Case: Aad Lal Vs. Kanshi Ram

Aad Lal, who contested the election to the Punjab Legislative Assembly from the Fazilka constituency in June, 1977, filed a petition to challenge the election of Kanshi Ram, hereinafter referred to as the respondent. He has filed the present appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated February 20, 1978, as his petition has been dismissed with costs. While the appellant was a candidate of the Janata Party and secured 19, 929 votes, the respondent was a candidate of the Congress Party and secured 23, 409 votes. There were other contestants at the election, but they fared badly and it is not necessary to refer to them. The appellant challenged the election of the respondent on the ground that he was not qualified to contest the election under Section 100(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the Act, as he did not make and subscribe the oath prescribed by clause (a) of Article 173 of the Constitution. He also pleaded that the respondent committed corrupt practices unders (5), (2) and (4) of Section 123 of the Act. We shall refer to the allegations when we deal with the issues which were framed by the trial Court. It will be sufficient to say here that the respondent traversed all the allegations against him.

Court's reasoning:
He has further stated that he had scored off the Gurmukhi equivalent of the words "solemn affirmation" from the certificate (Ex. PW 1/1A immediately after the oath was administered to the respondent but that portion was not scored off from the oath form Ex. PW 1/1 because of rush of work. The statement of the Returning Officer and certificate Ex. PW 1/1A clearly disprove the contention of the appellant of the appellant to the contrary, and the trial Court was quite justified in placing reliance on them4. It may mentioned that the appellant tried to raise a new plea in the trial Court that the respondent merely made the oath but did not subscribe it before the Returning Officer. It was, however, rightly rejected by that court because there was no basis for any such allegation in the election petition. The finding of the trial Court on issue No. 1 is therefore correct and does not call for interference8. It is true that constable Dayal Chand PW 12 presented challans in respect of the use of tractors Nos.0 and8 for carrying passengers, but the trial Court cannot be blamed if, after considering all the evidence which was led in support of the allegation, it reached the conclusion that the story that the respondent used the tractors for the conveyance of the voters on the date of the poll was "woven around" that fact. At any rate, it cannot be said that the appellant has succeeded in proving the allegation which was ther of trial, and we see no reason to differ from the trial Court on that finding of fact15. It is not disputed that poster Ex. PW 18/2 contained a statement of fact in relation to the personal character or conduct of the appellant which fell within the mischief ofn (4) of Section 123 of the Act. The allegation in the election petition was that it was issued by one "R. L. Angi" and was printed at Kalpana Printing Press Fazilka. The appellant however tried to prove that the poster was issued by R. L. Aneja PW 39 and that it was he who was the author of its manuscript Ex. PW 34/1. The switch over from the authorship of R. L. Angi to R. L. Aneja was not satisfactorily explained, and goes to disprove the allegation in the election petition. Raj Kumar PW 34 has been examined to prove the printing of the poster in his Kalpana Printing Press, and his conduct has been rightly criticised by the trial Court. He did not even take the precaution of having the manuscript signed by its author, and we have no doubt that he is not a reliable witness. The statement of Mohan Lal PW 35 (sic) who claimed to have attested the signature of the author of the handbill on the declaration form, is also not a reliable witness. The trial Court has examined the statement of Ram Sarup PW 16, and has rightly taken the view that there was no satisfactory evidence of the receipt of the poster in the office of the Deputy Commissioner. No useful purpose will be served by repeating all that the trial Court has said in this connection. The poster is said to have been distributed by Om Prakash PW 25, and the appellant has examined Tirlok Singh PW 26, Satish Kumar PW 27, Gurcharan Singh PW 32, Harbhajan Singh PW 36, Mohinder Prakash PW 37, Thakar Singh PW 38, Pannu Ram PW 40, Harbans Lal PW 41, Sita Ram PW 42 and Mam Raj PW 43 and has recorded his own statement. The statements of all these witnesses have been examined by the trial Court and we are in agreement with it that they cannot be said to prove the commission of the alleged corrupt practice. In fact when the preparation of the poster under the signature of R. L. Angi itself remained unproved, we have no hesitation in taking the view that the finding of fact of the trial Court in this respect is correct16. There is thus no reason for us to interfere with the impugned judgment of the trial Court.