Case: Om Prakash Vs. Lalchand And Another

the said Press. It was suggested in cross-examination that the poster was printed after 14 May, 1968. P. W. 36 Jai Gopal Verma identified Exhibit P. W. 34/2 as a manuscript of the poster and further said that the witnesses identified Lalchand. Jai Gopal Verma proved his signature on Exhibit P. W. 34/2. Jai Gopal Verma said that Lalchand accompanied him to the Kwality Art Printers. Jai Gopal Verma further identified the signature of Muni Lal Azad. It was also suggested to Jai Gopal Verma that the poster was printed after 14 May, 1968. Muni Lal Azad, P. W. 37 said that he accompanied Jai Gopal Verma to Kwality Art Printers along with respondent Lalchand. He admitted his signature on Exhibit P. W. 34/2.13. Counsel on behalf of the respondent Lalchand contended that Lachhman Das was neither the Printer nor the Publisher and that Lachhman Das joined the Press in the month of April, 1968. Lachhman Das was a disinterested person. He sent a copy of the poster to the Chief Electoral Officer. The letter to the Chief Electoral Officer Exhibit P. W. 34/1 was in a sealed cover. It was opened in this Court. It was proved by Muni Lal Jain, Accountant in the office of the Chief electoral Officer. He proved that Exhibit P. W. 34/1 was the letter received from Kwality Art Printers on 2 May, 1968. The witness Muni Lal Jain further proved the receipt of said letter in the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, on 2 May, 1968. Muni Lal Jain identified the signatures of the clerks Jagmohan Saran Verma and D. N. Arora on Exhibit P. W. 34/1. Muni Lal Jain proved Exhibit P. W. 34/2 and Exhibit P. W. 34/3 which were the enclosures received along with exhibit P. W. 34/1.14. Counsel on behalf of the respondent Lalchand contended that the rubber stamp of the Chief Electoral Office bore the date 22 May, 1963 and there was intrinsic evidence to show that the first digit 2 was smudged with carbon ink. This argument cannot be accepted because of the dominant reason that no such suggestion was made to the witness from the Electoral Office or any other witness on behalf of the appellant. If such a case had been made, the appellant would have had an opportunity of dealing with it.15. Counsel on behalf of the respondent Lalchand contended that the receipt book and the bill register book of the Press were not produced. Lachhman Das, the Accountant of Kwality Art Printers was not asked to produce either the receipt book or the bill book. There was some dispute as to whether the signature of Lalchand on the manuscript poster Exhibit P. W. 34./2 was genuine or not. Ratan Lal Aggarwal, P. W. 58 said that the signature of the respondent Lalchand on Exhibit P. W. 34/2 was a genuine signature. The respondents witness No. 2, A. S. Kapoor said that the signature of Lalchand on Exhibit P. W. 34/2 was not the same as the admitted signature of Lalchand and in the opinion of the witness the signature on Exhibit P. W. 34/2 was "the work of a person who was well skilled in the art of traced forgery". It is rare for two experts to agree in cases of disputed signature. The Court has to arrive at the conclusion in the light of the entire evidence. Jai Gopal Verma said that Lalchand appended his signature in his presence. That portion of the evidence of Jai Gopal Verma was not impeached in cross-examination. Lachhman Das, the Accountant of the Kwality Art Printers said that the pamphlet was printed at the request of Lalchand who was identified by Muni Lal Azad and Jai Gopal Verma, This portion of the evidence of Lachhman Das was also not challenged in cross-examination.16. The poster on which the appellant relied is Exhibit P. W. 1/1. Exhibit P. W. 1/1 is as follows:"Appeal to the Voters of the Ellenabad Vidhan Sabha Constituency.Election (Rising Sun) Symbol Brothers:Just after one year election is being held. I hope I will get more support from public than before. Because you have seen the Adlu Badlu policy of Ch. Partap Singh son of Ch. Devi Dayal; Devi Lal has put up the second son as a candidate because of this fear. The deeds of Om Prakash are well known to the public. Under the auspices of his father Ch. Devi Lal, he had been indulging in smuggling and today he is asking for votes in the name of his father. I hope the people will show the face of defeat to such an obnoxious person. My election symbol is rising Sun, put stamp only on that.YoursLal Chand Khod,Ellenabad Constituency".17. Ganga Dhar Sharma, P. W. 31, said that a memorandum of appeal in favour of respondent Lalchand was printed. He spoke of Exhibit P. W. 34/1. The appeal which was published and distributed is Exhibit P. W. 34/2 which is the same as Exhibit P. W. 1/1. This appeal leaves no room for doubt that there were allegations against the personal character and conduct of the appellant Om Prakash who was described as "having been indulging in smuggling". In the said appeal, it was further said that the appellant was an obnoxious person.18. Various witnesses P. Ws. 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 29, 30 and 31 gave evidence of the distribution and publication of the appeal. They identified Exhibit P. W. 24/1 which is the same as Exhibit P. W. 34/2 and the evidence of distribution and publication is overwhelming.19. The evidence in the present case established beyond any measure of doubt first that Exhibit P.W. 1/1 which is the same as Exhibit P. W. 34/2 was published, secondly, that Lalchand got the same printed and published, thirdly, that the statement was in relation to the personal character and conduct of the appellant fourthly, the statement is false and fifthly, the same was calculated to prejudice the prospects of the appellants election.