Case: Sheodhan Singh Vs. Mohan Lal Gautam

refers to printing of pamphlets like Exh. 7. Such an inference would be a far-fetched one. According to the respondent D-23 relates to pamphlets similar to Exhs. A-154 and A-155. The High Court has not accepted that contention. The basis on which the High Court rejected that contention does not appear to us to be correct. It is not necessary to go into that question as we are of opinion that there is no satisfactory evidence to show that any entry in Exh. D-23 relates to pamphlets similar to Exh. 7. We are also unable to attach any weight to Exh. 3, the complaint given by the appellant to the Returning Officer. The appellant has considerable experience of filing election petitions. This was the third election petition filed by him. Even as the election was going on he appears to have been preparing for the election petition. The evidence of P. W. 7, Narayan Singh Bodh throws a great deal of light on this aspect.15. Large number of witnesses were examined to show that either respondent himself distributed pamphlets like Exh. 7 or he got them distributed through others. Their evidence has been considered by the High Court in detail and rejected. We have been taken through that evidence and we were not impressed by the same. We are satisfied that the High Court has correctly assessed that evidence.16. Generally, this Court accepts the findings of fact arrived at by the High Court. Election petitions are tried by experienced judges of the High Court. They had the benefit of observing the witnesses when they gave evidence. Hence their appreciation of evidence is entitled to great weight. We have not been shown any good reason for departing from that rule.17. Now coming to issue No. 8 which relates to the complaint of the appellant that the respondent, his agents and workers had hired several vehicles for conveyance of the voters to and from the polling stations. In the petition, particulars of as many as twelve vehicles which were said to have been used for conveying voters were given. But the appellants learned Counsel confined his arguments to three vehicles only i. e. Truck No. USK 503, Bus No. RJL 9729 and a Tractor.18. So far as Truck No. USK 503 is concerned, the witnesses who were examined are P. Ws. 37, 40, 41, 45 and 48.Among them the most important witness is P. W. 45 Sukhbir Singh. He claims to have worked for the respondent and transported voters to the polling station in the truck in question. Further he deposed that he hired that truck from "Achaltar Truck Operators Union", Hathras. It is now definitely established and that evidence was not challenged before us that in Hathras there was no concern bearing that name. Hence it is obvious that the evidence of this witness is wholly false. We are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Latifi, learned Counsel for the appellant that the name of concern in question was wrongly mentioned by the witness due to some confusion. The fact that P. W. 45 at one stage worked for the respondent is not of much significance. Changing sides during election is nothing unusual. Once the evidence of P. W. 45 is proved to be false very little basis remains for the evidence of other witnesses who spoke to the user of a truck in question. It is common knowledge that in the trial of election petitions there would be no dearth of witnesses. The factious spirit generated during election projects itself during the trial of election petition that follows. Much value cannot be attached to the complaint given by the appellants agent to the polling officer (Exh.18). That document has several suspicious features which were noticed by the High Court.19. Now coming to the tractor, its registration number was not spoken to by any witness. There is no evidence about its hiring. The witnesses who speak to its user are P. Ws. 33 and 34. The evidence of P. W. 33 is extremely vague. He deposed that a worker of the respondent Sita Ram carried the voters from the villages to the election booth. He is unable to give the details of the tractor. P. W. 34 is an omnibus witness. The evidence relating to owner of that tractor is conflicting. The evidence of P. Ws. 33 and 34 does not carry conviction. It was rightly not relied on by the High Court.20. Now coming to the hiring of Bus RJL 9729, according to the petition that bus was owned by one Babu Lal of Jaipur. That Babu Lal has not been examined. The evidence of P. Ws. 30, 31 and 32 who speak to the conveyance of the voters in that bus to the polling stations is far from satisfactory. Their evidence did not commend itself to the trial court. We agree with the High Court that it is unsafe to rely on their evidence.21. This takes us to issue No. 10 which relates to the complaint of the appellant that the election expenses incurred by the respondent had exceeded the prescribed limit. In this connection various items of expenses said to have been omitted in the return were particularised in the petition but most of them were not pressed at the hearing.22. The evidence relating to the expenses said to have been incurred in procuring and hiring vehicles for conveying voters to the polling booths has to be rejected in view of our earlier findings. Large number of witnesses were examined to show that considerable quantity of wheat, atta, sugar and ghee had been purchased by the respondent for feeding his workers and the expenses incurred for that purpose had not been included in the return of expenses. Their evidence has not been believed by the trial court. We have been taken through the evidence and we do not think it is creditworthy nor are we able to place any reliance on the documents produced in that connection.