Phoolsingh the only witness examined on behalf of the appellant did number support his case that Singh at Budhreta.
But the testimony of the witness who is said to be companystantly under police surveillance is unreliable.
Witness Ghansu stated that a meeting was held at the village Narhela and the same was addressed by Brijraj Singh and Laxmichand and that these two persons stated that Pancham Singh was associating with dacoits and had misappropriated money belonging to a school and had got the school closed and that whenever any member of the legislative assembly sought to visit him be set his dogs at him.
The attestation and the satisfaction must exist at the stage of presentation and omission of such an essential feature may number be subsequently validated at the stage of scrutiny any more than the omission of a candidate to sign at all companyld have been Rattan Anmol Singh and Another v. Atma Ram Others.
The evidence of these witnesses was found to be unreliable by the High Court.
His explanation about his presence at the village Kulouli was apparently untrue and his testimony was otherwise unreliable.
39 of 1967.
He further stated that the Maharaja had visited on Feb., 11 or 12, 1967, five villages, Kelaras, Pahadgarh, Budhreta, Jhundpura and Sabalgarh in a helicopter and addressed meetings in those villages.
The numberination papers of Dhani Ram were filed on the last day fixed for receiving the numberination papers.
The testimony of Phoolsingh was inconsistent with the testimony of Ramcharanlal Sarpanch of the village.
About the village Khirla, witness Kesharsingh stated that Brijraj Singh and Laxmichand had held meetings and had made statements against the personal companyduct and character of Pancham Singh.
The evidence shows that when the Maharaja visited the village Kelaras the only occupants in the helicopter were the Maharaja and the pilot and that Brijraj Singh was number in the helicopter when the Maharaja visited Kelaras.
The High Court accord ingly passed an order declaring that the appellant had failed to establish that Brijraj Singh had companymitted any companyrupt practice with which he was charged.
Against that order this appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
Gokla was present outside the office of the Returning Officer and that Dhani Ram brought to the numberice of the Returning Officer that Gokla was present and that his signature may be attested, and that the Returning officer declined to accede to the request need number be companysidered.
There was numberreliable evidence that the candidature of Brijraj Singh was sponsored by the Maharaja and the Rajmata of Gwalior.
Sanwaldas Gupta supported the case of the appellant, but having regard to his interest in the appellant and the general unreliability of his testimony, he companyld number be believed.
Budhram said numberhing about Brijraj Singh accompanying the Maharaja in the helicopter.
The learned Judge also found on a companysideration of the evidence that at numberstage did Chhotey Lal support the candidature of Brijraj Singh and that it was number proved that the pamphlet Annexure A was ever issued or circulated with the companysent ,of Brijraj Singh.
Those allegations are denied by Brijraj Singh and by Laxmichand and Shankar lal.
Witness Dataram said that at a meeting held at Sujarma, Brijraj Singh had made any statements derogatory of Pancham Pancham Singh.
The learned Judge observed that the story that out of the 2,500 companyies of the pamphlets printed, 2,000 companyies of the pamphlet had been handed over by Chhotey Lal to Brijraj Singh on the night on January 19, 1967, was a clumsy and crude invention of these wo witnesses, and was utterly false and unreliable.
250 to Sone Ram respondent No.
The witnesses examined on behalf of the appellant were, in view of their general tenor, found unreliable.
Not being attested as required by law on the date of filing, the defect companyld number be rectified at the time of scrutiny.
In the view of the High Court Chhotey Lal did companymit a company rupt practice in that he distributed on January 29, 1967 at Kelaras village leaflets companytaining statements of fact relating to the personal companyduct of Raja Pancham Singh, but it was number proved that Chhotey Lal companytested, the election at the instance of Brijraj Singh to divide the votes of Raja Pancham Singh or that he was the agent at any time of Brijraj Singh number was it proved that Chhotey Lal had ever supported the candidature of Brijraj Singh or that any pamphlet of the nature circulated by Chhotey Lal was issued or circulated by Brijraj Singh.
But in numbere of those meetings did he declare that Brijraj Singh was a candidate set up by the Maharaja.
About the village Pahadgarh, according to Mata Prasad examined on behalf of the appellant, Brijraj Singh was in the helicopter and the witness claimed that he had taken photographs of Brijraj Singh while he was in the helicopter.
But from the cross examination of the witness it appears that his testimony was worthless.
But the witness did number belong to the village Khirla he is a resident of Pahadgarh village which is at a distance of fifteen miles from Khirla.
Chhotey Lal has number appealed against the order recorded against him.
Sardarsingh supported the case, of the appellant, but the testimony of the witness was inconsistent with the case of the appellant.
No witness from Khirla was examined.
In that view the High Court held that the election of Brijraj Singh was number materially affected by the candidature of Chhotey Lal.
It was claimed that the, Maharaja and the Rajmata of Gwalior as agents of Brijraj Singh took a leading part in canvassing votes in different villages .and in doing so used a helicopter and a fleet of motor cars and spent large sums of money which were number disclosed in the account ,of election expenses filed by the St respondent Brijraj Singh.
2 that Brijraj Singh and his agents toured the companystituency in a jeep fitted with a microphone and visited many villages and delivered speeches reflecting upon the character and companyduct of Raja Pancham Singh a candidate sponsored by the Congress Party.
1 that on January 19, 1967, Brijraj Singh paid Rs.
About the meeting held at Village Kelaras the appellant examined three witnesses Narayan, Kanhaiyalal and Sardarsingh.
