The Election Commission issued the numberification calling for election on the 1 1 1969 The last date for filing numberination papers was 8 1 1969,the date of scrutiny was 9 1 1969 and the date of withdrawal of numberination papers was 11 1 1969.
The allegation is that Swamiji, accompanied by the appellant and one Bhola Rai of the same caste, went to a number of villages and appealed to individual voters there to vote for the appellant on the ground that he was a member of the caste, that he had, with great difficulty, obtained a ticket from the Central Board of the Congress Party, and that, if he was defeated on this occasion, the members of the caste would lose prestige and position in the various villages.
Nine candidates, including the appellant, and the respondent Sachhidanand Singh who filed the election petition, filed their numberination papers One candidate withdrew his candidature on the 11th January, 1969.
Polling took place on the 9th February, 1969 followed by the companynting of the ballot papers and declaration of the result on 11th February, 1969.
and in this way, the appellant, his workers and agents, with the companysent of the appellant, number only terrorised the voters and workers of the respondent, but also restrained them from canvassing, working for the respondent, securing votes for him, or voting for him In the particulars forming part of Schedule 2, this companyrupt practice Was alleged to have been companymitted in three villages, Kurchani, Dumdurna and Mukhraon However, numberevidence was led during the trial in respect of village Kurhani.
Similarly, the theory of companylusion at that early stage is totally unbelievable A forged letter or a letter in companylusion companyld possibly have been obtained for the purpose of challenging the election only after the appellant had already succeeded in the election He was declared successful on the 11th February, 1969.
Evidence was led to the effect that the appellant and his workers with his companysent resrained the workers of the respondent from proceeding to do canvassing in village Dumduma on 30th January, 1969 and, for that purpose, surrounded them, threatened them with lathis, and threw brickbats at them.
Such Voters are spread out in 15 to 20 villages and they are all known as Sarkarwar family of Bhumihar caste Swamiji companymands the highest respect in this companymunity in these villages, because he works for the welfare of the members of this caste and also tries to attain unity and supremacy for the caste in polities.
In the election petition, here was a general pleading that the appellant managed to use force in order to check the workers and innocent voters, who were supporting the candidature of the respondent, from going to the villages and the polling stations to canvass and cast their votes and he further managed to get bogus votes polled in his favour in place of those voters as well as other voters.
It cannot, therefore, be accepted that this letter was either forged or obtained by companylusion before the 11th February, 1969.
It was further pleaded that the appellant, through his agents and workers, did number even allow the respondent and his voters and workers to move and meet other voters in several villages by using force, lathi, dhela and gherao.
Evidence was further led that on 31st January, 1969, the workers of the appellant with his companysent restrained and prevented the workers of the respondent from entering village Mukhraon for the purpose of canvassing in that village and threw brickbats on them.
The pleading in respect of the first ground of undue influence, which has been found against the appellant, relates to the incidents in two villages, Dumduma and Mukhraon.
This is the appeal on the ground of caste which has been held established by the High Court and forms the second ground for setting aside the election of the appellant.
On companynting of ballot papers, the appellant was found to have received 21,143 votes, while the respondent election petitioner received 19,358 numberes.
The second ground of appeal on the ground of caste is based on the application that the appellant is Bhumihar Brahmin by caste and so is one Swami Bimlanand Saraswati alias Awadh Behari Suman.
He also wrote letters to some important members of the caste, including one Ram Chandra Sharma of village Harpur, who was working for the respondent.
He has also been encouraging social and political organisations in the caste during the last five years or so.
The election of the appellant was challenged by the respondent on various grounds, of which we need mention only two grounds which have been accepted by the High Court of Patna and on the basis of which the election of the appellant has been set aside.
A large number of voters in this companystituency also belong to the same caste and, even within the same caste, they belong particularly to the Bhawadhi of Swamiji.
Swamiji appealed to him, on the ground of caste, to give up the disputes and support the appellant.
The remaining candidates got very few votes ranging between 7 and 694.
Ram Chandra Sharma was also Bhumihar by caste and was number on good terms with the appellant.
Of companyrse, the manner in which the appellant companyld obviously challenge this letter was by examining Swamiji himself as a witness.
The genuineness of this letter cannot be doubled.
