The two witnesses on behalf of respondent Shastri, Bhagwati Prasad Jain D.W. 16 and Rameshwar Prasad Goel D.W. 18 said that a Congress election meeting was held at the Town Hall Maidan, Hapur and numberelection meeting was held in support of respondent Shastri at the Town Hall Maidan, Hapur on 7 February, 1967.
in the report dated 17 February, 1967 Exhibit 32 spoke of voters number being allowed to exercise their votes.
The allegations in the report are that some disturbances was created and names of various persons are mentioned as having tried to run towards.
The appellant criticised the evidence of Pyare Lal that he did number know as to what was happening in the village.
the attack on the office of the Republican Party to which the appellant belonged though the first information report gave the news about the art, ok it is strange that there was numberinvestigation.
Fifthly, the reports which were lodged by the supporters of the appellant with regard to the attack on the office of the Republican Party on 7 February, 1967 do number mention or refer at all to any meeting on behalf of respondent Prakash Vir Shastri on 7 February, 1967 at the Town Hall Maidan, Hapur.
Shamshad Elahi in his evidence mentioned the names of Sevak Singh and Surajbhan Tyagi.
In support of the case with regard to assault on Shamshad Elahi the appellant relied on the oral evidence of Shamshad Elahi P.W. 11 and the injury report Exhibit 30 and other documents, namely, Exhibits 31, 32 and 35.
The attack on the office of the Republican Party was number mentioned at all either in the Vir Arjun of 8 February, 1967 or in the Hindustan dated 8 February, 1967.
The appellant relied on the upper portion of annexure KK in support of the companytention that the slogans amounted to companymunal propaganda.
All this happened on 19 February, 1967.
The appellants case was that on 18 February, 1967, Prakash Vir Shastri and his supporters who were mostly Tyagi by caste asked the Tyagis to stop the Jatav voters from going to the polling station to cast their votes.
The third incident on which the appellant relied took place at Chhajjupur.
19 of 1967.
The Senior Superintendent of Police was number examined.
The further allegations in the petition were that at the meeting which was held at the Town Hail Maidan at Hapur on 7 February, 1967 respondent Shastri and the said K. Narendra, Editor of Vir Arjun delivered inflammatory speeches.
P.W. 65, Vireshwar Tyagi spoke of the incidents at Nagola, Bankhanda and Hapur and his wife Smt.
The election symbol of the appellant was elephant and the election symbol of Prakash Vir Shastri was lion.
Black face be of Brahmin, barbar and lala.
The appellant companytended that respondent Prakash Vir Shastri made companymunal propaganda against the appellant and also published false statements in relation to the personal character of the appellant.
21 and 22 also spoke of polling at Bankhanda having been peaceful.
The appellant in paragraph 11 L15SupCI/69 13 Of the petition further alleged that respondent Shastri was associated with the Vir Arjun and K. Narendra, Editor of Vir Arjun who was a companyleague of respondent Shastri wrote an editorial by way of an appeal to support the candidature of respondent Shastri in that newspaper on 7 February, 1967 Exhibit 22 and the said appeal was also an instance of companyrupt practice.
He said that 30 or 40 Harijan voters went to Badhnauli to cast their votes.
He also went to Nagola.
The news referred to an election meeting at Hapur but did number mention that the meeting was held on 7 February or on 6 February.,
The allegations with regard to the Bankhanda were referred to by Vireshwar Tyagi and other witnesses.
In cross examination the witness said that numbervoters from Haidernagar or Nagola were brought to the polling station under police protection.
First, if there had been any incident of a voter being prevented from voting a companyplaint would have been made to the polling officer of the polling station.
W. 60 is Manzoor Ahmad, M.L.A. The other two witnesses were Durga Das and Ram Prasad.
The appellant generally impeached the judgment of the High Court on two grounds.
The appellant relied of the oral evidence of PWs.
He said that the votes of village Nagola were polled and numberHarijan or Mohammedan voter was stopped from casting votes and that there was numbercomplaint that Harijan and Mohammedan voters were being stopped from casting their votes.
