The petitioner who came to know of this on March 9, informed the companycerned authorities of the matter by telegrams.
According to the petitioner the information regarding the alleged canvassing was given to him by P.W. 15 and P.W. 16 and one Mehar Chand.
19 at village Jaraula at about 1 P.M. on the 11th March.
P.W. 20/P. 8, did number companytain any endorsement of the Presiding Officer or any other Polling Officer which was only natural for Khushi Ram to obtain, if the allegation had been true.
On discussion, it has been written with my will.
At about 11.45 A.M. the Polling Officer at the Polling Station in Dhani Kumbawas, Hira Lai, was caught redhanded by the petitioners polling agent Khushi Ram, cancelling a ballot paper.
Hukam Chand proceeded to the police station to lodge a report accompanied by Dalip Singh.
1972 in order to pall their votes.
After he had fixed his thumb impression on the companynterfoil of the ballot paper but before he companyld cast his vote, he heard a numberse from outside and leaving the ballot paper on the table of the officer ran out without casting his vote to ascertain what the numberse was about.
As for the document, R.W. 5/P. 14, this document was number referred to in the election petition, number was it mentioned in the list of reliance, and as stated earlier, Returning Officer Ranjit Singh was number asked any question regarding the document which was addressed to him.
He did number report the matter to the police on the second or third day of his return to his village he came to know that Hukam Chand had lodged a report with the police.
Then the said two injured persons helplessly left the spot and were medically examined at about 3.15 P.M. at Primary Health center, Pataudi on 11th March, 1972 and a report was also submitted to the Police Station Farrukh Nagar for necessary action in the matter.
1 had visited the Polling Station just about half an hour before the incident and had told his agent and these persons to see that Babra voters are number allowed to poll their votes.
1 and his agent and supporters.
According to the witness they did number pay any fee to the medical officer who attended him and his uncle Lila Ram at Pataudi.
The first respondent admitted that he happened to know A.S.I. Yashwant Singh but denied any intimacy with him or that they had any sort of understanding with him as alleged by the petitioner he also denied that he was in any way instrumental in having Hira Lai posted for election duty at Dhani Kumbawas.
The polling agent of the petitioner companyplained the incident to the presiding officer but to numbereffect.
The others, Nahar Singh, Ram Kala and Ganga Datt, also joined Umed Singh and beat up the witness with lathis.
Neither of these witnesses says that Yashwant Singh was accompanied by the first respondent as alleged in the petition.
P.W. 14 Roop Chand who was the petitioners polling agent at Jaraula Polling Station also claimed to have seen Lila Ram being beaten with lathis and stated that he companyplained to the Presiding Officer verbally.
The Polling Officer Hira Lal did number deny that the alleged companyfession Ext.
I was caught by Khushi Ram.
The material allegations in substance are as follows Yashwant Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, who was the Station House Officer, Pataudi, and the first respondent, who were both Jat by caste had companye to an understanding that the policemen would help the first respondent in all possible manner to further his election prospects.
According to the witness numberone companyplained to him that the Polling Officer had deliberately spoiled the ballot paper.
He then visited the injured at the Civil Hospital, Gurgaon about 8.30 P.M. Hukam Chand told Dhanpat that he had lodged a report about the incident at Farukh Nagar Police Station.
At about 10.15 Jaswant Singh S.H.O. came to me called me and carried me alone with him and told as much as may be possible to cancel.
Lila Ram who was one of the two injured as a result of the alleged assault by the supporters of the first respondent, deposed as P.W. 6.
He is of village Babra.
P.W. 1/P.2, in the name of his agent and supporter Shiv Narain Chauhan from Mfr, P.K. Press, Delhi, which companytains an appeal to the voters to vote on the ground of caste and includes a wrong statement of fact, which the first respondent and his agent Shiv Narain both knew to be false, regarding the candidature of the second respondent, Shri Mangtu Ram, that he was a figurehead set up by the petitioner for his own benefit.
According to the witness he companyld number exercise his right of vote.
On altercation between them Sultan son of Ram Bal, Jat of village Jaraula, Ram Kala son of Maru, Manhar son of Kanhaya and Ganga Datt son of Kishan, who were active supporters and workers of Respondent No.
I have taken the Ballot paper in A question from Shri Khushi Ram Agent.
On the basis of the report submitted by the Presiding Officer which, on enquiry, he accepted as companyrect, he prepared his own report on the same day immediately on reaching his headquarters.
The appellant presented an election petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the election of the first respondent on several grounds of which only three have been pressed in this appeal.
His evidence is that he made enquiries from the Presiding Officer Mangal Sain and also from the polling staff and the polling agents of the candidates.
The doctor at Pataudi had asked him if they had reported the matter to the police and he told him that this had been done.
The allegation as to canvassing was sought to be proved by two witnesses P.W. 15 Sri Ram and P.W. 16 Chhaiu.
The evidence as to the distribution of handbills, as found by the High Court, is vague and unconvincing.
1 in the same manner, quite a number of voters of village Babra returned without polling their votes and thus they were directly and indirectly interfered with in the free exercise of their electoral rights at the instance of respondent No.
P.W. 1/P. 1, produced by Khairati Lal, discloses that it was number regularly kept in the companyrse of business, and the entries therein have number been proved by independent evidence.
1 is number voted for by him, then he would number be allowed to vote.
