Case: Aad Lal Vs. Kanshi Ram

two provisos to the sub-section, but they are obviously not applicable to the controversy before us. It was therefore necessary, for the purpose of establishing the corrupt practice of "under influence", to prove that there was any direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere with the exercise of any electoral right. There is, however, no such allegation in the election petition in paragraph 11 which was the subject-matter of issue No. 3 in the trial Court. A mere allegation that false figures were supplied or distributed in the form of a handbill (or poster) even if true, cannot be said to fall within the mischief of sub-section (2) of Section 123, for that would not, by itself, amount to interference or attempt at interference with the free exercise of any electoral right. It cannot therefore be said that the appellant has succeeded in alleging or proving the commission of the corrupt practice which was the subject-matter of issue No. 3. 12. The trial Court has considered issues Nos. 4, 5 and 6 together although issue No. 4 related to the alleged corrupt practice of undue influence under sub-section (2) of Section 123 because of the alleged misrepresentation of the "true facts" relating to an incident of firing between the two groups etc.; issue No. 5 related to the printing and distribution of a poster; and issue No. 6 related to the commission of a corrupt practice under sub-section (4) of Section 123 of the Act. 13. The photograph in question which is said to relate to the incident of firing is Ex. PW 18/1. The allegation of the appellant was that there was firing in village Ghari, a few days before the election, and the respondent tried to make out through photograph Ex. PW 18/1 and poster Ex. PW 18/2 that Kambohs and Rai Sikhs were fired upon by the supporters of the appellant, at his instance, and that the appellant was a trafficker in women, and he was anti-peasant in his outlook and used to get the peasants evicted. 14. As the trial Court has pointed out, no evidence was led to prove that the photograph was prepared at the instance of the respondent. An attempt was made to prove that it was shown at Bhatinda by Madan Lal PW 30, but that was an afterthought as no such allegation was made in the election petition. It is also a matter of much significance that although the appellant claimed that all the 10 persons in the photograph were Rai Sikhs or Kambohs, one of them was found to be Mukhtiar Singh who did not belong to any of those communities. Moreover the group photograph of the 10 injured persons could not convey to a stranger that the injured persons belonged to the Rai Sikh or Kamboh communities. The trial Court has examined the evidence which was led in that connection, and is right in taking the view that the photograph showing the exhibition of the impugned photograph by Madan Lal PW 30 was not natural and had been stage-managed. The preparation and exhibition of the photograph at the instance of the respondent has not been proved by the evidence on the record. Moreover any such effort could not be said to amount to the corrupt practice of undue influence as it could not be said to be a direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere with the free exercise of any electoral right. 15. It is not disputed that poster Ex. PW 18/2 contained a statement of fact in relation to the personal character or conduct of the appellant which fell within the mischief of sub-section (4) of Section 123 of the Act. The allegation in the election petition was that it was issued by one "R. L. Angi" and was printed at Kalpana Printing Press Fazilka. The appellant however tried to prove that the poster was issued by R. L. Aneja PW 39 and that it was he who was the author of its manuscript Ex. PW 34/1. The switch over from the authorship of R. L. Angi to R. L. Aneja was not satisfactorily explained, and goes to disprove the allegation in the election petition. Raj Kumar PW 34 has been examined to prove the printing of the poster in his Kalpana Printing Press, and his conduct has been rightly criticised by the trial Court. He did not even take the precaution of having the manuscript signed by its author, and we have no doubt that he is not a reliable witness. The statement of Mohan Lal PW 35 (sic) who claimed to have attested the signature of the author of the handbill on the declaration form, is also not a reliable witness. The trial Court has examined the statement of Ram Sarup PW 16, and has rightly taken the view that there was no satisfactory evidence of the receipt of the poster in the office of the Deputy Commissioner. No useful purpose will be served by repeating all that