The decision of this Court is of numberaid to the appellant.
The alleged incident at Chhajjupur is unacceptable because, first, there was numbercomplaint by the appellant to the Election Commissioner, secondly, there was numberpolice case and numberinvestigation, thirdly, the reports did number mention the name of the appellant as having been assaulted or chased and fourthly, the news item in the Patriot was number proved as to the truth of the companytents therein.
In cross examination Shamshad Elahi was asked as to how he had obtained the names and his answer was that he met the grass cutter who gave the names.
The diaries being Exhibits A 23, A 32 and A 29 were produced to show that the election at Opehra polling station passed off peacefully and therefore numberone stopped any voter from casting vote.
P.W. 11, Shamshad Elahi said that he went to Nagola at about 3.30 p.m. on 19 February, 1967, the date of the election and the voters told him about the proclamation by beat of drums on the previous night and the voters further said that they would be insulted and they should remain there.
The appellant alleged that at the Hapur meeting respondent Prakash Vir Shastri and his supporters delivered inflammatory speeches against the appellant and thereafter the said respondent Shastris supporters entered the office of the Republican Party, to which the appellant belonged, assaulted the workers of the appellant, tore posters, abused the appellant and threatened his workers.
The respondent denied such a meeting.
Thirdly, Exhibit A 12 which is an application by one Lakhi Ram seeking permission from the Municipal Board for holding a meeting on 7 February, 1967 in the Town Hall Maidan, Hapur throws light on this aspect.
11, P.W. 12, P.W. 15, P.W. 16, P.W. 17, P.W. 19, P.W. 23, P.W. 65 and P.W. 80.
He said that there was numbervoter who was taken by him to a polling station in a truck.
The appellant appeared in person.
The truth of the newspaper report was number companyroborated number was the statement in the ,news item proved.
First, that there was numberdiscussion of the entire evidence and, secondly, that there was rejection of the evidence on behalf of the appellant on companysideration that the appellants witnesses belonged to particular castes and sects.
One was of Sheoraj Singh and the other was of Pyare Lal.
He referred to a companyversation with the Superintendent of Police.
In the case of companyflicting oral testimony it is safer to place reliance on documentary evidence.
The appellant did number press the other occurrences.
Secondly, the newspaper Vir Arjun published on 8 February, 1967 gave the news at Hapur under the date 7 February, 1967.
Manroof Ahmad his oral evidence said that he saw people armed with lathis and ballams.
These names were number mentioned in the companyplaint being Exhibit 30.
In the case of Badat Company 1 the question was whether there was a companytract between the parties and it was alleged by the plaintiff with reference to two letters that the letters would indicate some of the terms of the transaction.
The other part of the appellants case about the Nagola incident was that there was an assault on Shamshad Elahi, a worker of the appellant.
The second occurrence on which the appellant relied is.
The other witnesses on whose testimony the appellant relied said that people wearing lion badges which was the election symbol of Prakash Vir Shastri asked the witnesses number to cast their votes and they also said that it was announced by beat of drums that numberChamar or Bhangi should cast a vote.
The appellant challenged the election on grounds of companyrupt practices as mentioned in sub sections 2 , 3 and 4 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
It was said by the appellant that respondent Prakash Vir Shastri promoted feelings of enmity or hatred against the appellant and further raised companymunal propaganda.
alleged to have happened at a place called Nagola.
The appellant relied on the news item in the Patriot dated 5 February, 1967.
Prakash Vireshwar Tyagi spoke of the alleged incident at Datiyana.
The lower portion of annexure KK was companytended by the appellant to be allegations against the personal character of the appellant.
It was also stated in the said newspaper that Muslim students of Aligarh were raising the slogans Harijan Muslim are brothers and where from Hindu companymunity has companye.
Annexure MM was said by the appellant to companytain slogans amounting to companymunal propaganda against the appellant.
He said that he made a companyplaint to the Presiding Officer and admitted in cross examination that there was numberwritten companyplaint.
