Case: Pratap Singh Vs. Hardwari Lal

3. In the election petition before the High Court, the respondent had challenged the election of the appellant on various grounds. As the election of the appellant has been set aside by the High Court only on the findings recorded under issue No. 3, it is not really necessary to elaborately advert to the other grounds alleged by the respondent in his election petition. It is enough to state that the respondent alleged that the Change of date of poll from May 12, 1968 to May 14, 1968 was done with a view to give undue advantage to the Congress candidate (the appellant herein) and that it materially affected the result of the election and that the Police and Executive Officers of the District acted in a partial manner and helped the Congress candidate against the respondent and thus jeopardized his chances of winning the election and that huge amounts were spent by the appellant during the election days and such expenditure far exceeded the maximum limits laid down in S. 77 of the Act. The High Court found that these allegations had not been substantiated and, as such, recorded findings against the respondent.4. A further allegation was made by a respondent that a somewhat systematic campaign was undertaken throughout the constituency by means of posters and handbills and by distribution of copies of two papers viz., Vidrohi and Kalakar containing false allegations against the respondents personal character and that those posters and handbills were printed and published by the appellant and with his consent. In support of this allegation, the respondent relied upon the posters Exhibitsand the handbill Exhibitand three issues of Vidrohi dated April 22, 1968, May 6, 1968 and May 13, 1968 and one issue of Kalakar dated May 3, 1968. According to the respondent the posters and handbills had been published and distributed by the appellant or at his instance and with his consent and that they contained false statement as to his personal character and conduct, thus constituting a corrupt practice under Section 123 (4) of the Act. The allegations set out above were stoutly controverted by the appellant and he denied that any posters, handbills or issues of papers referred to by the respondent were either printed or published by him nor had they been printed or published at his instance or with his consent or knowledge. The allegations referred to above formed the subject matter of issue No. 3 which was as follows(a) Were the postersand the handbillor any one or more of them, published or distributed by the respondent or at his instance or with his consent, as mentioned in para 5 ?(b) Were the three issues of Vidrohi, dated 22nd April 1968, 6th of May, 1968 and 13th of May 1968 and one issue of Kalakar dated 3rd of May, 1968, published with consent, knowledge and at the instance of the respondent ?(c) If so, does any one or more of the above posters or issues of papers contain defamatory matters relating to the personal character or conduct of the petitioner ?(d) If so, were such statements believed by the respondent to be true or not believed by him to be falseparties led fairly voluminous oral and documentary evidence. The High Court, after a consideration of the entire evidence, has held that the postersand the handbillwere published and distributed by the appellant at his instance with his consent. It also found that the three issues of Vidrohi and one issue of Kalakar were published at the instance and consent of the appellant and that all these contained false statements relating to the personal character and conduct of the petitioner. The High Court further found that these posters and handbills and the newspapers were widely circulated in the entire constituency before the date of the poll and the instance and with the knowledge of the appellant. But it however held that the posterthough it contained certain allegations against the respondent, could not be said to be objectionable in the sense that the same contained allegations which may not have been believed to be false. Therefore, in view of this finding regarding Exhibitit has become unnecessary to refer to the contents of that documents.5. So far as the other documents were concerned, the High Court held that the evidence clearly led only to one irresistible conclusion that the writings contained in those documents were published either by the appellant or at least with his consent and that they contained false allegations regarding the personal conduct and character of the respondent and were of a type which were likely to further the prospect of the appellant and to prejudice the prospect of the respondent. On these findings, the High Court found issue No. 3 in favour of the respondent and held the appellant guilty of corrupt practice under S. 123 (4) of the Act. In view of this finding on issue No. 3, the High Court set aside the election of the appellant with a direction for payment of costs to the respondents.