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]Ram Dayal was formerly a member of the Congress Committee. He resigned from the Congress and contested the seat as an independent candidate against Choudhury Devi Lal and won the election in the year 1957. An election petition was filed by Choudhury Devi Lal against the witness Ram Dayal. Ram Dayal was eventually unseated as a result of the decision of this Court. The witness Ram Dayal helped the respondent Lalchand in the election of 1967 and also in the midterm election in the month of May, 1968. The witness Ram Dayal spoke of the Sat Guru Maharaj having exhorted the Namdharis to vote for Lalchand and warned them about the consequences if they failed to do so. The witness also spoke of the meeting at Rania village on 28th April, 1968. It is indeed strange and significant that Ram Dayal who supported respondent Lalchand and also attended meetings on his behalf came and gave evidence in favour of the appellant about the utterances of Sat Guru Jagjit Singh of the Namdhari sect. It is extremely unsafe and hazardous to rely on the uncorroborated and isolated oral testimony of such a person.7. P. W. 30 Parma Nand Sharma spoke of the meeting at Sant Nagar on 21st April, 1968 and said that Guru Jagjit Singh spoke at the meeting and proclaimed that it was the duty of every Namdhari to vote for respondent Lalchand and any one who violated the said Gurus direction would be excommunicated from the Panth. In cross-examination the witness Parma Nand Sharma said that he came to give evidence in favour of the Congress because he was summoned to appear as a witness and therefore he spoke the truth. It is obvious that when one speaks truth one does not proclaim it. It is obvious that the witness in view of his antecedents wanted to sound truthful because he came forward to give evidence in favour of thediary entry is to the effect that the Sat Guru Jagjit Singh appeared before the Sant Nagar Assembly. The diary entry does not mention about any alleged utterance by Sat Guru Jagjit Singh at the saidare unable to accept the oral evidence that there was any meeting on 21 April, 1968 as alleged by the appellant and that Sat Guru Jagjit Singh spoke at the meeting, to cast votes in favour of respondent Lalchand under threat of divine displeasure and spiritualis no documentary evidence in support of the allegation. The oral evidence is that of P. W. 11, P. W. 12 and P. W. 13. Kanshi Ram, P. W. 11 said that he was Kumhar and there was meeting of the Kumhars on 30 March, 1968. It was decided that a Kumhar should be made a member of the Legislative Assembly. He also said that the Kumhars decided at the said meeting to put up respondent Prithvi Raj as candidate. Kanshi Rams further evidence was that Bawa Bir Singh paid Rs. 20,000 to Prithvi Raj for election expenses. Kanshi Ram said that the payment was in the presence of respondent Lalchand. Jot Ram, P. W. 12 said that he was a Kumhar and his evidence was also that Bawa Bir Singh paid Rs. 20,000 to Prithvi Raj in the presence of Lalchand. Rawat, P. W. 13 who was also a Kumhar said that Bawa Bir Singh paid Rs. 20,000 to Prithvi Raj in the presence of Lalchand. The gist of the offence under sub-section (1) of section 123 of the Act is that there has to be a gift by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent of any gratification, to any person with the object of inducing a person to stand or not to stand as a candidate at the election.The elements require to constitute an offence are first, that the gift has to be by a candidate or his agent or by any other person. Secondly, the gift is to be with the consent of the candidate or his election agent and the third important element is that the gratification is to be made with the object, directly or indirectly, of inducing a person to stand or not to stand in the election.In the present case, there is no evidence to hold that any gift was made by the candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of the candidate, namely, the respondent Lalchand. Secondly, there is no evidence that gratification was made with the object of inducing the respondent Prithvi Raj to stand or not to stand as aargument cannot be accepted because of the dominant reason that no such suggestion was made to the witness from the Electoral Office or any other witness on behalf of the appellant. If such a case had been made, the appellant would have had an opportunity of dealing withwas some dispute as to whether the signature of Lalchand on the manuscript poster Exhibit P. W. 34./2 was genuine or not. Ratan Lal Aggarwal, P. W. 58 said that the signature of the respondent Lalchand on Exhibit P. W. 34/2 was a genuine signature. The respondents witness No. 2, A. S. Kapoor said that the signature of Lalchand on Exhibit P. W. 34/2 was not the same as the admitted signature of Lalchand and in the opinion of the witness the signature on Exhibit P. W. 34/2 was "the work of a person who was well skilled in the art of traced forgery". It is rare for two experts to agree in cases of disputed signature. The Court has to arrive at the conclusion in the light of the entire evidence. Jai Gopal Verma said that Lalchand appended his signature in his presence. That portion of the evidence of Jai Gopal Verma was not impeached in cross-examination. Lachhman Das, the Accountant of the Kwality Art Printers said that the pamphlet was printed at the request of Lalchand who was identified by Muni Lal Azad and Jai Gopal Verma, This portion of the evidence of Lachhman Das was also not challenged ins some dispute as to whether the signature of Lalchand on the manuscript poster Exhibit P. W. 34./2 was genuine or not. Ratan Lal Aggarwal, P. W. 58 said that the signature of the respondent Lalchand on Exhibit P. W. 34/2 was a genuine signature. The respondents witness No. 2, A. S. Kapoor said that the signature of Lalchand on Exhibit P. W. 34/2 was not the same as the admitted signature of Lalchand and in the opinion of the witness the signature on Exhibit P. W. 34/2 was "the work of a person who was well skilled in the art of traced forgery". It is rare for two experts to agree in cases of disputed signature. The Court has to arrive at the conclusion in the light of the entire evidence. Jai Gopal Verma said that Lalchand appended his signature in his presence. That portion of the evidence of Jai Gopal Verma was not impeached in cross-examination. Lachhman Das, the Accountant of the Kwality Art Printers said that the pamphlet was printed at the request of Lalchand who was identified by Muni Lal Azad and Jai Gopal Verma, This portion of the evidence of Lachhman Das was also not challenged in