Case: Om Prakash Vs. Lalchand And Another

2. The appellant contested the Assembly seat from Ellenabad Constituency in the District of Hissar in the mid-term election held in May, 1968. The appellant challenged the election of Lalchand, the first respondent. The other defeated candidate in the election was the second respondent Prithvi Raj. The appellant obtained 15,485 votes. The successful candidate Lalchand secured 20,816 votes and Prithvi Raj obtained 5,726 votes. The polling was on 14th May, 1968. The results were announced on 16th May, 1968.3. At the hearing of the appeal counsel on behalf the appellant canvassed three grounds: First, that the poster being Ex. P. W. 1/1, was against the personal character of the appellant and, therefore, constituted a corrupt practice within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Secondly, the religious head Sat Guru Jagjit Singh of the Namdhari sect issued an appeal and a farman and thereby the provisions contained in sub-sec. (2) of section 123 of the Act are attracted. Thirdly, the respondent Lalchand is guilty of corrupt practice of bribery by having given Rs. 20,000 in cash to Prithvi Raj to contest the election.4. I shall at the outset deal with the second and the third grounds.Counsel on behalf of the appellant pressed allegations contained in sub-paragraphs (b) and (d) of paragraphs 10 of the petition which were to the effect that Sat Guru Jagjit Singh issued a farman on or about 20th April, 1968 to the effect that it was the Gurus desire that all followers should oppose the appellant who was the son of Choudhury Devi Lal, an enemy of Namdhari Guru. Further, if any of the followers did not obey the farman they would stand excommunicated and their Prasad would not be accepted in the Gurdwaras and that they would be spiritually censured by naming them as traitors of Dharma and befallen persons in Sabhas of Namdharis. In sub-paragraph (d) of Paragraph 10 of the petition, it was alleged that on 21st April, 1968 the followers of Namdhari sect were called to Sant Nagar where a big Dewan of Namdharis was convened and Sat Guru Jagjit Singh made a speech there that he had taken a vow to defeat the appellant because he was the son of Choudhury Devi Lal whose family was an avowed enemy of Namdhari sect and that it should be treated as a vow by every Namdhari.

Court's reasoning:
Ram Dayal was formerly a member of the Congress Committee. He resigned from the Congress and contested the seat as an independent candidate against Choudhury Devi Lal and won the election in the year 1957. An election petition was filed by Choudhury Devi Lal against the witness Ram Dayal. Ram Dayal was eventually unseated as a result of the decision of this Court. The witness Ram Dayal helped the respondent Lalchand in the election of 1967 and also in the midterm election in the month of May, 1968. The witness Ram Dayal spoke of the Sat Guru Maharaj having exhorted the Namdharis to vote for Lalchand and warned them about the consequences if they failed to do so. The witness also spoke of the meeting at Rania village on 28th April, 1968. It is indeed strange and significant that Ram Dayal who supported respondent Lalchand and also attended meetings on his behalf came and gave evidence in favour of the appellant about the utterances of Sat Guru Jagjit Singh of the Namdhari sect. It is extremely unsafe and hazardous to rely on the uncorroborated and isolated oral testimony of such a person.7. P. W. 30 Parma Nand Sharma spoke of the meeting at Sant Nagar on 21st April, 1968 and said that Guru Jagjit Singh spoke at the meeting and proclaimed that it was the duty of every Namdhari to vote for respondent Lalchand and any one who violated the said Gurus direction would be excommunicated from the Panth. In cross-examination the witness Parma Nand Sharma said that he came to give evidence in favour of the Congress because he was summoned to appear as a witness and therefore he spoke the truth. It is obvious that when one speaks truth one does not proclaim it. It is obvious that the witness in view of his antecedents wanted to sound truthful because he came forward to give evidence in favour of thediary entry is to the effect that the Sat Guru Jagjit Singh appeared before the Sant Nagar Assembly. The diary entry does not mention about any alleged utterance by Sat Guru Jagjit Singh at the saidare unable to accept the oral evidence that there was any meeting on 21 April, 1968 as alleged by the appellant and that