Case: Ramji Lal Vs. Ram Babu Maheshwari &amp; Another

Annexure B, a poster wherein there is a reference to Annexure A was either published or at any rate published with the consent of the respondent.10. This takes us to Annexure C. In this Court, learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously pressed for our acceptance the petitioners evidence relating to the publication of leaflets similar to Annexure C. Undoubtedly there are scurrilous statements in those leaflets. There is hardly any doubt that the facts mentioned there amount to an attack on the personal character and conduct of Rajesh Sharma. It was not contended before us that that document does not come within the scope of Sec. 123 (4) of the Act. If we believe that such a document was published during the election either by the respondent or by someone with his consent, the election of the respondent will have to be necessarily set aside. But the question for our consideration is whether such a document was published during the election or if it was published during the election or if it was published whether it was published by the respondent or alternatively with his consent.11. Now coming to those leaflets, there is no satisfactory evidence as to their printing. It is not proved in which press the same was printed nor is there any evidence to show as to who got it printed. It is shown in those leaflets that they were printed at "Kailash Printers, Delhi-6". The proprietor of that press has been examined on behalf of the petitioners. He denied that those leaflets were printed at his press or that they were got printed by the respondent. The petitioners Counsel did not seek the permission of the Court to cross-examine that witness to show that he had turned hostile to the petitioners. There is no reason why we should reject the testimony of this witness. The respondent has denied that he got those leaflets printed. No doubt not much reliance can be placed on the testimony of the respondent because he has given false evidence on several aspects of the case but the fact remains that the petitioners have not been able to prove that leaflets similar to Annexure C were got printed at Kailash Printers and further that they were printed at the instance of the respondent.12. The leaflets in question were issued under the signature of one Rishi Ram. One Rishi Ram was examined as R. W. 26. He denied that he got those leaflets printed or published. But there is evidence to show that there was bitter enmity between Rajesh Sharma and R. W. 26. Therefore there was a possibility of his getting those leaflets printed and he may even have distributed some of those leaflets. As R. W. 26 had serious enmity with Rajesh Sharma, he needed no prodding from the respondent for getting those leaflets printed or even for publishing them. If he had got those leaflets printed and published, on his own, as it appears to be likely, the respondent cannot be held responsible for the same.13. The witnesses who speak to the fact that the leaflets in question were published with the consent of the respondent are P. W. 45 Jugal Kishore, P. W. 21 Manmohan Sharma and P. W. 33 R. B. Gupta. We have already considered the evidence of P. W. 45 and come to the conclusion that it is unsafe to place reliance on his testimony. That was also the conclusion reached by the learned trial Judge. P. W. 33, Ram Babu Gupta was a worker of Rajesh Sharma during the election. It is not likely that he would have gone to the office of the respondent on being invited by the respondent and that the respondent would have committed serious election offences in his presence or to his knowledge. He wanted to show that from his childhood he was a member of the R. S. S. and lately he disassociated himself from that organization. This version of his appears to be wholly false. From the facts elicited in his cross-examination, it is clear that he does not know anything about R. S. S. organization in Delhi. He does not know who is its Sanchalak at Delhi or its General Secretary or the Chief Organizer in Delhi State. In our opinion the evidence of this witness has been rightly rejected by the trial court. So far as P. W. 21 is concerned he admits that he was intimate with Rajesh Sharma. His evidence appears to be quite artificial. His story that the respondent was accompanying his workers when they were distributing the leaflets is difficult to accept. We agree with the learned trial Judge that his evidence also is not reliable.14. Large number of witnesses have been examined to show that the leaflets in question were distributed by the Jan Sangh workers P. Ws. 17, 21, 33, 36, 41, 42, 43, 45, 49 and some others. The learned trial Judge after examining their evidence has rejected the same as unreliable. We agree with his conclusion. It is not necessary to examine their evidence in details as their evidence does not show that distribution was made at the instance of the respondent.15. A tame attempt was made to show that even if we hold that there is no satisfactory proof to show that calendar similar to Annexure A and leaflets similar to Annexure C were not proved to have been distributed with the consent of the respondent the very proof of their distribution is sufficient to set aside the election as the distribution of those calendars and leaflets must have vitiated the result of the election. We have earlier come to the conclusion that there is no satisfactory evidence as regards their distribution. Further from the evidence on record it is not possible to hold that they were widely distributed. From the evidence before us it is not possible to come to a positive finding that their distribution is likely to have vitiated the result of the election.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]5. The questions arising for decision in this case are essentially questions of fact. Their proof depends on oral evidence.Voluminous evidence has been adduced by the parties in this case in support of their respective contentions. The trial court after carefully examining their evidence has come to the conclusion that the petitioners have failed to establish the corrupt practices pleaded by them. This is essentially a finding of fact. This Court ordinarily does not interfere with the findings of fact reached by the High Court in an election petition particularly when the High Court comes to the conclusion that the corrupt practices pleaded are not established. A charge of commission of corrupt practice is akin to a charge of commission of an offence. No satisfactory ground is made out to persuade us to reopen the findings of fact reached by the High Court. The learned trial Judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses examined before him. That circumstance must have aided him in the appreciation of the evidence adduced. It is not