Case: Dev Raj Anand Vs. Bhagwandas &amp; Another

the application dated September 10, 1968 containing the additional particulars. The better particulars which were furnished were, however, incorporated in the amended petition filed on September 20, 1968 In clause (h) of pare 6 of the amended petition it was stated that respondent No 1 had offered gratification by providing liquor on an extensive scale to the voters for the purpose of securing their votes. Seven localities were mentioned where liquor was alleged to have been distributed between May 11 and 13, 1968 to voters whose names were given. Some of these persons were produced as witnesses.12. Pursuant to a notification Exht. R. W. 2/1 the liquor vend shops in the State of Haryana from May 11 to 14, 1968 were closed presumably to stop the sale of liquor during the days of polling. The learned judge considered the evidence of Man Singh P. W. 17. Sukh Ram P. W. 18. Rup Chand P. W. 19, Shamlal P. W. 20, Faqir Chand P. W. 21, Inder Sain Chadha P. W. 23, Kanahya Ram P. W. 24, Ghisa Ram P. W. 25, Babu Lal P. W. 26 Ram Rakha P. W. 27, Paras Ram P. W. 28 and Ram Krishan P. W. 30. The evidence produced by respondent No. 1 was also discussed. The learned judge observed that the oral evidence of witnesses was hardly of much assistance in proving an allegation of the nature under consideration. According to him the witnesses for the appellant who had given evidence about the corrupt practice of bribery for being treated to liquor could not be relied upon implicitly particularly when persons had been produced from the localities by respondent No. 1 to testify that no liquor was distributed. The following portion of the judgment deserves to be reproduced in this connection:"The evidence in this case gives rise to a suspicion that the first respondent had distributed liquor but the failure of the petitioner to connect the liquor obtained from Faqir Chands vend with the bottles actually distributed on 11th, 12th and 13th May, 1968, is a circumstance which goes against the allegation. The liquor vends in Haryana were closed from 11th to 14th May, 1968 and the positive evidence led on behalf of the petitioner shows, and it is indeed also stated in the petition itself, that liquor was widely distributed in the specified localities between 11th and 13th May, 1968. There is no evidence that the liquor purchased from Faqir Chands vend had been stored anywhere for 2/3 days prior to its distribution."The learned judge further observed that although on the material dates the liquor vends were closed yet the witnesses of the appellant had asserted that liquor was being widely distributed by respondent No. 1 during those dates. There was no evidence to show how such large quantities of liquor were procured and where they were stored prior to distribution.13. Counsel for the appellant has pointed out that apart from Faqir Chand certain other liquor contractors had also been sought to be produced in the list of witnesses which was supplied on behalf of the appellant on October 3, 1968. The name of Ram Murti, Excise Contractor, Lalru had been included in the list for being summoned together with his books containing entries relating to the supply of liquor to respondent No. 1 from May 4, 1968 to May 14, 1968. There was yet a third liquor contractor of the name of Om Prakash whose name was included in the list of witnesses to be summoned. The learned judge made an order on October 8, 1968 directing the summoning of Faqir Chand liquor contractor of R. A Bazar, Ambala Cantt. As regards Om Prakash it was observed that in para 6 (h) of the petition there was no allegation of any liquor having been Supplied to respondent No. 1 from the liquor shop of Om Prakash at village Mohra. His production was disallowed. Although nothing was stated about summoning of Ram Murti in the order, summons of which a copy is to be found on the record appears to have been actually sent to him on behalf of respondent No. I it has been submitted that this witness was given up. At any rate there is nothing to show that the appellant made any serious attempt to produce Ram Murti as a witness. We do not find any substance in the submission on behalf of the appellant that the evidence of Om Prakash and Ram Murti had been shut out without any justification. We are satisfied that sufficient grounds have not been made out for not accepting the conclusion of the learned judge that the appellant had failed to discharge the burden of proving the issue relating to treatment of voters by means of serving liquor as alleged in the election petition.14. The only other point which remains for disposal relates to issue Nos. 6 (a) and (b). This issue involves the publication of a poster by the Secretary of the Punjabi Gurdwara, Ambala Cantonment and it was alleged that it had been published at the instance or with the consent of respondent No 1 It was common ground that if the poster Exht. P. W. 4/4 was published either on behalf of or with the consent of respondent No. 1 it would amount to commission of a corrupt practice of undue influence within the meaning of S. 123 (2) of the Act. It is unnecessary to state its contents because, in our opinion, the learned judge was right in not accepting the evidence produced by the appellant relating to its publication at the instance or with the consent of respondent No. 1. The learned judge considered that the evidence produced by the appellant relating to the publication of the poster and its distribution was extremely unsatisfactory and he had no hesitation in rejecting it. We have not been shown any infirmity in the reasoning or conclusion of the learned judge with regard to the publication and distribution of this poster.