Sat Guru Jagjit Singh spoke at the meeting, to cast votes in favour of respondent Lalchand under threat of divine displeasure and spiritualis no documentary evidence in support of the allegation. The oral evidence is that of P. W. 11, P. W. 12 and P. W. 13. Kanshi Ram, P. W. 11 said that he was Kumhar and there was meeting of the Kumhars on 30 March, 1968. It was decided that a Kumhar should be made a member of the Legislative Assembly. He also said that the Kumhars decided at the said meeting to put up respondent Prithvi Raj as candidate. Kanshi Rams further evidence was that Bawa Bir Singh paid Rs. 20,000 to Prithvi Raj for election expenses. Kanshi Ram said that the payment was in the presence of respondent Lalchand. Jot Ram, P. W. 12 said that he was a Kumhar and his evidence was also that Bawa Bir Singh paid Rs. 20,000 to Prithvi Raj in the presence of Lalchand. Rawat, P. W. 13 who was also a Kumhar said that Bawa Bir Singh paid Rs. 20,000 to Prithvi Raj in the presence of Lalchand. The gist of the offence under sub-section (1) of section 123 of the Act is that there has to be a gift by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent of any gratification, to any person with the object of inducing a person to stand or not to stand as a candidate at the election.The elements require to constitute an offence are first, that the gift has to be by a candidate or his agent or by any other person. Secondly, the gift is to be with the consent of the candidate or his election agent and the third important element is that the gratification is to be made with the object, directly or indirectly, of inducing a person to stand or not to stand in the election.In the present case, there is no evidence to hold that any gift was made by the candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of the candidate, namely, the respondent Lalchand. Secondly, there is no evidence that gratification was made with the object of inducing the respondent Prithvi Raj to stand or not to stand as aargument cannot be accepted because of the dominant reason that no such suggestion was made to the witness from the Electoral Office or any other witness on behalf of the appellant. If such a case had been made, the appellant would have had an opportunity of dealing withwas some dispute as to whether the signature of Lalchand on the manuscript poster Exhibit P. W. 34./2 was genuine or not. Ratan Lal Aggarwal, P. W. 58 said that the signature of the respondent Lalchand on Exhibit P. W. 34/2 was a genuine signature. The respondents witness No. 2, A. S. Kapoor said that the signature of Lalchand on Exhibit P. W. 34/2 was not the same as the admitted signature of Lalchand and in the opinion of the witness the signature on Exhibit P. W. 34/2 was "the work of a person who was well skilled in the art of traced forgery". It is rare for two experts to agree in cases of disputed signature. The Court has to arrive at the conclusion in the light of the entire evidence. Jai Gopal Verma said that Lalchand appended his signature in his presence. That portion of the evidence of Jai Gopal Verma was not impeached in cross-examination. Lachhman Das, the Accountant of the Kwality Art Printers said that the pamphlet was printed at the request of Lalchand who was identified by Muni Lal Azad and Jai Gopal Verma, This portion of the evidence of Lachhman Das was also not challenged ins some dispute as to whether the signature of Lalchand on the manuscript poster Exhibit P. W. 34./2 was genuine or not. Ratan Lal Aggarwal, P. W. 58 said that the signature of the respondent Lalchand on Exhibit P. W. 34/2 was a genuine signature. The respondents witness No. 2, A. S. Kapoor said that the signature of Lalchand on Exhibit P. W. 34/2 was not the same as the admitted signature of Lalchand and in the opinion of the witness the signature on Exhibit P. W. 34/2 was "the work of a person who was well skilled in the art of traced forgery". It is rare for two experts to agree in cases of disputed signature. The Court has to arrive at the conclusion in the light of the entire evidence. Jai Gopal Verma said that Lalchand appended his signature in his presence. That portion of the evidence of Jai Gopal Verma was not impeached in cross-examination. Lachhman Das, the Accountant of the Kwality Art Printers said that the pamphlet was printed at the request of Lalchand who was identified by Muni Lal Azad and Jai Gopal Verma, This portion of the evidence of Lachhman Das was also not challenged in