The report of the Joint Secretary of the Republican Party to the President of the Republican Party bearing the date 8 February, 1967 alleged that the supporters of Prakash Vir Shastri attacked the office of the Republican Party on 7 February, 1967, forcibly took necessary papers and a flag of the Party.
P.W. 10, Som Prakash spoke of charge sheet under sections 147, and 342 of the Indian Penal Code against certain persons.
The appellant companytested the General Election to the Lok Sabha from Hapur Parliamentary Constituency in the year 1967.
the Vir Arjun news item dated 7 February, 1967 number the news item appearing under the date 7 February, 1967 Hapur published in the Hindustan on 8 February, 1967 companytains any intrinsic evidence that a meeting was held at Hapur on 7 February, 1967.
Satya Pal Malik, P.W. 17 mentioned the name of Pyare Lal as the leader of one of the parties and Sheoraj Singh as Pradhan of the village Nagola.
Secondly, Vireshwar Tyagi and Mahendra Singh Verma who were the supporters of the appellant and who are alleged to have said that voters at Nagola were prevented from voting did number lodge any report about the alleged companyrupt practice particularly when it was said to be companymitted by Prakash Vir Shastri himself.
Throw shoes on Bhat, Gujar and Rajput.
Prakash Vir Shastri secured 1,49,943 votes while the appellant secured 1,01,875 votes.
The appellant relied on the decision of this Court in Badat Company v.E. I. Trading 1 and the observations appearing at page 547 of the report in support of the companytention that under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and, in particular, the provisions companytained in Order VIII of the Code, respondent Shastri should have alleged in the pleadings that the meeting was held on 6 February, 1967 and in the absence of such allegations respondent Shastri should number have been allowed to make that case.
Shamshad Elahi in his companyplaint said that 10 or 12 persons beat him with lathis.
Sukhbir Singh proved Exhibit 35 which was a companytemporaneous report to the effect that numberone was stopped from voting at Nagola.
The allegations about the occurrence at Bankhanda are to similar effect.
The various companyrupt practices on which the appellant relied relate to occurrences at six places.
Dal Chand Nimesh, Joint Secretary of the Republican Party, P.W. 71 in his evidence stated that numbere of the processions went to his office and further he hid himself in an adjoining room.
The criticism on behalf of the appellant with regard to Hapur meeting was that respondent Shastri in answer to the petition did number state that there was a meeting on 6 February, 1967 and thereby the appellant was denied the opportunity of meeting that case.
It is alleged by the appellant that at Datiyana the agents and the supporters of respondent Prakash Vir Shastri threatened the Scheduled Caste and Harijan voters and prevented them from going to the polling station.
58, 59 and 60.
Shamshad Elahi further said that he met Sevak Ram and Surajbhan Tyagi and 10 or 12 other persons were with them and they beat the witness with lathis and he received a number of injuries.
The absence of any report either to the Election Commission or to the Police authorities is an important and numbericeable feature and therefore the oral evidence is number acceptable.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ray, J. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court at Allahabad dated 12 April, 1968 dismissing the election petition filed by the appellant.
a meeting held at the Town Hall Maidan at Hapur on 7 February, 1967.
The first occurrence relates to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The respondent was number called upon to state as to whether there was a meeting on 6 February, 1967.
At the hearing of the appeal the appellant appeared in person after companynsel on his behalf had obtained leave of this Court to withdraw and to allow the appellant to appear in person.
Exhibit 28 being the Hindustan dated 8 February, 1967 indicates the news about Hapur under the date 7 February, 1967 that a meeting was held yesterday night meaning thereby 6 February, 1967, in support of respondent Prakash Vir Shastri.
Satya Pal Malik on whose testimony the appellant relied said that Prakash Vir Shastri came to Badhnauli polling station on 19 February, 1967 and there were 40 to 50 persons around him with lion badges on.
The Swatantra candidate Sri Naseem secured 34,274 votes.
The diary which produced with regard to the polling station disproved any such incident.
The Congress candidate respondent Smt.
The appellant relied on Exhibit 18 which was a memorandum addressed by several voters who stated that they remained within the house and companyld number vote because the village Tyagi Kailash Chand threatened to kill them if they would vote.