Reasoning:
9. It is needless to state that in order to constitute a corrupt practice under S. 123 (4) of the Act, the documents must be held to contain false statements as to the personal character or conduct of thethese statements may err on the side of exaggeration, in our opinion they cannot be brought under Section 123 (4) as relating to the personal character and conduct of the respondent.14. But the position regarding the Poster Exhibitand the handbill6 is entirely different and, as we are satisfied that the statements contained therein relate to the personal character or conduct of the respondent, it is not necessary for us to refer in great detail to the three publications in Vidrohi dated April 22, 1968, May 6. 1968 and May 13, 1968 and to the publication in Kalakar, Exhibit PW 9/1, dated May 3, 1968.These publications are more or less on the same pattern as the statements contained in the handbill Exhibitreading of the document, in our opinion, clearly establishes that most of the allegations relate to the personal character and conduct of the respondent. It alleges that the respondent was removed from Government service because he accepted bribes and that after becoming a Member of the Public Service Commission he was removed from that position before the expiry of his term for the same reason and that even after joining the Swatantra party he had misappropriated the entire money of his comrades or colleagues and the public of Bahadurgarh are asked whether they would allow themselves to be deceived even after having been made aware of the said misdeeds of the respondent. Regarding this document, again, we are satisfied that the statement relate to the personal conduct and character of the respondent. We cannot accept thecontention of Mr. Gupte that Exhibitsare only in the nature of a political propaganda decrying the activities of the respondent which is common in electionsand asking the electors not to vote for such a candidate.One the other hand, we have already pointed out that the allegations inare that the respondent was dismissed from Government service for having taken bribes and that he was also sent out of the Public Service Commission before the expiry of his term of office because he accepted bribes and that he has misappropriated the funds of the Swatantra Party. These allegations related to the personal character and conduct of the respondent. Here, again, the truth or otherwise of these statements will be considered by us under point No. 3.17. We have already pointed out that the statements contained in the three issues of the Vidrohi and one issue of Kalakar contained almost similar allegations with slight modification. Though they contained statements similar to those in Exhibitswhich have been held not to relate to the personal character and conduct of the respondent, nevertheless they do contain further allegations regarding misappropriation of party funds and receiving bribes while the respondent was a Government servant. Those averments are similar to those contained in Exhibitswhich, we have already held, will come under S. 123(4) as relating to the personal character and conduct of the respondent.18. Before we consider the question of publication and distribution, we shall deal with the question under point No. 3, as to whether the statements contained in these documents were believed by the respondent to be false or not believed by him to be true. The High Court has stated that it was not disputed that the allegations in the posters, handbills and the newspapers generally related to the personal character and conduct of the petitioner and that there was further no dispute that those allegations were likely to affect adversely the chances of success of the respondent. The High Court further states that though in issue No. 3 the question as to whether these allegations were false or not believed to be true by the appellant was there, yet with regard to the majority of them no suggestion was made to the witnesses during the course of the evidence that the statements were false and that even the appellant while giving evidence had not made any suggestion that the allegations in these objectionable writings were believed by him to be true. Notwithstanding these statements contained in the judgment of the High Court, we have already referred to the matters contained in Exhibitsand hold that the statements therein relate to the personal character and conduct of the respondent.19. The High Court has also elaborately gone into the question as to whether the allegations were false or not believed by the respondent to be true. In considering the statements contained in the handbill Exhibitthe High Court has very elaborately considered the service record of the respondent and also the circumstances under which the respondent left Government service. The High Court has found that the allegations contained in Exhibitare totally false and could not have been believed by the respondent to be true. Similarly, with regard to the allegations contained in Exhibit,the High Court has referred to the evidence of Dandekar, P. W. 3, the General Secretary of the Swatantra Party. P. W. 3 has given evidence to the effect that he was in charge of the Central Office to the Swatantra Party in thepoll in Haryana and that all Swatantra candidates were given monetary assistance directly by him and every candidate was given the same measure of help and support and that the respondent was not entrusted with any huge amount as alleged, nor had he misappropriated any of the Partys funds. No attempt was made inof this witness by the appellant to suggest the basis on which such a serious allegation of misappropriation could have been made against the respondent; nor were any circumstances elicited from P. W. 3 which may have enabled the respondent to believe those allegations to be true, or, at any rate, not to be false. Mr. Gupte, learned counsel for the appellant, was not able to satisfy us that the findings recorded on this aspect by the High Court were