Case: B.R. Rao Vs. N.G. Ranga

1. At a byeheld in April 1967 to elect a member of the Lok Sabha from the Srikakulam parliamentary constituency there were two contesting candidateser called "the appellant"G. Rangahereinafter called "the respondent". The respondent was declared elected. The appellant filed an application in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to set aside the election of the respondent on the ground that the respondent had committed diverse corrupt practices described in Section 123), (b), (5) and (6) of the Representation of the People Act,respondent denied the allegations made in the petition. He also submitted that the allegations were vague and indefinite and some of those allegations did not constitute any corrupt practice within the meaning of the Representation of the People Act,The appellant amended the petition and submitted particulars of certain corrupt practices set out in the original petition. The appellant then filed his additional written statement. The High Court held on a detailed consideration of the evidence that the corrupt practices alleged by the appellant in the petition were not proved, and dismissed the petition. The appellant has appealed to this Court under116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Reasoning:
No substantial argument was advanced before us to persuade us to take a differentconsidering the testimony of the respondent and his witnesses the Court observed that the oral testimony on behalf of the appellant was inconsistent and did not make out a case of corrupt practice, that the probabilities of the case were strongly against the appellants contention and there was no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the witnesses for the respondent. Even in respect of this charge of corrupt practice no argument seeking to persuade us to take a different view was advanced by counsel for theThe High Court held that the corrupt practice was accordingly not established even in respect of this head of chargeCounsel did not urge any substantial argument to persuade us to take a different view.In their evidence they did not specify the persons who used the said lorry and bus on behalf of the respondent, nor did their evidence disclose the names of the voters conveyed by the said lorry orcharge cannot be held established merely upon suspicion, or preponderance of probabilities. Unless the appellant establishes that the appreciation of evidence was vitiated by gross misreading or misconception of the evidence or because of failure to consider important pieces of evidence which had a bearing on the charge or because of serious irregularities in procedure which amount to a denial of a fair trial the appellate court will not proceed tothe evidence on which the findings are recorded by the Court of First Instance on the credibility of witnesses.It is not in dispute that the leaflet Ext.was published. The leaflet was again reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the appellants election. Parts of the leaflet related to the personal character and conduct of the appellant and were defamatory of him and were likely to lower him in the estimation of the electorate.It is not necessary to decide whether the statements of fact madefalse, for the High Court has held that it is not proved that the respondent or his election agent was concerned with the publication or distribution of the leaflet and we agree with that view.It is common ground that one Dola Jagannatha Rao procured the leaflet printed at Sri Ramakrishna Printing Works at Srikakulam. Itwas averred in the election petition that the printing expenses wereby Latchanna the election agent of the respondent and thatd caused distribution of the leaflet at several meetings held by the Swatantra Party at Srikakulam on April 24, 1967; at Mandasa on April 21, 1967, at Takkali on April 20, 1967; and at Palasa on April 21,1967. This was denied by the respondent. D. Jagannatha Rao was examined as a witness for the respondent. Hedeposed that he didget the leafleton his own account and not at the instance of anybody else, that he defrayed the expenses and paid on April 9, 1967 the printing charges amounting to Rs. 85, that he wrote the draft of the leaflet in his house at Srikakulam; that no one else wason that occasion, that he did not consult any other person nor did he take any other persons advice in thatthat before he took it to the press he did not show it to any other person, and that as the printers could not properly decipher the manuscript they got prepared a fair copy by their own employee.This evidence did notsupport the case of theappellant. He examined D. Ramamurthy P.W. 26 who stated that the leaflet Ext.was drafted in the house of Latchanna by K. Chelapati Rao Patnaik to the dictation of Latchanna in the presence of Dola Jagannatha Rao, that one week thereafter the leaflets were got printed by Chelapati Rao Patnaik and Dola Jagannatha Rao, and that Latchanna gave them Rs. 300 and sent them to Srikakulam. Inthe witness stated that he could not write Telugu, though he could read a little. He also admitted that he was not usually consulted in any matter, but whenever required the members of the party used only to take work from him. To explain his presence at the drafting of the leaflet he stated that Latchanna called him on April 25, 1967 at his residence, that when he reached Latchannas place the leaflet was being drafted and that he was detained till the drafting was over and thereafter he was sent away. The witness could not explain the reason why the leaflet was not printed at Guntur. Witness D. Ramamurthy sought tosupport the case of theappellant on several other matters. The High Court observed that his statement was "highly artificial", that there was no reason why he should have been called by Latchanna to be a witness to the drafting of the manuscript of the leaflet, and that the "artificiality of his statement was obvious on the face of it and further his testimony did not bear scrutiny at all". Nothing has been said before us which would justify us in taking a different view.The evidence clearly does not make out the case of the appellant. Itwas the case of the appellant, that Latchanna got the leaflet drafted andprinted. From the mere fact that D. Jagannatha Rao was a partyman and a member of the State Council of the Swatantra Party of which Latchanna was the President, and that D. Jagannatha Rao had contested on the Swatantra Party ticket for a seat in the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly in the general elections inno inference arises that the leaflet was published with the consent of the respondent or his electionwas no allegation in the petition that the publication in the Bahujana was caused byor by therespondent. The evidence brought before the Court could not cure the defect in the pleadings. There is no evidence also that either the respondent or his election agent Latchanna had knowledge before the datethe publication or even before the date of the election of the respondent.It was said that the respondent had expressed his thanks for the work done by the Vahiniduring the election. This was not a matter relevant to the issue under consideration, and the High Court was right in holding that it would be extending the scope