the trial Court has said in this connection. The poster is said to have been distributed by Om Prakash PW 25, and the appellant has examined Tirlok Singh PW 26, Satish Kumar PW 27, Gurcharan Singh PW 32, Harbhajan Singh PW 36, Mohinder Prakash PW 37, Thakar Singh PW 38, Pannu Ram PW 40, Harbans Lal PW 41, Sita Ram PW 42 and Mam Raj PW 43 and has recorded his own statement. The statements of all these witnesses have been examined by the trial Court and we are in agreement with it that they cannot be said to prove the commission of the alleged corrupt practice. In fact when the preparation of the poster under the signature of R. L. Angi itself remained unproved, we have no hesitation in taking the view that the finding of fact of the trial Court in this respect is correct. 16. There is thus no reason for us to interfere with the impugned judgment of the trial Court.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]He has further stated that he had scored off the Gurmukhi equivalent of the words "solemn affirmation" from the certificate (Ex. PW 1/1A immediately after the oath was administered to the respondent but that portion was not scored off from the oath form Ex. PW 1/1 because of rush of work. The statement of the Returning Officer and certificate Ex. PW 1/1A clearly disprove the contention of the appellant of the appellant to the contrary, and the trial Court was quite justified in placing reliance on them4. It may mentioned that the appellant tried to raise a new plea in the trial Court that the respondent merely made the oath but did not subscribe it before the Returning Officer. It was, however, rightly rejected by that court because there was no basis for any such allegation in the election petition. The finding of the trial Court on issue No. 1 is therefore correct and does not call for interference8. It is true that constable Dayal Chand PW 12 presented challans in respect of the use of tractors Nos.0 and8 for carrying passengers, but the trial Court cannot be blamed if, after considering all the evidence which was led in support of the allegation, it reached the conclusion that the story that the respondent used the tractors for the conveyance of the voters on the date of the poll was "woven around" that fact. At any rate, it cannot be said that the appellant has succeeded in proving the allegation which was ther of trial, and we see no reason to differ from the trial Court on that finding of fact15. It is not disputed that poster Ex. PW 18/2 contained a statement of fact in relation to the personal character or conduct of the appellant which fell within the mischief ofn (4) of Section 123 of the Act. The allegation in the election petition was that it was issued by one "R. L. Angi" and was printed at Kalpana Printing Press Fazilka. The appellant however tried to prove that the poster was issued by R. L. Aneja PW 39 and that it was he who was the author of its manuscript Ex. PW 34/1. The switch over from the authorship of R. L. Angi to R. L. Aneja was not satisfactorily explained, and goes to disprove the allegation in the election petition. Raj Kumar PW 34 has been examined to prove the printing of the poster in his Kalpana Printing Press, and his conduct has been rightly criticised by the trial Court. He did not even take the precaution of having the manuscript signed by its author, and we have no doubt that he is not a reliable witness. The statement of Mohan Lal PW 35 (sic) who claimed to have attested the signature of the author of the handbill on the declaration form, is also not a reliable witness. The trial Court has examined the statement of Ram Sarup PW 16, and has rightly taken the view that there was no satisfactory evidence of the receipt of the poster in the office of the Deputy Commissioner. No useful purpose will be served by repeating all that the trial Court has said in this connection. The poster is said to have been distributed by Om Prakash PW 25, and the appellant has examined Tirlok Singh PW 26, Satish Kumar PW 27, Gurcharan Singh PW 32, Harbhajan Singh PW 36, Mohinder Prakash PW 37, Thakar Singh PW 38, Pannu Ram PW 40, Harbans Lal PW 41, Sita Ram PW 42 and Mam Raj PW 43 and has recorded his own statement. The statements of all these witnesses have been examined by the trial Court and we are in agreement with it that they cannot be said to prove the commission of the alleged corrupt practice. In fact when the preparation of the poster under the signature of R. L. Angi itself remained unproved, we have no hesitation in taking the view that the finding of fact of the trial Court in this respect is correct16. There is thus no reason for us to interfere with the impugned judgment of the trial Court.