erroneous. We agree with the findings of the High Court and hold that the statements in Exhibitswere totally false and the respondent could not have believed them to be true.It must be stated at the outset that the witnesses who speak to the printing, publication and distribution of the documents under consideration give evidence regarding Exhibits4. Though Exhibitshave been held by us as not relating to the personal character and conduct of the respondent, nevertheless the evidence regarding those documents will be adverted to only to consider whether the evidence connecting the appellant with the printing, publication and distribution of the other documents has been rightly accepted by the High Court.22. Exhibits4, the four posters bear the press line indicating that they were printed at the New Bharat Press, New Delhi and Sood Litho Press, Delhi. These four posters are said to have been printed and published before May 1, 1968on April 22, 1968 andon April 27, 1968. The handbill Exhibitis in Hindi and bears the press line of the New Bharat Press printed in red ink and also purports to be printed and published on behalf of the voters of Bahadurgarh constituency. Exhibitis stated to have been printed on May 11, 1968, that is, just two days before the date of poll. We have already held that Exhibitcontains very serious allegations showing the respondent as a man of very lowvarious entries in the books of account as well as the vouchers referred to by him and considered by the High Court, clearly support the oral evidence of P. W. 14 regarding these posters.The appellant has not made any suggestion to P. W. 10 that he did not give a letter of introduction, Exhibit P. W. 14/7 to Sohanlal. The documentary evidence in the nature of account books, receipt books,and the letter of introduction produced by P. W. 14 and P. W. 12, clearly support the evidence of P. W. 14 that the appellant visited his press and gave instructions for printing theP. W. 14/1 and also Exhibits6. Therefore the connection with the printing of exhibitand the appellants responsibility for the statements contained therein, are well established.29. In this connection, it may also be noted that P. W. 34, who was the polling agent of the appellant, has spoken to distributing the handbills P. W. 14/1 containing the biography of the appellant. In fact he has also spoken to distributing the handbill exhibitHe is a Congressman and he belongs to the party of the appellant. The evidence of P. W. 34 also further establishes that the distribution of theof the appellant P. W. 14/1 and of the handbill Exhibitmust have been at the instance and with the consent of the appellant.The answers given by the appellant clearly show that he was making a desperate attempt to disown all knowledge of the Vidrohi because if once his intimacy with the Vidrohi is established, the natural conclusion would be that he is responsible for the statements contained in the three issues of the Vidrohi and ExhibitThe same is the case with the publication in the Urdu Weekly Kalakar, dated May 3, 1968, Exhibit 9/1. Here again P. W. 11, the printer and publisher of this Weekly has deposed to his meeting the appellant and the latter giving him certain materials to be published in Kalakar against the respondent. He has also spoken to the fact that he accordingly published Exhibiton May 3, 1968 and at the request of the appellant supplied him 2000 copies for which he received a sum of Rs. 200.35. The appellant no doubt disclaimed any connection with the publication Exhibitor the statements contained therein. But it is not possible to accept his evidence. The evidence of P. W. 10 and 11 clearly establishes that it was the appellant who furnished the necessary materials against the respondent as contained in the three issues of Vidrohi and ExhibitWe are not inclined to accept this contention, for P. W. 13 himself has stated that Hindi and Urdu posters could not be printed at his press and that his idea was to arrange to have them printed from Delhi. But his evidence makes it clear that the appellant and Surajmal had come to him for printing certain materials and that on the next day they informed him that they would have the necessary materials printed at Delhi itself and took back the materials given to P. W. 13. This evidence also makes it clear that the appellant was going with Surajmal to the press of P. W. 13 and, if this be so, there is nothing strange in his having gone personally to P. Ws. 10, 11 and 14.37. ExhibitP. W. 3, Dandekar, who was the General Secretary of the Swatantra Party, has also given evidence to the effect that during his tour of the constituency before the 6th or 7th of May 1968 he saw the poster Exhibitin several places. Therefore the evidence of P. Ws. 3 and 4 clearly establishes that the poster Exhibithad been published and circulated, at any rate, in Bahadurgarh town before the date of the poll. The evidence of Dandekar is also corroborated by the evidence of Professor Ranga, who was examined on commission.So far as we can see, nohas been made of P. W. 3 when he has spoken to Exhibitshaving been pasted and distributed in Bahadurgarh before the date of the poll. It is also in evidence that on May 11, 1968 Mr. Chavan was to address a meeting a support of the appellant and that is why he was very anxious that the handbills, Exhibitsshould be made available to him for distribution to the members of the public who come to attend the meeting. We have already referred to the evidence of P. W. 14 that he got printed 10000 copies of Exhibitand gave as many copies as he could print even on May 11, 1968.41. As pointed out above, the evidence of P. Ws. 3 and 4 and of Professor Ranga, clearly establish that Exhibitswere circulated and distributed before the date of thehave no hesitation in rejecting the evidence of the appellant that Grover was not in charge of his city office. In fact it is seen that the respondent in the election petition had specifically stated that the appellant had six offices and there has been no denial