of the inquiry contemplated to be made on the allegations made in the petition to hold that by reason of the publication in the Vahini and Bahujana the respondent or his election agent were guilty of any corrupt practice. Inthe petition it was expressly averred that the leaflet Ext.was published by the respondent and his electionIt was not pleaded that the contents of the leaflet Ext.with some modifications were published in the Vahini and Bahujana and that by that publication a corrupt practice under4) was committed by the respondent.The High Court made a painstaking analysis of the evidence of the witnesses relating to the holding of the meetings and the distribution of the leaflet Ext.and the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent, which ran into as many as 23 printed pages, and in conclusionthe above discussion it is clear that it was Dola Jagannadha Rao himself who got printed Ext.of his own accord and neither the respondent nor his election agent was in any way concerned with it. The respondent and the election agent were in no way connected with its publication, when several thousands of copies of the pamphlet had been printed; they must of course be for purposes of distribution. Dola Jagannadha Rao could have personally distributed them or caused their distribution through others. But there is no positive evidence that these pamphlets were distributed amongst the public either by Dola Jagannadha Rao himselfor by theelection agent, as alleged, or to the knowledge of either the respondent or his electionsee no reason to disagree with the view of the High Court on the evidence.A mere general allegation that more than Rs. 3 lakhs were spent by the respondent or his election agent or other persons for the purposes of the election is not sufficient to make out a case under Section 123(6) of the Representation of the People Act,is not sufficient merely to allege that large sums of money were spent for the purpose of the election.It is the case of the respondent that his friends and sympathisersent him certain sums of money, and that whatever monies were received by him or in the name of his wife or by Venkaiah under his authority remained with Venkaiah. These receipts aggregated to Rs. 19,000 out of which Rs.were spent for theif any, incurred by the party which sponsored the candidature of a candidate cannot be taken into account for the purpose of determining whether the corrupt practice within the meaning of7) was committed by the candidate.is true that Latchanna had from time to time withdrawn from the Andhra Bank various amounts of money. Those amounts, he says, were utilised for satisfying the debts of the party incurred in the generalThere is no evidence to the contrary led by the appellant. Nor is there any evidence to show that the respondent had received any amount in excess of Rs. 19,000/A considerable body of evidence was tendered by the appellant to prove that a large number of vehicles were used for the election campaign of the respondent. Many witnesses were examined to support that case. The High Court made a detailed analysis of the evidence and held that only four vehicles Nos.jeep, (2) APU 7414r and (4), were retained and used for "election purposes" and expenses for purchase ofand oil for those vehicles during the election days were shown in the account. Besides this, in the view of the High Court two more vehicles Nos.97 were used for some time for the purpose of the election. These two vehicles were taken by Balaram and Chitti Babu once to Kanchili petrol bunk, and to that extent they may be held to have been used for the errand of the respondent. Taking into account this amount, the total amount in relation to theused for Kanchili was RupeesThe High Court held that on the evidence, the cash bills which were produced by the appellant in respect of theexpenses were not connected with the motor vehicles of the respondent or of his agent or of any vehicles maintained by the respondent for election purposes. The High Court found the books of account of Vijaya Auto Service and thebunk" of Malla Satyanarayana and Brothers at Kanchili unreliable, and held that only thosemay be taken into consideration which recorded transactions signed by persons admitted to be the agents of the respondent. The High Court accordingly held that in addition to the amount admitted by the respondent an amount of Rs.was proved. No substantial argument was advanced before us challenging the finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge on the question as to the expenditure incurred for the motor vehicles employed in the course of the election of the respondent, and we see no reason to disagree with the conclusion recorded by the High Court on a very elaborate and painstaking analysis of thewas the case of the respondent that several persons had worked for the Swatantra Party candidate at the election According to the rules of the Swatantra Party they worked voluntarilyand no remuneration was paid to any of the workers, because payment of remuneration to any party workers was against the principles of thatparty. The High Court held that transport charges and expenses for meals for the workers were not incurred by the respondent, but by the Swatantra Party. Inargument it was conceded there was nothing to show that any expenditure was incurred by the respondent for those workers. Venkaiah had, it is said, paid under the directions of Latchanna certain amounts of money for the expenses incurred for the workers of the Swatantrain the absence of any evidence to show that any specific sums of money were expended on certain items by the respondent or his election agent, no conjecture can be permitted to defeat a candidate who has been elected.Towards the boarding and lodging expenses of the workers, it appears, Simma Jagannadham, President of the District Swatantra Party had paid Rs. 5,000/and Rs. 1,200/ after the election. It was proved by the evidence that the party office was in the house of Simma Jagannadham. Thewere lodged and boarded at a place called Sri Venkateswara Lodging and Boarding Lodge at Srikakulam, and the expenditure incurred for them was met by Sri Venkateswara Lodge. The amounts which were paid by Simma Jagannadham were not shown to be paid towards the expenses of lodging and boarding of the workers at Sri Venkateswara Lodge. The Manager of Sri Venkateswara Lodge apparently boarded and lodged those workers free of charge. In the absence of any reliable evidence to the contrary, the finding of the High Court that no expenditure was incurred in respect of those workers by the respondent must be accepted.The appellants case that expenditure was incurred for "wall posters" and for printing, distributing and exhibiting them amounting to Rs. 2,081/was not pressed, nor was the case about the expenditure incurred in respect ofand jutkas" pressed before us. Even if it be granted that an amount of Rupee 500/which was incurred for purchasing voters lists be taken into account the total amount proved toexpended by the respondent does not exceed Rs.prescribed under the Act.We have carefully considered the evidence in the light of the arguments advanced at the Bar, and we are of the view that no case is made out for our interference with the conclusion recorded by the High Court.