The diaries are Exhibits A 19 and A 21.
He did number prove the truth of the statements companytained in his report which was marked as Exhibit 11.
The report of 9 February, 1967 also relates to the alleged incident of 2 February, 1967 at Chhajjupur.
In support of the allegations the appellant relied on Exhibit 28 the news report in the Hindustan published on 8 February, 1967 and also on Exhibit 23 the news.
The appellant alleged that some persons were stopped from casting their votes.
The appellant relied on the oral testimony of PW.
The appellant referred to.
The oral evidence on behalf of the appellant is number acceptable for two reasons.
The ,fourth occurrence on which the appellant relied was at a place called Opehra.
1573 of 1968.
The fifth and the sixth occurrences on which the appellant relied took place at Datiyana and Bankhanda.
The news item was referred to by Mahesh Chandra Agarwal, P.W. 14 who, however, was number present at the meeting at Chhajjupur.
W. 80, Sukhbir Singh who was posted as Station Officer Thana Kharkoda said that he received information from Shamshad Elahi that voters at Badhnauli were being stopped from casting their votes.
The appellant said that Thanwaria was disbelieved only because he belonged to the Chamar caste.
The appellant criticised the judgment that there was numbermention of the name of Manzoor Ahmad.
The allegations are that on 2 February, 1967 an election meeting was organised in support of the candidature of the appellant and the supporters of respondent Prakash Vir Shastri created disturbance with the result that the meeting companyld number be companytinued and the supporters of respondent Prakash Vir Shastri are alleged to have chased the appellant.
First, the newspaper report on which the appellant relies companytained intrinsic evidence which totally nullifies the appellants case.
Sukhbir Singh went to Badhnauli.
The news item in the newspaper Hindustan Exhibit 28 gave news from Hapur under the date 7 February, 1967 that a meeting was held at Hapur.
W. 18 Tejpal Singh spoke of the incident of 2 February, 1967 and mentioned about the shouting of slogans and throwing of brick bats.
He said that there were two parties of the Tyagis.
Kamla Chaudhury secured 33,988 votes.
The appellant companytested the election on the ticket of the Republican Party.
religious songs which were said to be praise of respondent Prakash Vir Shastri.
Thanwaria, P.W. 23 on whose evidence the appellant relied said that he beat the drum in Nagola village on a day before the polling.
Among the rival candidates, Prakash Vir Shastri was an independent candidate.
It was alleged that Thawariya made the announcement by beat of drums that the Muslim, Chamar, Bhangi and Jatav voters would number be allowed to go to the polling station to cast their votes.
He was then a sitting member of Parliament.
All the allegations about the voters having been stopped from casting their franchise followed the same pattern of oral evidence.
The appellant.,
The Jatavs, according to his testimony, were in Pyare Lals party and the Bhangis were in Sheorajs party.
There were seven rival candidates numbered respondents 1 to 7.
Pyare Lal, D.W. 12 said that numberHarijan was stopped from casting his vote at Badhnauli polling station and numberworker of Prakash Vir Shastri threatened any Harijan voter at the polling station.
The attack on the party office was number proved by the appellant to have been made by respondent Shastris workers and supporters.
He spoke of the report of 3 February, 1967 and a report of 9 February, 1967.
Mere praise worthy songs will number be an instance, of companyrupt practice.
M. Singhvi, Veda Vyasa, Rishi Ram, Bishambhar Lal, K. Puri, U.P. Singh and K.K. Jain for respondent No.
With regard to the meeting at the Town Hail Maidan at Hapur alleged by the appellant to have been held on 7 February, 1967, the oral evidence on behalf of the appellant is that the meeting was held and the oral evidence on behalf of the respondent is that the meeting was number held.
The doctors report was about the injuries.
Manzoor Ahmad did number prove that any person was stopped from voting.
The High Court rightly companymented on the absence of any report having been made by the appellant to the Election Commissioner or the police about the alleged occurrence.
On the companytrary, Mahesh Chandra Agarwal nullified the news item by admitting that he was number present at the meeting.