by the appellant in this regard, though in the witness box he was prepared to say that he had only one election office. It is no doubt true that P. W. 15 does not refer to Grover being in charge of the city office, but we have already referred to the fact that Grover was appointed as the counting agent by the appellant even on his own admission and the further fact that he included him as one of the witnesses to be examined on his behalf, clearly shows that Grover must have played a very prominent part in connection with thepoll on behalf of the appellant. The evidence regarding the arrangements made by P. W. 24 for the meeting held on May 11, 1968 in connection with the visit of Mr. Chavan to address an election meeting in support of the appellant is corroborated by the evidence of the proprietor of Kamala Tent House, P. W. 26, Shiv Dev Singh, P. W. 26 has stated that he had supplied shamiana,stage etc., to the respondent in connection with the election meeting held on May 10, 1968, and at the request of Grover, P. W. 24, he allowed all those articles to be utilised for the meeting to be held on May 11, 1968 in support of the appellant and that he received the necessary charges for the same from Grover, P. W. 24. We have also referred to the fact that P. W. 14, Sohanlal, has spoken to the fact that Surajmal a close associate of the appellant during one of his visits was accompanied by Jagdish Grover. The evidence of P. Ws. 30 and 34, who are both polling agents of the appellant, shows the Exhibitsand the issues of Vidrohi and Kalakar had been widely distributed in Bahadurgarh.44. The evidence of P. W. 34 who was one of the polling agents of the appellant, clearly refers to the two Dharamsalas of Ram Kanwar one in the city and one near the bus stand. This clearly supports the evidence of Jagdish Grover, P. W. 24 that there was an election office in the city and also another near theTo conclude, the evidence of P. Ws. 3, 4, 15, 16, 24, 30 and 34 and of Professor Ranga, clearly establish that exhibitswere widely distributed and published in Bahadurgarh before the date of the poll. The evidence of some of the witnesses discussed above and as stated earlier also show that the distribution and circulation were at the instance and with the consent of theis no doubt true that most of these witnesses were all the polling agents of the appellant and the fact that they are giving evidence against the appellant is urged as a ground for their evidence being rejected in toto. We are aware that under those circumstances, their evidence will have to be treated with great caution.But, in this case there is the evidence of P. W. 25 which clearly shows that these posters, handbills and copies of Vidrohi and Kalakar were very widely distributed in the rural areas before the date of the poll. He was a congressman and he fought the election against the respondent in 1962, 1967 as also in thein 1967 but lost in all those elections. Even during theelection in question, he applied for a Congress ticket, but it was given to the appellant. Being a Congressman, he was working on behalf of the Congress candidate, viz., the appellant. He has stated that in his tour round the various villages he came across Exhibitsand the copies of Vidrohi and Kalakar which were very widely distributed on behalf of the appellant. He has also referred to the fact that Surajmal was an ardent supporter of the appellant. All these posters and other things were seen by him before the date of the poll. P. W. 25 has spoken to the fact that the respondent, when he was a Minister, has suspended him while he was working as a Sarpanch and that clearly shows that he cannot be too friendly with the respondent. There is no suggestion as to the polling agents of the appellant who have given evidence that they have been won over by the respondent, nor is it established that their evidence is false, as their statements are well corroborated by the other evidence onevidence has been considered in great detail by the High Court and we do not think it necessary to traverse the ground over again. Their evidence clearly establishes that the documents under consideration were all published and circulated in the rural areas on behalf of and with the consent of the appellant before the date of the poll.We are not impressed with this contention of the learned counsel. That Surajmal was actively associated with the appellant is borne out by the evidence already discussed. The appellant himself has admitted, as R. W. 22, that Hari Chand, brother of Surajmal and their employee one Sai Ram, were his counting agents. No doubt he has stated that he appointed Hari Chand and Surajmal as his counting agents because they happened to be near the polling station along with certain other workers of the appellant. This is the same explanation that the appellant gave regarding Jagdish Grover and has not been accepted by us. The only explanation that the appellant gave for not examining Surajmal was that he was natural. In fact, in his evidence as R. W. 22, the appellant had further stated that he was not prepared to join even in any joint request that may be made to the court for examining Surajmal as a Court witness. So far as we can see, there is absolutely no suggestion to P. Ws. 10, 11 and 14 that the manuscripts produced by them are not in fact in the handwriting of Surajmal.51. In view of all these circumstances, theof Surajmal, by the respondent, is of no consequence.52. It follows, in view of what is stated above, that the appellant must be held guilty of a corrupt practice, under S. 123 (4) of the Act, in respect of the printing, publication, circulation and distribution of Exhibits, the three issues of Vidrohi and the issue of Kalakar, which contained statements relating to the personal character and conduct of the respondent and which have been held to be false and which the appellant could not have believed to be true. Those statements had been made by the appellant to prejudice the prospects of the respondent in the election.