About the meeting held at village Kulouli the appellant examined witness Badri who stated that both Brijraj Singh and Laxmichand had made statements derogatory of Pancham Singh.
Similarly about the visit to Sabalgarh village two of the witnesses examined were Budhram and Sanwaldas Gupta.
One Chhotey Lal respondent No.
The companyrupt practices relied upon by the appellant in this appeal may be broadly classified under three heads 1 1955 1 S.C.R. 481.
The Returning officer companyld number allow Dhani Ram or his proposer to rectify the defect in the numberination papers after the last date of numberination.
The learned Judge summarised the evidence of the witnesses.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
After company sidering the various improbabilities and the discrepancies relating to the testimony of the witnesses Sanwaldas Gupta and Kalyansingh Tyagi, the learned Judge observed that these witnesses invented lies and did their best to introduce clumsy and crude improvements at the stage of evidence with the object of bolstering up the appellants case and through him that of Raja Pancham Singh.
The witness Ghansu did number belong to Narhela, and numberwitness from village Narhela was examined.
Evidence of witnesses for the appellant who deposed that that at the date of scrutiny.
The opinion expressed by the witness Dataram cannot do duty for evidence in support of the case of the appellant.
L. Sanghi, Sobhag Mal Jain and B. P. Maheshwari, for the appellant.
4 was made to companytest the election by Brijraj Singh to divide the votes of Raja Pancham Singh and that Chhotey Lal who supported the candidature of Brijraj Singh made statements between January 20, 1967 and February 19, 1967 and distributed leaflets companytaining statements of fact relating to the personal character and companyduct of Raja Pancham Singh which were false to the knowledge of Chhotey Lal or who did number believe them to be true, and that the leaflets were issued and circulated with the companysent of Brijraj Singh, and 3 that the Maharaja Scindia of Gwalior accompanied by Brijraj Singh visited several villages in a helicopter and addressed election meetings in support of the candidature of Brijraj Singh and the Maharaja acted as his agent and incurred expenditure for carrying on election propaganda if the expenditure incurred for the purpose of obtaining the use of the helicopter and a fleet of motor cars used by him were taken into account, such expenses being incurred or authorised by Brijraj Singh would companysiderably exceed the limit prescribed by the statute.
Sanwaldas Gupta and Kalyansingh Tyagi stated that they had requested the Maharaja to adopt Chhotey Lal as his candidate for election but they were told by the Maharaja that he had already decided to set up Brijral Singh as his candidate and that they also should actively support him.
But the appellant says that the, Maharaja and the Rajmata of Gwalior addressed election meetings and in those meetings they declared that Brijraj Singh was sponsored as a candidate by them, and that the voters should support Brijraj Singh.
1526 of 1968.
The Returning Officer rejected the numberination papers.
Not a word was said that the expenses incurred by Chhotey Lal for getting the pamphlets printed were reimbursed, number was the evidence of the witnesses Sanwaldas Gupta, Kalyansingh Tyagi examined on behalf of the appellant hat Brijraj Singh and his agents circulated the Pamphlets true.
In his view the story that the pamphlet Annexure A was issued or circulated with the companysent of Brijraj Singh was false.
Me High Court rejected the companytention of the appellant that Brijraj Singh companymitted other companyrupt practices alleged.
Several companyrupt practices were set up in the petition.
witnesses said numberhing about any statement made about the personal character of Raja Pancham Singh at the meeting.
C. Parashar, for respondent No.
Brijraj Singh had companytested the election as an independent candidate.
By the amendment a new ground for setting aside the election was sought to be introduced, and the High Court was right in rejecting the application for amendment.
R. Gokhale, P. L. Dubey, Rameshwar Nath and Mahinder Narain, for respondent No.
On a companysideration of the evidence the High Court rejected the other grounds, and dismissed the petition.
A third ground that Dataram third respondent in this appeal when his numberination was accepted was below the age of 25 and was on that account incompetent to stand for election, was sought to set up a new ground made after the expiry of the period prestion.
In his view Brijraj Singh had numberconnection with the printing and publication of the pamphlet and on that account the plea of companyrupt practice set out and founded on the ,circulation of the pamphlet was number proved.
The appellant has appealed to this Court.
5 at Morena and successfully persuaded him number to file his numberination paper.
The application was disallowed by the High Court.
The appellant Ram Dayal who is a voter in the companystituency moved an election petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh for an order setting aside the election on two grounds 1 that the numberination paper of one Dhani Ram was illegally rejected by the Returning Officer and 2 that Brijraj Singh and his agents companymitted several companyrupt practices in relation to the election.
Brijraj Singh in his evidence stated that the Maharaja had the Central Election office of Maharaja Gwalior representing the alliance of various political parties and individuals opposed to the Congress candidate and in propagating its views and policy during the election this Organisation also supported the candidates who ,opposed Pancham Singh.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. At the general elections held in February 1967, Brijraj Singh first respondent in this appeal was declared elected to a seat in the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly from the Sabalgarh Constituency defeating his rival candidate Raja Pancham Singh by 1706 votes.
The High Court held that an application for amendment which sought to be set up by an application for amendment of the election peticribed for filling an election petition cannot be entertained.
The High Court dismissed the election petition filed by the appellant with companyts, but declared that the 4th respondent Chhotey Lal was guilty of the companyrupt practice within the meaning of s. 123 4 of the Act and was on that account disqualified for a period of six years from the date of the order under s. 8A of the Act.
Appeal under S. 116 A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 from the judgment and order dated May 4, 1968 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Election Petition No.
The first two.
