Case: Narbada Prasad Vs. Chhagan Lal And Ors

speeches and had therefore come forward to depose truthfully as to what had happened. This witness no doubt spoke about Kannod but he lent assurance to the statements of P. Ws. 2, (Balchand) P. W. 7 (Babulal) and P. W. 15 (Chandergopal) about Khategoan. The learned Judge although he examined the two incidents separately, seemed to have viewed the entire propaganda of Kinkerji is integrated an as drawn the conclusion from both aspects of the case taken together. Therefore the case comes to this, that the witnesses who spoke about the speech at Khategaon were not unanimous as to the version of the speech, but that in our opinion is not a circumstance of vital importance, because speeches were also made at Kannod in which the returned candidate made similar observations about the sin of gohatya. The witnesses here are P. W. 4 (Narsingh Dass), P. W. 8 (Mazharul Haq) and P. W. 10 (K. L. Tiwari). We shall now refer to what they stated. P. W. 4 (Narsingh Dass) stated that on February 16, 1967 there was a meeting in his village in front of Ramniwas Somanis house. This Somani was the election agent of the returned candidate. At this meeting both Somani and Kinkarji spoke. When he went there Kinkarji was speaking. This is the version which he gave of the speech:"The Congress gets cows killed so you should not vote for Congress, but you should put your stamp on the Deepak our emblem. If you still vote for Congress you shall get the sin of killing a cow. P. W. 8 (Mazharul Haq) also said that Kinkarji recited some slokas and when he came to the end of the speech he said:"Congress gets cows killed. The Congress candidate Manjula Bai Wagle eats cows flesh. We have to bring Hindu Raj; put the seal on the deepak mark." P. W. 10s (Kunji Lal Tiwaris ) version was that Kinkarji said that the Congress was getting the cows killed. Manjula Bai should not be given any votes. If she was voted for there would be a sin. He also spoke that the Congressmen were doing black marketing. 12. It thus appears that at Kannod also there was a repetition of the same kind of speech which the other witnesses stated had been made at Khategaon. The question is: do we believe these witnesses or not? In our judgment there is ample evidence in this case that there was a reference to cow slaughter and the campaign of the Jan Sang that cow slaughter should be abolished in India. One cannot say that it is wrong to make such a propaganda. It would be perfectly legitimate for any party to promise that if it came into power it would abolish cow slaughter. That is not the gravamen of the charge. The gravamen of the charge is that it was added that if the voters voted for the Congress Candidate, they would be guilty of the sin of gohatya and here the law of election steps in.Section 123 provides that it is an election offence of undue influence, that is to say, any direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere on the part of the candidate or his agent or of any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent with the free exercise of any electoral right when any such person, as is referred to therein, induces or attempts to induce a candidate or an elector to believe that he or any person in whom he is interested, will become or will be rendered an object of divine displeasure or spiritual censure. 13. The question is whether in stating that if they voted for the Congress or a Congress candidate, they would be committing the sin of gohatya, amounted to an attempt to induce the voters to believe that they would become or would be rendered an object of divine displeasure or spiritual censure. In our opinion a statement of this kind falls within this provision of the section. It is not necessary to enlarge upon the fact that cow is venerated in our country by the vast majority of the people and that they believe not only in its utility but its holiness. It is also believed that one of the cardinal sins is that of gohatya. Therefore, it is quite obvious that to remind the voters that they would be committing the sin of gohatya would be to remind them that they would be objects of divine displeasure or spiritual censure. Kinkarji went beyond the permitted limits of canvassing and exhortation when he added to the legitimate manifesto of his party this observation that by voting for the Congress or the Congress candidate the voters would be objects of divine displeasure or spiritual censure. In our opinion both spiritual censure and divine displeasure are implicit in the speeches as made. The case, therefore, falls clearly within S. 123 (2) (ii) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 14. It will be encumbering this judgment if we record the incidents which relate to the election agent, except to say that the election agent Somani made similar speeches and the fact has been well established by reliable evidence. We are, accordingly satisfied that the returned candidate was guilty of corrupt practice and the High Court was right in holding that the election of the returned candidate should be avoided. 