Case: Mahant Shreo Nath Vs. Choudhry Ranbir Singh

the residence of the respondent Ram Dhari Balmiki, Attar Singh Khatak, Partap Singh (son of the respondent), Jamadar Parbhe ram were present, that he was told that Chand Ram was busy in the elections and he (Chand ram) Had sent the leaflets after getting them printed and that the witness Bhalle Ram Should distribute those leaflets in the Harijan villages and also ask the Harijan villages and also ask the Harijans to vote for the respondent; and that thereafter the respondent made two parties for distribution of those leaflets, that the witnesses Bhalle Ram, Jamadar prabhe ram and the respondent formed one party, and that the leaflets were distributed in different villages. The witness further deposed that after 7 of 8 days of the date of polling he had informed Chand Ram that he had carried out his message and that her had succeeded in getting the respondent elected. The story of this witness was disbelieved by the High Court. It is not pretended that Bhalle Ram was a worker for the respondent of that the respondent had any reason to take Bhalle Ram in his confidence. Bhalle Ram is a Harijan and he regarded Chand Ram as his leader. It is highly improbable that the respondent who desired to distribute the leaflets, which he must have known to be fabricated and containing false averments, would avail himself of the services of Bhalle Ram who was a stranger to him. The conduct of Bhalle Ram also appears to be highly improbable. If he was asked by the respondent to distribute the leaflets, which he says he did, and which contained statements relating to the change of political allegiance by Chand Ram, he - Bhalle Ram - would have made some enquiry as to how Chand Ram came to change his allegations at the last moment, especially when Chand Ram was actually standing for election against a Congress candidate. But no such enquiry was made. In our view, the High Court was right in holding that Bhalle Ram was a "false witness". Bhalle Ram was a supporter of Chand Ram and the sympathies of Chand ram lay with the appellant. He has been persuaded to support the case of the appellant by posing that he had been called by the respondent on the night previous to the day of polling and that he had participated in the distribution of the leaflets.17. The story that the respondent himself moved till the morning of the polling day from village to village personally distributing the leaflets of contacting his workers for distributing the leaflets is unbelievable. The respondent had a large number of workers and agents who would have been deputed to go about distributing or handing over the leaflets to his agents of the respondent for distribution.18. Among the other witnesses who were cited were Prithi, Laxmi Narain, Giani Ram and Ghasi Ram. Prithi, Laxmi Narain and Ghasi Ram though summoned were not examined, and only Giani Ram and Harkesh were examined. Giani Ram stated that he had received for distribution the leaflets at 4 a.m. on May 14 from the respondent. Giani Ram, it may be noted, is a Brahmin. It is difficult to believe that he would undertake to distribute the leaflets among the Harijans or that the respondent would entrust that work to him. Giani ram is worker of the Rohtak Congress Committee. It appears that he did not support the candidature of the respondent. At one of the election meetings he wanted to speak opposing the candidature of the respondent, but he was not permitted to do so. Harkesh stated that he had seen the leaflet at the house of the respondent, that he was called by the respondent at about mid-night of May 13, 1968 not he pretext that Chand ram had called him. But at the house of the respondent he found Bhalle Ram, Parbhe Ram, Attar Singh Khatak, Ram Dhari Balmiki, but he did not see Chand ram. He asked Bhalle Ram why he was called. Bhalle Ram told him that there was a massage from Chand ram and handed over the leaflets to him. He then stated that the respondent gave him the leaflets for distribution.19. The story that the party of Partap Singh (son of the respondent) moved form place to place and that leaflets were distributed by them also is also unreliable. In support of this case witnesses Giani Ram, Harkesh, Munshi, ram Chander, Om Prakash and Narinder Singh were examined. Giani Ram stated that the along with Attar Singh Khatak, ram Dhari and Partap Singh (son of the respondent) went to Karontha, Simli, Miana, Karor, Karo and Baliana and distributed the leaflets. In cross-examination if was elicited that he had a dispute with the supporters of the respondent and that a report was lodged with the police in that behalf. The story that he was called from his house on the night of May 13, 1968, and that he participated in the distribution of the offending leaflets is not supported by any reliable evidence, and has, in out judgment, been rightly disbelieved. On a consideration of the evidence of Munshi the High Court held that he was a "thoroughly unreliable witness". About the witness