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]4. We shall deal only with the determination of the questions which have been agitated before us. The first matter which has been argued before us arises out of issueNo 1 (i). It related to the commission of the corrupt practice of bribery by respondent No. 1, approaching Sant Singh Sethi on May 8, 1968 with a view to getting his support and later paying Rs. 501/on May 12, 1968 to Punjabi Gurdwara as detailed in para 6 of thepetition. It was alleged, inter alia, that after Sant Singh Sethi had been approached for securing the support of Sikh voters and after payment of Rs. 501/had been made on May 12, 1968 Akhand Path was held in the Gurudwara. The Bhog of the Akhand Path took place on May 12, 1968 in the presence of respondent No. 1 It was announced in the congregation by Kuldip Singh, a member of the Gurudwara Executive Committee, that the Akhand Path had been performed for the purpose of wishing success to respondent No. 1 and securing the support of Sikh voters for his election which he was contesting from the Ambala Cantonment constituency.9. In our judgment the effect of the simile of the help given by the Guru to Makhan Shah must be ruled out of consideration. It found no mention in the pleadings in which the case was founded primarily on a bargain having been effected between respondent No. 1 and the Sikh voters, the payment of Rs. 501/having been made as a part of such bargain. The evidence of Jaswant Singh was quite unequivocal on the point that he never asked the persons present at the congregation to vote for respondent No. 1 after he had announced the donation of Rs. 501/having been made by him for the construction of the Gurdwara building. In view of the pleading the appellant is not entitled to invoke any principle other than the one contained in Ghasi Ram v. Dal Singh, (1968) 3 SCR 102  = (AIR 1968 SC 1191 )that the gist of the corrupt practice of bribery lay in attempting to do something for those opposed to the candidate with a view to changing their votes and as a bargain forfind no error in the view expressed by the learned judge that it had not been proved by satisfactory evidence that respondent No. 1 had made the donation by way of a bargain for procuring Sikh votes.10. The next point which has been pressed on behalf of the appellant arises out of issueNo. 1 (vii) which was based on the allegation that the corrupt practice of bribery had been committed by payment of Rs. 300/to Captain Bhagat Singh and Barkat Singh on May 12, 1968 as alleged in pare 6 (i) of thepetition. The allegation in the aforesaid para related to Topkhana Bazar Gurdwara and was similar to what had been alleged in respect of the Gurdwara on the Idgah Road concerning the donation of Rs.It was stated, inter alia, that the respondent No. 1 with the object of inducing Sikh voters who visited the Topkhana Gurdwara to vote for him paid a sum of Rs. 300/on the morning of May 12, 1968 to Captain Bhagat Singh and Barkat Singh who were theof the Committee managing that Gurdwara. The payment had been shown in the books of the Gurdwara and had been utilised for its benefit. It was claimed that on the receipt of the amount of Rs. 300/an appeal was actually made on May 13, 1968 to the congregation in the Gurdwara to vote for respondent No. 1. Two witnesses were examined in support of the allegation made in pare 6 (i) of the petition. Kulwant Singh P. W. 29 who runs a factory for making scientific instruments stated that he used to go to the aforesaid Gurdwara in which katha was held on May 13, 1968. Respondent No. 1 came there and asked for votes. Captain Bhagat Singh, Secretary of the Managing Committee made a speech in his favour. It was announced by Captain Bhagat Singh that respondent No. 1 had given a donation of Rs. 300/for the Gurdwara and that the congregation should assist him in the election. This witness has not been believed by the learned judge. Although in the first instance Kulwant Singh denied that he had signed the poster Exh. P. W. 29/1 which contained an appeal to vote in favour of the appellant in the General Election of 1967 but he admitted, though in amanner, that he was a signatory to the aforesaid poster. Bakshi Barkat Singh P. W. 64 was the Vice President of the Gurdwara and according to him respondent No. 1 came to him on May 12, 1968 and asked for his help in the election. Simultaneously the latter made a donation of Rs. 300/for the Gurdwara fund for purchase of fans. It was arranged that some persons should be invited on the following day in the morning to the Gurdwara where respondent No. 1 himself addressed the gathering. It was announced that a donation of Rs. 300/had been made by him. Captain Bhagat Singh and Bakshi Barkat Singh both laid emphasis on the services which had been rendered to the Gurdwara by respondent No. 1. This witness was also not believed by the learned judge as he was clearly interested in the appellant. There were other infirmities in his statement which were noticed and the learned judge considered that his statement did not inspire confidence. We have not been shown anything basically or inherently wrong in the appraisement of evidence by the learned judge relating to the allegation made in pare 6 (j) of the petition. We would, therefore, affirm the conclusion arrived at by the Highdo not find any substance in the submission on behalf of the appellant that the evidence of Om Prakash and Ram Murti had been shut out without any justification. We are satisfied that sufficient grounds have not been made out for not accepting the conclusion of the learned judge that the appellant had failed to discharge the burden of proving the issue relating to treatment of voters by means of serving liquor as alleged in the election petition.14. The only other point which remains for disposal relates to issueNos. 6 (a) and (b). This issue involves the publication of a poster by the Secretary of the Punjabi Gurdwara, Ambala Cantonment and it was alleged that it had been published at the instance or with the consent of respondent No 1It was common ground that if the poster Exht. P. W. 4/4 was published either on behalf of or with the consent of respondent No. 1 it would amount to commission of a corrupt practice of undue influence within the meaning of S. 123 (2) of the Act. It is unnecessary to state its contents because, in our opinion, the learned judge was right in not accepting the evidence produced by the appellant relating to its publication at the instance or with the consent of respondent No. 1. The learned judge considered that the evidence produced by the appellant relating to the publication of the poster and its distribution was extremely unsatisfactory and he had no hesitation in rejecting it. We have not been shown any infirmity in the reasoning or conclusion of the learned judge with regard to the publication and distribution of this poster.