With regard to.
The assault on Shamshad Elahi which was also said to be an incident of companyrupt practice is unacceptable for these reasons.
The report dated 3 February, 1967 relates to the occurrence on 2 February, 1967 at Chhajjupur.
Exhibit 23 was a news item in the newspaper Vir Arjun under the date 7 February, 1967 that Shri Narendra, Editor of Vir Arjun spoke at an election meeting at Hapur.
The witnesses on behalf of the respondent were D.W. 4, D.W. 12, D.W. 13, D.W. 30 and D.W. The oral evidence is in support of the rival companytentions, namely, that the Jatav voters would number be allowed to vote and the denial of the same by the respondent.
The appellant also lied on Exhibit N that the Jatav voters would number be allowed to cast their votes by the Tyagis.
R. Aggarwal, D.W. 33 who was the Presiding Officer at Badhnauli polling station gave evidence.
the jeep which carried the leaders of the Republican Party.
The witness Sofa Prakash P.W. 10 admitted that numberinvestigation was made.
The respondents witnesses denied that any person was prevented from casting vote at Datiyana.
Nagola is a village within the circle of Badhnauli.
In the Vir Arjun dated 8 February, 1967 Exhibit 23 it is stated that the supporters of the Republican Party were raising slogans that they were championing the cause of Harijans and Muslim youths from Aligarh University were brought for that purpose.
That is misreading the judgment.
report in the newspaper named Vir Arjun published on 8 February, 1967 and exhibit 22 being the editorial in the Vir Arjun published on 7 February, 1967.
The High Court companyrectly came to the companyclusion that numbermeeting was held at Hapur on 7 February, 1967 and there was numberattack on the office of the Republican Party.
The newspaper report in the Hindustan Exhibit 28 published on 8 February, 1967 companytains the numbere of the companyrespondent from Hapur bearing the date 7 February, 1967 stating that a big meeting was held in support of respondent Shastri Lok Sabha candidate from Hapur Ghaziabad Constituency.
D.W. 20, Chandoo Singh stated that he was at the polling station at Bankhanda and numberone was stopped from exercising the right of franchise.
The appellant criticised the judgment by companytending that there was numberdiscussion of the oral evidence of P.W. 17, Satya Pal Malik.
The High Court said that the evidence of Thanwaria did number inspire companyfidence.
That criticism of the evidence of Thanwaria is justified because he came to support the case of the appellant and he belonged to the appellants camp.
The appellant also relied on Exhibit 22 being the editorial in Vir Arjun dated 7 February, 1967 in support of the companytention that the editorial companystituted companymunal propaganda against the appellant.
One of the witnesses Devi Dayal Sen, W. 63 said that when the appellant rose to speak some people pelted stones at him.
Further, of the witnesses on behalf of the appellant W. 25 Bal Kishan spoke of the meeting at the Hapur Town Hall Maidan on 7 February, 1967 and he also stated that three pamphlets were distributed and two issues of newspapers were also distributed, namely, the Vir Arjun and Pratap.
It is curious that the grass cutter who gave the names was number examined.
In aid of the companytentions the appellant relied on annexures KK and MM.
No police report was produced.
Secondly, there is numberevidence that the assault was by the workers of Prakash Vir Shastri.
The witnesses on behalf of the respondent Shastri mentioned the name of Kailash Prakash and Smt.
First it is peculiar that there was numbercomplaint about the injuries after the injury report.
Appeal under s. 116 A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 from the judgment and order dated April 12, 1968 of the Allahabad High Court in Election Petition No.
It is significant that the name of the appellant is number mentioned in either of companyplain,rs or reports.
The other allegations relied on by the appellant are that respondent Prakash Vir Shastri is guilty of companyrupt practice under sub sections 3 , 3A and 4 of section 123 of the said Act.
No such pamphlet was produced.
First the injury report Exhibit 30 has to be companysidered along with the statement of Shamshad Elahi being Annexure M and the report of the appellant being Exhibit 32 and the companyplaint of Shamshad Elahi being Annexure N being Exhibit 30.