Ram Chander the High Court observed that it could not place "any reliance on his testimony". About the witness Om Prakash and Narinder Singh the High Court observed that "the less said about these two statements, the better". We have been taken through the evidence of those witness and we see no reason to disagree with the appreciation of the evidence by the High Court. The story deposed by the witnesses is highly improbable : their statements are inconsistent and are not supported by any independent witnesses who could have been examined.20. In our judgment, the High Court was right in disbelieving the case of the appellant that the respondent either personally or through his agents had distributed the leaflet Ex. P.W. 7/1 as alleged by the appellant.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]4. A plea in an election petition that a candidate or his election agent of any person with his consent has committed a corrupt practice raises a grave charge, proof of which results in disqualification from taking part in elections for six years. The charge in its very nature must be established by cleat and cogent evidence by those who seek to prove it. The Court does not hold such a charge proved merely on preponderance of probability : the Court requires that the conduct attributed to the offender is proved by evidence which establishes it beyond reasonable doubt.Om Prakash is not a reliable witness. He did not hold a permit for plying the vehicle in the village Pakasma, he maintained no accounts in support of the contract set up by him. He did not pass any receipt for the payment made to him, and his name was not even entered in the records maintained under the Motor vehicles Act. The High Court also referred to certain discrepancies between the testimony of ram Singh, Kundan and Chhotu. If the testimony of Om Prakash is disbelieved, as it must in view of the infirmities, it is difficult to accepted the testimony of witnesses ram Singh, Kundan and Chhotu who admitted that they gave no information to any one that they were brought to the polling station in the vehicle driven by Om Prakash and that they had paid no charges in respect of it. We agree with the view of the High Court that it was not proved that the respondent had hired or procured a vehicle for the use of electors to and from the poling station on the date ofstory that there was cancellation of the contracts by registered letters, especially of the contract with Ram Singh, is open to doubt especially because of the suspicious appearance of the registration envelope produced in support of that case. But we still do not disagree with the view of the High Court on a matter of appreciation of evidence of Jianand and the other contracting parties, viz. Hari Ram and Ram Singh.11. It is common ground that no formal contract was executed for employment of Jianand in the election propaganda. Jianand has executed a recipe for Rs.His story that he signed the receipt without reading it is difficult of acceptance. Jianand maintains no accounts of his earning. A bare perusal of his testimony shows that he made contradictory statements in attempting to "explain away the recitals in the receipts". When asked whether he was in the habit of signing papers without reading them, jianand stated that "it was not so". He admitted that he was told that the receipt was for Rs.He also admitted that all the Bhajniks were present when he executed the receipt and that all the other Bhajniks executed receipts on that very day, that is "on May 11 or 12, 1968". But the receipts passed in favour of the other Bhajniks do not support the case of Jianand. The High Courts had carefully analysed the evidence and has observed :"There is no evidence barring the statement of Jianand that his engagement was from the 18th of April to the 11th of May, 1968, and at Rs. 100/per day; and Jianandâ€™s statement comes into direct conflict with the receipt issued by him. He did state that for the engagements in marriages, his charges are Rs. 100/per day. He gets documents executed. There is no proper explanation why he would pass a document for his engagement at Rs.a document which will from part of public record. Not only this, there is no evidence that the Bhajan Party of Jianand consisted of four persons including him. x x x x It is also interesting to note that Jianand was vehement in denying that he had any connection with any politicalagents of the respondent may very probably have persuaded Jianand to forego the benefit of the two contracts and to accept payment at the rate of Rs. 30/per day. Political sympathy of Jianand was always with the Congress party. He was working as a "Congress Bhajnik" in the earlier elections and he had done propaganda for the Congress candidates. There is nothing surprising in a professional singer reducing his usual charges for participating in an election campaign to further the prospects of a candidate of his party and thereby to ensure the patronage of the party. The High Court was of the