Case: Shiv Charan Singh Vs. Maharaj Kumar Sri Brijendra Pal

the trial on application filed by the appellants the High Court directed that the account books maintained by the respondent as well as the account books, cash book and the credit and cash vouchers of Karauli Auto Stores might be shown to the appellants counsel. In spite of that order the appellant or his counsel could not examine those account books and documents. Nothing was consequently brought on record to question the correctness of the entries in the account books. It has also been urged that the appellant engaged certain vehicles is for a number of days but the expenses incurred on that account were not correctly shown. As against that, the case of the respondent is that only those vehicles were hired by him which were shown in the documents filed by him. According further to him, the number of days for which those vehicles were hired was also correctly shown. The appellant produced oral evidence of a couple of witnesses in support of the stand taken by him. The High Court declined to accept that evidence. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we are not inclined to take a contrary view. The evidence adduced by the appellant was not only not supported by any documents it ran counter to the documents which were produced by the respondent and some of which had been signed by the witnesses produced by the appellant It is well established that in an election appeal this Court should not interfere with a finding of fact recorded by the High Court based upon the appraisement of evidence unless such finding is vitiated by some glaring infirmity. No such infirmity has been brought to our notice.5. Mr. Singh has then submitted that the daily hiring charges of a truck was about Rs. 100 but the respondent in his return showed the daily hiring charge for the truck to be Rs. 35. The case of the respondent in that respect is that the was charged Rs. 35 as daily hiring charges because he prevented the requisitioning of those trucks by making a representation that they were needed for his election campaign. Evidence was also produced in support of the above stand of the respondent. The High Court found the above explanation of the respondent to be plausible. Nothing cogent has been brought to our notice as to why we should take a contrary view. The fact that there are suspicious features in the respondents case about his election expenses would not justify interference with the finding of the High Court because suspicion cannot take the place of proof.Coming to the question of the impugned issues of Kronch and pamphlet Ex. 2, we find that there is no cogent evidence on the record to show that Radhey Shyam Sharma published those issues and the pamphlet at the instance of or with the consent of the respondent or his election agent. It is indeed evident from the issue of Kronch dated October 15, 1970 that Radhey Shyam Sharma was hostile to the appellant and had been criticising him since 1970, about 14 months before the election. There is, therefore, nothing to rule out the possibility, as stated by the respondent, that Radhey Shyam Sharma published the impugned issues and pamphlet at his own and without the consent of the respondent or his election agent.6. The allegation that the impugned issues of Kronch and the pamphlet were distributed in the election meetings of the respondent remains unsubstantiated. The appellant got produced reports Ex.15 and 16 of the two election meetings of the respondent held on February 27, 1972 and March 2, 1972. According to these reports, Radhey Shyam journalist addressed those meetings and asked those present to vote for the respondent. There is no mention in these reports of Radhey Shyam having said anything against the appellant. There is also no reference to the distribution of any pamphlets or issues of Kronch in those meetings. Our attention has been invited by the learned counsel for the appellant to the statement of Nurul Hasan constable (PW 4), according to whom some documents were distributed in a meeting held on March 2, 1972. The witness added that he did not know as to what were the contents of those documents because he saw the whole thing from a distance. The evidence of Nurul Hasan, in our opinion, is too slender a basis for re cording a finding that the impugned pamphlet and issues of Kronch were distributed in the meeting of the respondent. It is in the evidence of Sub-Inspector Bhopal Ram (PW 18) that if any newspaper is distributed in an election meeting and a copy of it becomes easily available to the constable present in that meeting, he sends it along with his report. The witness also produced some pamphlets which were distributed in an election meeting against the respondent. If as is the case of the appellant, the impugned issues of Kronch and pamphlet in question were widely distributed in the election meetings of the respondent, it is not clear as to why the policeman on duty in those meetings could not secure even one copy of those issues or pamphlets. The fact that no such copy was sent with any of the police reports shows that the allegation of the appellant in this respect is not well-founded.In view of our finding that it is not proved that Radhey Shyam got published the impugn ed issues of Kronch and pamphlet at the instance of or with the consent of the respondent or his Section agent and in view of our further finding that it is not proved that the copies of the impugned issues of Kronch or pamphlet were distributed in the election meetings of the respondent, we need not go into the question as to whether the finding of the High Court on issue No. 4 is correct or not. We consequently neither affirm nor disaffirm the finding of fact or law under this issue.7.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]So far as this question is concerned, we find that the High Court has considered the evidence brought on record and has held on appraisement of that evidence that there was no cogent material to show that the respondent had incurred any expenditure over and above what had been shown in his return. After having been taken through the material on record, we find no cogent ground whatsoever to interfere with the appraisement of the evidence by the Highhearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we are not inclined to take a contrary view. The evidence adduced by the appellant was not only not supported by any documents it ran counter to the documents which were produced by the respondent and some of which had been signed by the witnesses produced by the appellant It is well established that in an election appeal this Court should not interfere with a finding of fact recorded by the High Court based upon the appraisement of evidence unless such finding is vitiated by some glaring infirmity. No such infirmity has been brought to ourto the question of the impugned issues of Kronch and pamphlet Ex. 2, we find that there is no cogent evidence on the record to show that Radhey Shyam Sharma published those issues and the pamphlet at the instance of or with the consent of the respondent or his election agent. It is indeed evident from the issue of Kronch dated October 15, 1970 that Radhey Shyam Sharma was hostile to the appellant and had been criticising him since 1970, about 14 months before the election. There is, therefore, nothing to rule out the possibility, as stated by the respondent, that Radhey Shyam Sharma published the impugned issues and pamphlet at his own and without the consent of the respondent or his electionallegation that the impugned issues of Kronch and the pamphlet were distributed in the election meetings of the respondent remains unsubstantiated. The appellant got produced reports Ex.15 and 16 of the two election meetings of the respondent held on February 27, 1972 and March 2, 1972. According to these reports, Radhey Shyam journalist addressed those meetings and asked those present to vote for the respondent. There is no mention in these reports of Radhey Shyam having said anything against the appellant. There is also no reference to the distribution of any pamphlets or issues of Kronch in thoseevidence of Nurul Hasan, in our opinion, is too slender a basis for re cording a finding that the impugned pamphlet and issues of Kronch were distributed in the meeting of the respondent. It is in the evidence of Sub-Inspector Bhopal Ram (PW 18) that if any newspaper is distributed in an election meeting and a copy of it becomes easily available to the constable present in that meeting, he sends it along with his report. The witness also produced some pamphlets which were distributed in an election meeting against the respondent. If as is the case of the appellant, the impugned issues of Kronch and pamphlet in question were widely distributed in the election meetings of the respondent, it is not clear as to why the policeman on duty in those meetings could not secure even one copy of those issues or pamphlets. The fact that no such copy was sent with any of the police reports shows that the allegation of the appellant in this respect is not well-founded.In view of our finding that it is not proved that Radhey Shyam got published the impugn ed issues of Kronch and pamphlet at the instance of or with the consent of the respondent or his Section agent and in view of our further finding that it is not proved that the copies of the impugned issues of Kronch or pamphlet were distributed in the election meetings of the respondent, we need not go into the question as to whether the finding of the High Court on issue No. 4 is correct or not. We consequently neither affirm nor disaffirm the finding of fact or law under this issue.