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]5. We are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Veda Vyasa, learned Counsel for the respondent that the petition must be held to have become infructuous in view of the dissolution of the assembly. In this proceeding we are considering the validity of the election of the respondent and not whether he is continuing as a member. If the contention of the appellant that the respondent was guilty of corrupt practices during the election is found to be true then not only his election will be declared void, he is also liable to incur certain electoral disqualifications. The purity of elections is of utmost importance in a democratic set up. No one can be allowed to corrupt the course of an election and get away with it either by resigning his membership or because of the fortuitous circumstance of the assembly having been dissolved. The public are interested in seeing that those who had corrupted the course of an election are dealt with in accordance with law. That purpose will stand defeated if we accept the contention of Mr. Veda Vyasa.6. The election petitions in this country are solely regulated by statutory provisions. Hence unless it is shown that some statutory provision directly or by necessary implication prescribes that the pending election petitions stand abated because of the dissolution of the Assembly, the contention of the respondent cannot be accepted.far as the question of getting it prepared and printed is concerned, the evidence principally relied on is that of P. W. 16 Mohan Singh. We are in agreement with the High Court that Mohan Singh is a wholly unreliable witness. According to him he was a signatory to that pamphlet and he took active part in getting it printed which means that he was a party to the publication of false statements. He appears to have been on the side of the respondent at one stage and walked over to the side of the appellant at a later stage, not uncommon during election time. His evidence does not carry conviction. On his own showing he can be aSo far as Truck No. USK 503 is concerned, the witnesses who were examined are P. Ws. 37, 40, 41, 45 and 48.Among them the most important witness is P. W. 45 Sukhbir Singh. He claims to have worked for the respondent and transported voters to the polling station in the truck in question. Further he deposed that he hired that truck from "Achaltar Truck Operators Union", Hathras. It is now definitely established and that evidence was not challenged before us that in Hathras there was no concern bearing that name. Hence it is obvious that the evidence of this witness is wholly false.We are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Latifi, learned Counsel for the appellant that the name of concern in question was wrongly mentioned by the witness due to someThe fact that P. W. 45 at one stage worked for the respondent is not of much significance. Changing sides during election is nothing unusual. Once the evidence of P. W. 45 is proved to be false very little basis remains for the evidence of other witnesses who spoke to the user of a truck in question. It is common knowledge that in the trial of election petitions there would be no dearth of witnesses. The factious spirit generated during election projects itself during the trial of election petition that follows. Much value cannot be attached to the complaint given by the appellants agent to the polling officer (Exh.18). That document has several suspicious features which were noticed by the High Court.19. Now coming to the tractor, its registration number was not spoken to by any witness. There is no evidence about its hiring. The witnesses who speak to its user are P. Ws. 33 and 34. The evidence of P. W. 33 is extremely vague. He deposed that a worker of the respondent Sita Ram carried the voters from the villages to the election booth. He is unable to give the details of the tractor. P. W. 34 is an omnibus witness. The evidence relating to owner of that tractor is conflicting. The evidence of P. Ws. 33 and 34 does not carry conviction. It was rightly not relied on by the High Court.20. Now coming to the hiring of Bus RJL 9729, according to the petition that bus was owned by one Babu Lal of Jaipur. That Babu Lal has not been examined. The evidence of P. Ws. 30, 31 and 32 who speak to the conveyance of the voters in that bus to the polling stations is far from satisfactory. Their evidence did not commend itself to the trial court. We agree with the High Court that it is unsafe to rely on their evidence.21.This takes us to issue No. 10 which relates to the complaint of the appellant that the election expenses incurred by the respondent had exceeded the prescribed limit.In this connection various items of expenses said to have been omitted in the return were particularised in the petition but most of them were not pressed at the hearing.22. The evidence relating to the expenses said to have been incurred in procuring and hiring vehicles for conveying voters to the polling booths has to be rejected in view of our earlier findings. Large number of witnesses were examined to show that considerable quantity of wheat, atta, sugar and ghee had been purchased by the respondent for feeding his workers and the expenses incurred for that purpose had not been included in the return of expenses. Their evidence has not been believed by the trial court. We have been taken through the evidence and we do not think it is creditworthy nor are we able to place any reliance on the documents produced in that connection.