Case: Dalchand Jain Vs. Narayan Shankar Trivedi &amp; Another

2. At the last general election to the Legislative Assembly from the Sagar City Constituency there were six contesting candidates. The appellant, the Congress candidate, secured 17, 068 votes, respondent No. 1, the P.S.P. candidate secured 12, 193 votes, four other candidates secured much lesser number of votes. The appellant was declared elected. Respondent No. 1 field an election petition and alleged a number of corrupt practices on the part of the appellant. The High Court fund that the corrupt practice under Section 123(4) was proved and set aside the election. The High Court found that the bother charges were not proved.3. The charges against the appellant under Section 123(4) is that with consent statements of facts which were false and which the appellant did not believe to be true in relation to the personal character or conduct of respondent No. 2 calculated to prejudice the prospects of his election were published in Hindi in the issues of New Rocket Times, dated the 6th, 9th, 10th, 13th, 18th and 19th February, 1967 (Exs. P-6, P-5, P-4, P-3, P-2, and P-1 respectively) and the issues of Agami Kal, dated the 4th, 19th and 20th February (Exs. P-7, P-9 and P-10 respectively). The learned Judge held that the publications were made with the appellants consent and that the papers were distributed this instance on the eve of the

Reasoning:
We are unable to agree with thisstory appears to us to be false. If the bargains had already been made with RW 23 and CW 1 it was not necessary to call them at the conference. Nor was it necessary to make a public announcement of the bargain at a press conference. The charge that such an agreement was made with the editors of the two papers was not made in the petition and is any appears to us to be false. If the bargains had already been made with RW 23 and CW 1 it was not necessary to call them at the conference. Nor was it necessary to make a public announcement of the bargain at a press conference. The charge that such an agreement was made with the editors of the two papers was not made in the petition and is ando not believe this story. Had there been such a dispute in the last week of January PW 34 would not have continued to publish the advertisements till February 16. PW 36 did not make any demand on the appellant in writing for Rs. 1, 000/ nor file any suit against him. RW 11 denied that he brought Rs. 300/from the appellant. PW 35 did not support PW 36 and did not speak of any admission made by the appellant at the press conference with regard to his alleged bargains with the New Rocket Times and the Agami Kal. PW 43 Bakar Mia, the manager of Nisi Printing Press proved that RW 34 gave the manuscripts for the articles, but RW 34 denied that he wrote them at the appellants request. PW 43 said that the appellants servants took away all the copies of the papers in the appellants car. But RW 32 Narendranath Purohit, the owner of the Nisi Printing Press denied that the appellants car or jeep ever came to collect the copies. We do not believe PW 43. There is evidence to show that only 500 copies of Agami Kal used to be printed. This fact proved by RW 32 and CW 1 belies the story of PW 36 that the editors of the two papers agreed to supply 1, 000 copies to the appellant. The learned Judge held against the appellant mainly on the strength of the evidence of Ghanshyam Das. As we do not accept his testimony there is no direct evidence to show that the publications were made at the appellants instance.5. The circumstantial evidence relied on by respondent No. 1 does not conclusively establish that the publications were with the appellants consent. The appellant read the papers but his omission to raise any objection does not establish his consent. His photos and appeals were published in the New Rocket Times and Agami Kal; but they were also published in other papers. The financial position of the two papers were shaky, and their publication shot up during the elections; but the editors of these mushroom papers might have hit upon the plan of making money by publishing sensational articles on the eve of the election.6. The evidence as to the distribution of the papers at the appellants instance is not convincing. Out of the 13 distributors named in the petition respondent No. 2 called only PW 23, PW 24, and PW 30. They do not identify the papers distributed by them. We do not accept the statement of PW 24, and PW 30 that they got Rs. 50/each as remuneration from thedo not believe PW 20. PW 8 said that he got a copy of the New Rocket Times from RW 30 Panna Lal Patel, but this was denied by RW 30. PW 29 and PW 31 said that one Ram Charan used to distribute the papers but Ram Charan was not examined. CW 1 and RW 23 denied that the papers were distributed free of cost. We do not accept the story that the papers used to be distributed free of cost at the appellants instance.7. It is not established that the issue of the New Rocket Times and the Agami Kal were distributed with the appellants consent. In view of this conclusion, it follows that the appellant was not guilty of any corrupt practice under Section 