Case: Om Prabha Jain Vs. Abnash Chand &amp; Another

2. The election petition was based upon allegations of corrupt practice against the successful candidate. The gravamen of the charge was that she as a minister in the Government of Mr. Bhagwat Dayal Sharma used certain discretionary grants to bribe the voters of her constituency and in particular by paying two sums of Rs. 2,000 for the construction of two dharamshalas for the Kumhar and the Sweeper Colonies at Kaithal. There were other allegations also against her but as they have been found against the election petitioner and have not been brought to our notice we need not say anything about them. The learned Judge who tried the election petition did not accept the evidence tendered by the election petitioner to prove the corrupt practice outlined above but held on a general appraisal of the circumstances of the case that these sums were in fact paid to bargain for votes and to influence the voters in favour of the appellant. We shall now give a few facts of the case before stating our conclusion3. The election petition was filed on April 7, 1967. It was later amended and better particulars were supplied on July 29, 1967. In the original election petition as filed by the election petitioner it was stated that a sum of Rs. 2,000 from the discretionary grant of the appellant was paid to the Harijans of Keorak Gate, Kaithal for the construction of a Dharamshala. The allegation then was that in the beginning of January 1967 the Harijans were approached by the appellant and were asked to vote for her. They flatly refused to vote for her. Thereupon she promised to provide funds for the construction of a dharamshala in their basti and tempted by this offer they agreed to vote for her.. In regard to the other discretionary grant it was stated in the original petition that the Kumhar voters who reside in Dogran Gate, Kaithal, were also approached by the appellant in the beginning of January l967 and were asked to vote for her. When they refused to vote she promised them a sum of Rs. 2,000 for building the dharamshala in their locality. It was further pointed out that the first sum of Rs. 2,000 was paid through the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal, vide his Memo No. 78 BP-III/67/335 of January 12, 1967. The second payment was also made on the same date through the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal vide Development Department Memo No. 47-BAP-III-67/3264. The affidavit in support of the election petition was sworn by the election petitioner on information supplied by others and believed to be true. It was stated in the verification clause that this information was received "from my workers and believed to be true"5. On an objection being raised that the particulars of the corrupt practice were not adequate and on the other hand vague and that the affidavit did not disclose the persons from whom the information was derived the Court ordered that better particulars be supplied and a fresh affidavit filed. The amended election petition was then filed in July, 1967. In this election petition a change was introduced. It was stated that on December 22, 1966 the Harijans were called to a Canal Rest House through one Om Prakash Shorewala, President of the Municipal Committee, Kaithal. Other members of the Municipal Staff including the Executive Officer Bhalla were also present. Among those who came were one Khaki Ram Banwari Lal and one Harijan Lamberdar whose name was not given. In the presence of these persons request was made to the Harijans to vote for the appellant, and when they refused to do so a sum of Rs. 2,000 was promised from the discretionary grant, and on this offer the Harijan voters consented to vote for the appellant. It was further alleged that this amount was ultimately paid to Khaki Ram and Banwari Lal through Shri Om Prakash Shorewala (R. W 4). As regards the second charge it was stated that on. December 29, l966 the Kumhar voters were summoned to the Canal Rest House and three persons, Thakru, Attra and Liloo came as the representatives of the Kumhar community. The same procedure, viz. asking them to vote for her candidature was followed by the appellant and on their refusal to do so a sum of Rs. 2,000 was promised to them for the construction of a dharamshala in their basti at Dogran Gate, Kaithal. This induced them to change their views. The affidavit was also corrected. It was stated that the allegation was based upon information received from Pandit Kailash Chander, S/o. Pandit Hari Ram of Kaithal and Ch. Inder Raj, ex-Municipal Commissioner, Chandana Gate Gamri, Kaithal.

Court's reasoning:
13. The State of Haryana came into existence on November 1 1966. Immediately afterwards the Cabinet placed certain sums of money at the disposal of the Chief Minister, the Cabinet Ministers, Ministers, for State and Deputy Ministers, to be used at their discretion for the uplift of the communities. A sum of Rs. 50,000 was placed in the discretionary grant of a Minister and the appellant as the Finance Minister in the Ministry of Shri Bhagwat Dayal Sharma was required to spend this money. The money had to be disbursed before the end of the Financial Year that is to say, before March 31, 1967. It is reasonable to think that there must have been several demands in this State from the various community centres for their own uplift and they must have been clamouring even before for money for the establishment of schools, hospitals supply of water and so on. The policy statement attached to the sanction of the discretionary grant stated the purposes for which the money could be utilised. It was stated guite clearly that the money should not he given to any private person but should be given through the Development Commissioner for purposes of public utility and for benefit of the general public and that the execution of the works should be through certain named agencies such as Zilla Parishad Panchayat Samities the Panchayats concerned the Public Works Department or any other Government Agencies or Municipality as the Minister may indicate. In the present case money was to be disbursed through the Municipal Committee14. It is argued that the money was withdrawn and made available a day before the poll suggesting thereby that this was done to assure the voters that the money had come in as a result of the bargain. The hurry in reaching the money to these two wards in the Kaithal Municipality is the main reason behind the learned Judges conclusion that it must have been a part of a bargain. Evidence however. shows that Bhalla (who was not favourable to the appellant) himself wrote saying that the money should be made available at once: and this money came to the hands of Om Prakash Shorewala, who, as we have already pointed out was helping the answering respondent in his election. It appears to us that all this hurry which did not emanate from the appellant was the result of an anxiety on the part of the recipients that the money should be made available as soon as possible. There is always a risk of a change of attitude particularly if the election goes against a particular party. The persons who were to benefit by the discretionary grant might themselves have been anxious to lay hands on this money so that the grant might not be cancelled later. This money was actually made available not before the date of the poll but as late as March 3, 1967. No doubt the sanction was before the date of poll but that too was long before the date when even the candidature of the appellant was recognised by her party.The action of the appellant, therefore, cannot be construed against her. Ii must be accepted as done in the ordinary course of her duties as Minister, silence there is no evidence to show that it was a part of a bargain directly or indirectly, the case does not satisfy the test which we have laid down in Ghasi Rams case, Civil Writ No. 1632 of 1967, D/- 7-2-1967 (SC).