said that he had ignored any material piece of evidence or his conclusions are unsupported by evidence. All that is said on behalf of the appellants is that the conclusions reached by the trial Judge on the basis of the evidence on record are not correct and that a different view of the evidence is reasonable. That is not a sufficient ground to interfere with the findings reached by the trial Court.The trial court held that this calendar was published during the election. It also came to the conclusion that in that calendar there is an appeal to religious symbols. It is not necessary to go into the correctness of those findings. We shall assume that those findings are correct.may be remembered that the election with which we are concerned is a part of the general election held in 1967. At Delhi it was a combined election for the Lok Sabha, Metropolitan Council and for the Corporation. The Kalan Masjid constituency of the Metropolitan Council was a part of the parliamentary constituency of Chandni Chowk. Included in the Kalan Masjid constituency, there were some Corporation constituencies. It is also in evidence that Jan Sangh had put up candidates for the Chandni Chowk parliamentary constituency, Kalan Masjid Metropolitan Council constituency as well as the Corporation constituencies that formed part of that constituency. Therefore unless there is satisfactory evidence to show that the calendars in question were published by or with the consent of the respondent, the election of the respondent cannot be invalidated. Hence we have to see whether there is satisfactory evidence to show that they were published by the respondent or with his consent.We also agree with the trial court that there is no satisfactory evidence to show that Annexure B, a poster wherein there is a reference to Annexure A was either published or at any rate published with the consent of the respondent.There is hardly any doubt that the facts mentioned there amount to an attack on the personal character and conduct of Rajesh Sharma. It was not contended before us that that document does not come within the scope of Sec. 123 (4) of the Act. If we believe that such a document was published during the election either by the respondent or by someone with his consent, the election of the respondent will have to be necessarily set aside.Now coming to those leaflets, there is no satisfactory evidence as to their printing. It is not proved in which press the same was printed nor is there any evidence to show as to who got it printed. It is shown in those leaflets that they were printed at "Kailash Printers,The proprietor of that press has been examined on behalf of the petitioners. He denied that those leaflets were printed at his press or that they were got printed by the respondent. The petitioners Counsel did not seek the permission of the Court tothat witness to show that he had turned hostile to the petitioners. There is no reason why we should reject the testimony of this witness. The respondent has denied that he got those leaflets printed. No doubt not much reliance can be placed on the testimony of the respondent because he has given false evidence on several aspects of the case but the fact remains that the petitioners have not been able to prove that leaflets similar to Annexure C were got printed at Kailash Printers and further that they were printed at the instance of the respondent.12. The leaflets in question were issued under the signature of one Rishi Ram. One Rishi Ram was examined as R. W. 26. He denied that he got those leaflets printed or published. But there is evidence to show that there was bitter enmity between Rajesh Sharma and R. W. 26. Therefore there was a possibility of his getting those leaflets printed and he may even have distributed some of those leaflets. As R. W. 26 had serious enmity with Rajesh Sharma, he needed no prodding from the respondent for getting those leaflets printed or even for publishing them. If he had got those leaflets printed and published, on his own, as it appears to be likely, the respondent cannot be held responsible for the same.13. The witnesses who speak to the fact that the leaflets in question were published with the consent of the respondent are P. W. 45 Jugal Kishore, P. W. 21 Manmohan Sharma and P. W. 33 R. B. Gupta. We have already considered the evidence of P. W. 45 and come to the conclusion that it is unsafe to place reliance on his testimony. That was also the conclusion reached by the learned trial Judge. P. W. 33, Ram Babu Gupta was a worker of Rajesh Sharma during the election. It is not likely that he would have gone to the office of the respondent on being invited by the respondent and that the respondent would have committed serious election offences in his presence or to his knowledge. He wanted to show that from his childhood he was a member of the R. S. S. and lately he disassociated himself from that organization. This version of his appears to be wholly false. From the facts elicited in hisit is clear that he does not know anything about R. S. S. organization in Delhi. He does not know who is its Sanchalak at Delhi or its General Secretary or the Chief Organizer in Delhi State. In our opinion the evidence of this witness has been rightly rejected by the trial court. So far as P. W. 21 is concerned he admits that he was intimate with Rajesh Sharma. His evidence appears to be quite artificial. His story that the respondent was accompanying his workers when they were distributing the leaflets is difficult to accept. We agree with the learned trial Judge that his evidence also is not reliable.14. Large number of witnesses have been examined to show that the leaflets in question were distributed by the Jan Sangh workers P. Ws. 17, 21, 33, 36, 41, 42, 43, 45, 49 and some others. The learned trial Judge after examining their evidence has rejected the same as unreliable. We agree with his conclusion. It is not necessary to examine their evidence in details as their evidence does not show that distribution was made at the instance of the respondent.15.A tame attempt was made to show that even if we hold that there is no satisfactory proof to show that calendar similar to Annexure A and leaflets similar to Annexure C were not proved to have been distributed with the consent of the respondent the very proof of their distribution is sufficient to set aside the election as the distribution of those calendars and leaflets must have vitiated the result of the election.We have earlier come to the conclusion that there is no satisfactory evidence as regards their distribution. Further from the evidence on record it is not possible to hold that they were widely distributed. From the evidence before us it is not possible to come to a positive finding that their distribution is likely to have vitiated the result of the election.