123(4). There is force in the appellants contention that the statements in the publications were not in relation to the personal character or conduct or respondent No. 1. But we do not find it necessary to express any opinion on thisis force in the appellants contention that a convenient cross entry was made on the same date so that the cash balance carried forward in the books might not be disturbed. PW 16 said that he sent the accounts for the year ending March 31, 1967 to the Waqf committee in the month of April 1967. But RW 26 Nazir Ahmed, the Secretary of the Madhya Pradesh Waqf Board said that no such account was receive and none was to be found in his office. In agreement with the learned trial Judge we are unable to accept the testimony of PW 16 and the supporting32, proved that the printed a replica of the flag in the paper at his own instance for doing propaganda work. There is no reliable evidence to show that he did so at the appellants instance. The learned Judge rightly repelled this10 said that Nanhuram Vyas was a paid servant of the appellant. Nanhuram was not examined by respondent No. 1. The petition did not allege that the appellant got the statement published through his gent Nanhuram. In agreement with the learned Judge we hold that it is not established that the statement was published at the appellantsare unable to agree with thisfinding. As already stated respondent No. 1 failed to prove that the appellant paid any money to the editors of the two papers. Item No. (xiii) relates to the item of 2, 000 Gandhi caps and sunshades. This charge is not prove. The appellant said that he spent Rs. 225/only for the Gandhi caps and that only 750 Gandhi caps at the cost of Rs. 225/. He was notIt is not established that the appellant obtained more than 750 caps. RW 15 proved that the sunshades were supplied by him for distribution free of cost. With regard to item (xv) the learned Judge held that the appellant paid Rs. 100/to PW 20, and Rs. 50/each to PW 24 and PW 30. As already stated, we do not believe PW 20, PW 24, PW 30. We set aside the finding of the learned Judge that the appellant paid Rs. 200/W 6 Kanchan Lal Dhruv proved that he sent thefrom Indore free of charge. He is corroborated by the appellant and RW 13. The learned Judge rightly held that the charge under item (xvii) was not proved. Item (xviii) relates to an expenditure of Rs. 1, 000/for constructing a platform for a meeting. The charge is not proved. There is convincing evidence to show that the expensed for the platform was met by the District Congress Committee. The relevant receipt is Ex.Item (xxi) relates to the payment of Rs. 1, 400/as printing charges to the Patel Printing Press. The charge is not established. We accept the statement of RW 32 that the Nagar Congress Committee placed the order and paid for the printing. Item (xxii) relates to payment of Rs. 2, 200/to Adarsh Press. Respondent No. 1 examined PW 37, PW 38, PW 21 and PW 34 to prove the charge. PW 37, the manager of the press tried to prove the bill Ex.and the work orders Exs.2. But PW 38, the Printer, stated that entries in Ex.were false entries written by him at the instance of PW 37. PW 21 said that he personally got Rs. 2, 850/for the bill from the appellant, but in the petition the charge was that the appellant spent only Rs. 2, 200/. The evidence of PW 34 does not carry the matter any further. The entries in Exs.92 are not reliable and cannot be acted upon. The charge under item no. (xxiii) is not proved. The learned Judge has adequately dealt with the charges with regard to items (vi), (vii), (xvi), (xx) and has rightly rejected them for cogent reasons. The charges with regard to the other item were not pressed.12. The learned Judge held that the appellant incurred an expense of Rs. 200/under item (v) and Rs. 230/under items (xix) and (xxiii) and that it was not included in the return of election expenses. We agree with theare unable to accept this contention.Section 124(4) as it stood before its amendment by Act XXVII of 1956 provided that the making of any return which was false in material particulars was a minor corrupt practice. That provision has now been deleted and the submission of an incorrect return of expenses is no longer a corrupthave found that he spent the additional sum of Rs.He thus spent in all Rs. 4, 575.04P. The authorised limit of expenses was Rs. 7,It follows that the appellant did not incur or authorise expenditure in contravention of Section 77, and the case does not fall within Section 123(6). We hold that there is no ground for setting aside the appellants election, and the petition filed by respondent No. 1 must befind no merit in this contention. The appellant as a party aggrieved by the order against him under Sections 98 and 99 is entitled to file the appeal under SectionHe is the only person aggrieved by the order under Section 98 and he alone can maintain the appeal against that order. As the person aggrieve by the order under Section 99 he is also entitled to maintain an appeal against it. The other person against whom the order under Section 99 was made are not necessary parties to theare unable to agree with this