Case: Dev Raj Anand Vs. Bhagwandas &amp; Another

1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing a petition filed by the appellant challenging the election of respondent No. 1 Bhagwandas to the Haryana Legislative Assembly from the Ambala Cantonment constituency.2. The last date for filing the nomination papers was April 17, 1968 in theelection which was held from the aforesaid constituency. The scrutiny of nomination papers took place on April 18, 1968. The polling took place on May 14, 1968 and the result was declared on the following day. Respondent No 1 who belonged to the Jan Sangh Party got 13,009 votes whereas the appellant, who belonged to the Congress Party, polled 11,606 votes. There were certain other candidates also but it is unnecessary to make any mention about them or about the number of votes obtained by them.3. The election of respondent No 1 was challenged mainly on grounds of corrupt practices of bribery, undue influence, treating of voters, free conveyance of voters to and from the polling station, publication of posters making a religious appeal to the electorate by respondent No. 1 and the filing of a false return of election expenses by him These allegations were denied by respondent No. 1. A number of issues were framed and a good deal of evidence was led by both sides.

Court's reasoning:
4. We shall deal only with the determination of the questions which have been agitated before us. The first matter which has been argued before us arises out of issueNo 1 (i). It related to the commission of the corrupt practice of bribery by respondent No. 1, approaching Sant Singh Sethi on May 8, 1968 with a view to getting his support and later paying Rs. 501/on May 12, 1968 to Punjabi Gurdwara as detailed in para 6 of thepetition. It was alleged, inter alia, that after Sant Singh Sethi had been approached for securing the support of Sikh voters and after payment of Rs. 501/had been made on May 12, 1968 Akhand Path was held in the Gurudwara. The Bhog of the Akhand Path took place on May 12, 1968 in the presence of respondent No. 1 It was announced in the congregation by Kuldip Singh, a member of the Gurudwara Executive Committee, that the Akhand Path had been performed for the purpose of wishing success to respondent No. 1 and securing the support of Sikh voters for his election which he was contesting from the Ambala Cantonment constituency.9. In our judgment the effect of the simile of the help given by the Guru to Makhan Shah must be ruled out of consideration. It found no mention in the pleadings in which the case was founded primarily on a bargain having been effected between respondent No. 1 and the Sikh voters, the payment of Rs. 501/having been made as a part of such bargain. The evidence of Jaswant Singh was quite unequivocal on the point that he never asked the persons present at the congregation to vote for respondent No. 1 after he had announced the donation of Rs. 501/having been made by him for the construction of the Gurdwara building. In view of the pleading the appellant is not entitled to invoke any principle other than the one contained in Ghasi Ram v. Dal Singh, (1968) 3 SCR 102  = (AIR 1968 SC 1191 )that the gist of the corrupt practice of bribery lay in attempting to do something for those opposed to the candidate with a view to changing their votes and as a bargain forfind no error in the view expressed by the learned judge that it had not been proved by satisfactory evidence that respondent No. 1 had made the donation by way of a bargain for procuring Sikh votes.10. The next point which has been pressed on behalf of the appellant arises out of issueNo. 1 (vii) which was based on the allegation that the corrupt practice of bribery had been committed by payment of Rs. 300/to Captain Bhagat Singh and Barkat Singh on May 12, 1968 as alleged in pare 6 (i) of thepetition. The allegation in the aforesaid para related to Topkhana Bazar Gurdwara and was similar to what had been alleged in respect of the Gurdwara on the Idgah Road concerning the donation of Rs.It was stated, inter alia, that the respondent No. 1 with the object of inducing Sikh voters who visited the Topkhana Gurdwara to vote for him paid a sum of Rs. 300/on the morning of May 12, 1968 to Captain Bhagat Singh and Barkat Singh who were theof the Committee managing that Gurdwara. The payment had been shown in the books of the Gurdwara and had been utilised for its benefit. It was claimed that on the receipt of the amount of Rs. 300/an appeal was actually made on May 13, 1968 to the congregation in the Gurdwara to vote for respondent No. 1. Two witnesses were examined in support of the allegation made in pare 6 (i) of the petition. Kulwant Singh P. W. 29 who runs a factory for making scientific instruments stated that he used to go to the aforesaid Gurdwara in which katha was held on May 13, 1968. Respondent No. 1 came there and asked for votes. Captain Bhagat Singh, Secretary of the Managing Committee made a speech in his favour. It was announced by Captain Bhagat Singh that respondent No. 1 had given a donation of Rs. 300/for the Gurdwara and that the congregation should assist him in the election. This witness has not been believed by the learned judge. Although in the first instance Kulwant Singh denied that he had signed the poster Exh. P. W. 29/1 which contained an appeal to vote in favour of the appellant in the General Election of 1967 but he admitted, though in amanner, that he was a signatory to the aforesaid poster. Bakshi Barkat Singh P. W. 64 was the Vice President of the Gurdwara and according to him respondent No. 1 came to him on May 12, 1968 and asked for his help in the election. Simultaneously the latter made a donation of Rs. 300/for the Gurdwara fund for purchase of fans. It was arranged that some persons should be invited on the following day in the morning to the Gurdwara where respondent No. 1 himself addressed the gathering. It was announced that a donation of Rs. 300/had been made by him. Captain Bhagat Singh and Bakshi Barkat Singh both laid emphasis on the services which had been rendered to the Gurdwara by respondent No. 1. This witness was also not believed by the learned judge as he was clearly interested in the appellant. There were other infirmities in his statement which were noticed and the learned judge considered that his statement did not inspire confidence. We have not been shown anything basically or inherently wrong in the appraisement of evidence by the learned judge relating to the allegation made in pare 6 (j) of the petition. We would, therefore, affirm the conclusion arrived at by the Highdo not find any substance in the submission on behalf of the appellant that the evidence of Om Prakash and Ram Murti had been shut out without any justification. We are satisfied that sufficient grounds have not been made out for not accepting the conclusion of the learned judge that the appellant had failed to discharge the burden of proving the issue relating to treatment of voters by means of serving liquor as alleged in the election petition.14. The only other point which remains for disposal relates to issueNos. 6 (a) and (b). This issue involves the publication of a poster by the Secretary of the Punjabi Gurdwara, Ambala Cantonment and it was alleged that it had been published at the instance or with the consent of respondent No 1It was common ground that if the poster Exht. P. W. 4/4 was published either on behalf of or with the consent of respondent No. 1 it would amount to commission of a corrupt practice of undue influence within the meaning of S. 123 (2) of the Act. It is unnecessary to state its contents because, in our opinion, the learned judge was right in not accepting the evidence produced by the appellant relating to its publication at the instance or with the consent of respondent No. 1. The learned judge considered that the evidence produced by the appellant relating to the publication of the poster and its distribution was extremely unsatisfactory and he had no hesitation in rejecting it. We have not been shown any infirmity in the reasoning or conclusion of the learned judge with regard to the publication and distribution of this poster.