view that there was no convincing evidence that for a longer engagement in election work, the rates of Jianand would be the same as in the case of marriage parties. We do not think that having regard to the circumstances that inference is not justifiable. The second contention raised by the appellant must alsois no evidence that Chand Ram had authorised publication of the leaflet. Chand Ram deposed that he was contesting the elections from two constituencies of Rohtak and Babain; that he lost in the Rohtak constituency but was elected from the Babain constituency; and that he had not authorised the printing of the leaflet and the contents thereof were untrue. The case of the appellant was that the respondent got printed this leaflet in the night of May 13, 1968, and distributed it in the early morning of the polling day. It was claimed by the appellant that the leaflet was printed and published at the Tehreek Printing Press owned by Gian Singh a relation of the respondent, but there is no reliable evidence in support of that claim.It is not pretended that Bhalle Ram was a worker for the respondent of that the respondent had any reason to take Bhalle Ram in his confidence. Bhalle Ram is a Harijan and he regarded Chand Ram as his leader. It is highly improbable that the respondent who desired to distribute the leaflets, which he must have known to be fabricated and containing false averments, would avail himself of the services of Bhalle Ram who was a stranger to him. The conduct of Bhalle Ram also appears to be highly improbable. If he was asked by the respondent to distribute the leaflets, which he says he did, and which contained statements relating to the change of political allegiance by Chand Ram, held have made some enquiry as to how Chand Ram came to change his allegations at the last moment, especially when Chand Ram was actually standing for election against a Congress candidate. But no such enquiry was made. In our view, the High Court was right in holding that Bhalle Ram was a "false witness". Bhalle Ram was a supporter of Chand Ram and the sympathies of Chand ram lay with the appellant. He has been persuaded to support the case of the appellant by posing that he had been called by the respondent on the night previous to the day of polling and that he had participated in the distribution of the leaflets.It is difficult to believe that he would undertake to distribute the leaflets among the Harijans or that the respondent would entrust that work to him. Giani ram is worker of the Rohtak Congress Committee. It appears that he did not support the candidature of the respondent. At one of the election meetings he wanted to speak opposing the candidature of the respondent, but he was not permitted to do so. Harkesh stated that he had seen the leaflet at the house of the respondent, that he was called by the respondent at aboutof May 13, 1968 not he pretext that Chand ram had called him. But at the house of the respondent he found Bhalle Ram, Parbhe Ram, Attar Singh Khatak, Ram Dhari Balmiki, but he did not see Chand ram. He asked Bhalle Ram why he was called. Bhalle Ram told him that there was a massage from Chand ram and handed over the leaflets to him. He then stated that the respondent gave him the leaflets for distribution.19. The story that the party of Partap Singh (son of the respondent) moved form place to place and that leaflets were distributed by them also is also unreliable. In support of this case witnesses Giani Ram, Harkesh, Munshi, ram Chander, Om Prakash and Narinder Singh were examined. Giani Ram stated that the along with Attar Singh Khatak, ram Dhari and Partap Singh (son of the respondent) went to Karontha, Simli, Miana, Karor, Karo and Baliana and distributed the leaflets. Inif was elicited that he had a dispute with the supporters of the respondent and that a report was lodged with the police in that behalf. The story that he was called from his house on the night of May 13, 1968, and that he participated in the distribution of the offending leaflets is not supported by any reliable evidence, and has, in out judgment, been rightly disbelieved. On a consideration of the evidence of Munshi the High Court held that he was a "thoroughly unreliable witness". About the witness Ram Chander the High Court observed that it could not place "any reliance on his testimony". About the witness Om Prakash and Narinder Singh the High Court observed that "the less said about these two statements, the better". We have been taken through the evidence of those witness and we see no reason to disagree with the appreciation of the evidence by the High Court. The story deposed by the witnesses is highly improbable : their statements are inconsistent and are not supported by any independent witnesses who could have been examined.20. In our judgment, the High Court was right in disbelieving the case of the appellant that the respondent either personally or through his agents had distributed the leaflet Ex. P.W. 7/1 as alleged by the appellant.