15. We may point out that there was a further statement that the Congress candidate Manjula Bai ate beef. Manjula Bai did not appear in the witness-box to deny this. In fact she showed little interest in the election petition and is reported to have left the matter to the elector who filed this petition. No one on her behalf appeared to deny this fact and therefore we leave the matter there. We do not express any opinion that any corrupt practice in relation to that statement was committed either in fact or in law.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]It is a well-understood rule of law that if a thing is to be done in a particular manner it must be done in that manner or not at all. Other modes of compliance are excluded.Even the certificate of the Tehsildar was not a certified or a true copy of the entry. It only gave the gist of the entry taken from the affidavit. It contains a mistake because the village "Dholgaon" is mentioned without the addition of the word "Kalan. It appears that there are two villages, Dholgaon Kalan and Dholgaon Khurd. The entry in the electoral roll clearly shows that it is Dhalgaon Kalan. In other words the certificate was inaccurate. The affidavit of Ram Kishen was also inaccurate inasmuch as it described the house as No. 91 whereas in Electoral Roll the house is given the number 91/2.We, however, do not go by these small inaccuracies because again the law is that which can be made certain is certain, but the fact is clear that the requirements of S. 33 (5) had to be and were not complied with. The rejection of the nomination paper of Ram Kishen by the Returning Office was thus justified. Ram Kishen explained that he was running about trying to get the other evidence and indeed he did arrive at 5 p. m. having earlier sent a telegram that he was coming with the required evidence. Unfortunately both the telegram and Ram Kishen arrived after the rejection of the nomination paper and therefore the Returning Officer could not recall what he had ordered. We are satisfied that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the nomination paper of Ram Kishen was wrongly rejected. It was rightly rejected12. It thus appears that at Kannod also there was a repetition of the same kind of speech which the other witnesses stated had been made at Khategaon. The question is: do we believe these witnesses or not? In our judgment there is ample evidence in this case that there was a reference to cow slaughter and the campaign of the Jan Sang that cow slaughter should be abolished in India. One cannot say that it is wrong to make such a propaganda. It would be perfectly legitimate for any party to promise that if it came into power it would abolish cow slaughter. That is not the gravamen of the charge. The gravamen of the charge is that it was added that if the voters voted for the Congress Candidate, they would be guilty of the sin of gohatya and here the law of election steps in.Section 123 provides that it is an election offence of undue influence, that is to say, any direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere on the part of the candidate or his agent or of any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent with the free exercise of any electoral right when any such person, as is referred to therein, induces or attempts to induce a candidate or an elector to believe that he or any person in whom he is interested, will become or will be rendered an object of divine displeasure or spiritual censureIt is not necessary to enlarge upon the fact that cow is venerated in our country by the vast majority of the people and that they believe not only in its utility but its holiness. It is also believed that one of the cardinal sins is that of gohatya. Therefore, it is quite obvious that to remind the voters that they would be committing the sin of gohatya would be to remind them that they would be objects of divine displeasure or spiritual censure. Kinkarji went beyond the permitted limits of canvassing and exhortation when he added to the legitimate manifesto of his party this observation that by voting for the Congress or the Congress candidate the voters would be objects of divine displeasure or spiritual censure. In our opinion both spiritual censure and divine displeasure are implicit in the speeches as made. The case, therefore, falls clearly within S. 123 (2) (ii) of the Representation of the People Act, 195114. It will be encumbering this judgment if we record the incidents which relate to the election agent, except to say that the election agent Somani made similar speeches and the fact has been well established by reliable evidence. We are, accordingly satisfied that the returned candidate was guilty of corrupt practice and the High Court was right in holding that the election of the returned candidate should be avoided15. We may point out that there was a further statement that the Congress candidate Manjula Bai ate beef. Manjula Bai did not appear in the witness-box to deny this. In fact she showed little interest in the election petition and is reported to have left the matter to the elector who filed this petition. No one on her behalf appeared to deny this fact and therefore we leave the matter there. We do not express any opinion that any corrupt practice in relation to that statement was committed either in fact or in law.