Case: Moti Lal Vs. Chandra Pratap Tiwari &amp; Others

The said respondent was elected to the Legislative Assembly of Madhya Pradesh from the Churhat Assembly Constituency defeating many other candidates including one Shri Shyamlal his nearest rival candidate by a majority of 5,890 votes. The poll was held onThe election of respondent no. 1 was challenged in the High Court on many grounds which were controverted by the said respondent. Several issues were framed at the trial of the Election Petition and decided against the appellant. At the time of the hearing of this appeal only some of the issues were pressed and not all. We shall therefore, very briefly state the relevant facts in relation to those issues only. Since we find that this appeal is without any substance, we shall mention the relevant issues pressed for our consideration in this appeal, the decision of the High Court on them and briefly discuss the points urged on behalf of the appellant to assail the decision.2. Many charges of corrupt practices such as bribery, undue influence, threats etc. were levelled against respondent no. 1, his agents or workers within the meaning of subsection (1) (A) and(2) of Section 123 of the Act. The case of the appellant in the Election Petition is this. Respondent no. 1 paid onl972 a sum of Rs. 500/to one Manbodhi Kurmi who was said to be his worker at village Barigama and a polling agent. Manbodhi distributed Rs. 500/with the consent of respondent no. 1 on the same date to many voters with the object of inducing them to vote for respondent no. 1. Manbodhi wrote a letter onl972 asking respondent No. 1 to send him Rs. 600/more for payment to certain other electors. It is further said that one Indramani Prasad of Dhanaha who was the agent and worker of respondent no. 1 distributed money to the electors onl972 with the object of inducing them to vote for respondent no. 1. Similarly one Kedarnath resident of Dhumma who also was an agent and worker of respondent no. 1 with his consent distributed Rs. 1,000/to the electors of village Dhumma. He also demanded a sum of Rs. 1,000/by writing a letter datedFourteen persons were named in the election petition to whom money was paid by Kedarnath between3. The appellant further averred that respondent no. 1 was guilty of having indulged in corrupt practice under Section 123 (2) of the Act in as much as he, his agents and workers with his consent threatened the electors and interfered with the free exercise of their electoral rights to cast votes in favour of the candidates of their choice. The threat specially to them was to refrain from voting in favour of Shri Shyamlal. Particularly in this regard the allegation was that one Rao Saheb of Rampur Nalkin who was an agent and worker of respondent No. 1 with his consent published a pamphlet with the caption "Churhat Kshetra Ke Matadataon se appeal", The pamphlet was widely circulated by Shankereshwar Pratap Singh son of Rao Saheb of Rampur in many villages of his influence.4. Respondent no, 1 denied the various allegations of corrupt practices made against him his agents or workers.5. The decision of the High Court was assailed in this appeal in respect of four sets of issues only

Court's reasoning:
We see no justifiable reason to enable us to unset the findings of the High Court in regard to the alleged commission of the corrupt practice bribery by respondent no. 1 through Indramani Prasad. No adverse inference was at all possible to be drawn against respondent no. 1 forof Indramani Prasad as a witness in theacted as a polling agent for respondent no, 1 onat some booth. He was so appointed by one of the trusted workers of respondent no. 1 to whom signed blank forms for appointing polling agents had been entrusted. It was not however, proved that Manbodhi had worked for respondent no. 1 at the time of canvassing of the votes or had distributed any money to the electors for inducing them to vote for respondent no. 1. The letter datedsaid to have been written by Manbodhi has not been found to be a genuine document. It appears to us that the whole drama in connection with the said letter was engineered by or on behalf of the appellant with the help of Shyamlal and his associates. It was a fantastic story that such a letter was written by Manbodhi and was successfully intercepted so as to reach the hands of the election petitioner. This Court is loathe to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the High Court chiefly when such finding are based on appreciation of the oral evidence. Having perused the judgment of the High Court and the relevant pieces of evidence of certain witnesses examined on behalf of the appellant and respondent no. 1 we could see no infirmity in the decision of the issues aforesaid.Great stress was laid on behalf of the appellant for drawing adverse inference against respondent no, 1 forof Manbodhi to controvert the facts alleged by the appellants witnesses in their evidence.It appears to us that the part played by Manbodhi in the drama of bringing into existence the letter purported to be datedwas such that respondent no. 1 could not be expected to take the risk of examining him as his witness in court. No onus was cast upon him to prove any such fact that would entitle the Court to draw an adverse inference against him forof Manbodhi, In the alternative it was submitted that Manbodhi ought to have been examined as a court witness. We do not think that on the facts and in the circumstance of this case the Court was obliged to do so.It is not necessary to state all the findings of the High Court which were against the appellant. Suffice it to say that no fact in regard to the above issues was found in favour of the appellant by the High Court to prove the charge of exercise of undue influence under Section 123 (2) of the Act. We may rest content by merely observing that the High Court has rightly found that the contents of the pamphlet (Ext.were not such as to prove the case of undue influence under S. 123 (2). The contents are quoted in the judgment of the High Court We find no threat or words in the pamphlet to enable us to hold that under influence i.eto say any direct or. indirect interference or attempt to interfere on the part of respondent no. 1 was exercised or made with a free exercise of any electoral right .The pamphlet did not plead the case of respondent no, 1 or his party on whose ticket he was contesting the election, We have, therefore, no difficu1iy in rejecting the argument put forward on behalf of the appellant in this regard too.