156, filed with the return of the election expenses, 45 are drawn in the name of the Jan Sangh Party and that Bam Dev has admitted that the payment regarding these vouchers was made by him;(iv) that payment of Hazura Singh, P.W. 9 was made by the Jan Sangh Party;(v) that Bam Dev has not disclaimed that the Jan Sangh Party was actively helping him;(vi) that no money was paid to the workers by the Jan Sangh Party but the workers had money and they paid the price of petrol used in connection with election work of Bam Dev; and(vii) that though Bam Dev maintained accounts regarding his election expenses, he has not produced the same and also has not produced hise who kept those accounts. No accounts was maintained by the Jan Sangh PartyThese circumstances taken separately or collectively do not prove that Bam Dev had entered into a bargain with Munshi Ram by giving him any gift or offer to pay him any gratification in consideration of the latter agreeing not to withdraw his candidature from the election.