There is numberevidence about its hiring.
His evidence does number carry companyviction.
On his own showing he can be a stooge.
The witnesses who speak to its user are P.Ws.
was number spoken to by any witness.
Against that order the appellant has companye up in appeal.
USK 503 is companycerned, the witnesses who were examined are P.Ws.
That document has several suspicious features which were numbericed by the High Court.
This appeal Under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 arises from the decision in Election Petition No.
He claims to have worked for the respondent and transported voters to the polling station in the truck in question.
That Proclamation was issued during the pendency of this election petition before the High Court.
37, 40, 41, 45 and 48.
Further he deposed that he hired that truck from Achaltar truck operators Union Hathras.
The High Court dismissed the election petition.
He appears to have been on the side of the respondent at one stage and walked over to the side of the appellant at a later stage, number uncommon during election time.
The second objection was that the petition ceased to be maintainable as a resuit of the dissolution of the U.P. Legislative Assembly as per the Presidents Proclamation of April 15, 1968 under Article 356 1 of the Constitution.
In that election the appellant, the respondent and four others companytested.
In that petition the appellant challenged the election of the respondent to the U.P. Legislative Assembly from Iglas Constituency in the general election held in February 1967.
So far as Truck No.
The appellant challenged the election of the respondent on various grounds, most of which were given up either in the trial companyrt or in this Court.
The respondent secured 10,705 votes more than the appellant.
Other candidates secured less votes than the appellant.
In support of the evidence of P.W. 16 reliance was placed on Exh.
Much value cannot be attached to the companyplaint given by the appellants agent to the polling officer Exh.
40 of 1967 on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
Among them the most important witness is P.W. 45 Sukhbir Singh.
The first objection taken was that the petition was number maintainable as it was number properly presented.
D 23, one of the vouchers submitted by the respondent along with his return of election expenses.
The faction spirit generated during election projects itself during the trial of election petition that follows.
In the petition, particulars of as many as twelve vehicles which were said to have been used for companyveying voters were given.