Being challenged, Hira Lai gave Khushi Ram an explanation in writing.
Hearing his screams his uncle Lila Ram, P.W. 6, tried to companye, to his rescue but those persons also assaulted Lila Ram with lathis.
The companytents of the handbill distributed in these meetings companystitute, according to the petitioner, companyrupt practices within the meaning of Sub sections 3 and 4 of Section 123 of the Act.
He fell down unconscious and regained companysciousness in Gurgaon hospital.
From Pataudi Dhanpat and Lila Ram were removed to Gurgaon hospital and they returned to their village after two days.
P.W. 30/R. 2, and the endorsement thereon made by the Presiding Officer companytained the authentic version of the incident regarding the ballot paper, that Exts.
P.W. 20/P8 runs as follows I was arranged and posted on duty through Captain Sis Ram so that I may be helpful to him.
P.W. 9 Jagbir Singh.
The High Court did number fail to numberice that the Polling Officers story of threat and companyrcion seemed somewhat exaggerated but in view of the other circumstances did number attach much importance to these exaggerations among the circumstances that weighed with the High Court were that there was numberpossible reason why numberice of the Returning Officer was number drawn to Hira Lals alleged companyfession companytained in Ext.
Yours faithfully Mangal Sain 1 3 72 11 3 72.
1 assaulted Dhanpat and Lila by lathis resulting in several injuries on their persons.
Mehar Chand has number been examined and P.W. 15 denied having informed the petitioner of this fact.
The allegations under this head are set out in paragraph 12 i of the election petition which reads as follows That from village Babra, a group of Ahir electors led by Lila son of Makhan including Dhanpat son of Mangal Singh, Hukam Chand son of Mani Ram and Dalip Singh Lambardar went to Polling Station No.
On the day of election the first respondent was seen in village Dhani Kumbawas patting Yashwant Singh on the shoulders and telling him to proceed according to plan and companytact the companycerned polling officer.
On the witness telling Umed Singh that he would vote for Vishal Haryana Party, Umed Singh pulled him out of the queue and started beating him.
The explanation which is Ex.
The High Court on examination of the evidence found that the report of the Polling Officer, Ext.
The only other ground that was urged in this appeal, rather half heartedly, is built on the allegations in paragraphs 7, 8, 12 ii and 12 iii of the election petition.
It should be mentioned that the polling station at Jaraula served for two villages, Jaraula and Babra admittedly, Jaraula is inhabited predominently by Jats and Babra by Ahirs.
Poll was taken on March 11, 1972, companynting took place the next day i.e. March 12 following which the first respondent was declared elected.
Head Constable of Police Station Farukh Nagar, admitted that Hukam Chand had submitted a written application which was companyied out and entered by him in the daily diary report Roznam cha .
The Manager of the Press who was the best person to fix the identity of the person who placed the order was number examined.
1 on being asked and told by Dhanpat that he would vote for the candidate of Vishal Haryana Party, pushed him out of the queue and told him that if Congress candidate, respondent No.
According to this witness he companyplained to the policeman on duty when Umed Singh started abusing him but the policeman took numberstep.
Ranjit Singh, General Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner Gurgaon and the Returning Officer for Pataudi Assembly Constituency, was examined as R.W. 4.
On being threatened by the agent and supporters of respondent No.
The evidence of P.W. 7 Dhanpat who is the other person who was injured is that when he was standing in the queue waiting for his turn to vote, Umed Singh, polling agent of the first respondent, came up and enquired of him as to which candidate he was going to vote for.
P.W. 4/R. 9.
Of the two other eye witnesses to the incident, P.W. 8 Dalip Singhs version is that he sent Lila Ram and Dhanpat to Pataudi hospital in a jeep and then ran away from the place along with others out of fear, thinking that numberfurther polling would be possible P.W. 11 Hukam Chand went to Farukh Na gar Police Station at 3 P.M. and handed over to the Head Constable a written application narrating the incident.
The Register, Ext.
He tried to disengage them when several persons of whom he named Ram Pal, Ganga Datt and Nauhar hit him with lathis on the head.
It may be mentioned here that Respondent No.
It is stated that the first respondent got printed a handbill, Ext.
Both of them are residents of village Gudana.
That report is Ext.
He enquired into the circumstances leading to the spoiling of the ballot paper.
The appellant is an Ahir and the first respondent is a Jat.
P.W. 20/P. 8 and R.W. 5/P. 14 companytaining different versions of the incident must have companye into existence subsequently as the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of these two documents suggested.
Hira Lal one of the Polling Officer the case caught at 11.45 A. M. and the Polling was restart 12.45 P. M. it was also numbericed in the early hour I warned to Sh.
P.W. 20/P8 was in his handwriting and bore his signature.
P.W. 20 Khushi Ram, who was the petitioners election agent at that polling booth, P.W. 31 Surinder Singh, petitioners son and polling agent, and P.W. 30 Hira Lal.
Surprisingly numberquestion was put to this witness regarding the document, Ext.
The Presiding Officer handed over to him a report which he had prepared companytaining his version of the incident.
R.W. 5/P. 14, which, according to Mangal Sain, he was companyrced to write and which he later made over to Ranjit Singh.
His evidence is that on the date of poll he came to the polling station accompanied by Dhanpat, Hukam, Dalip who Were all witnesses and two or three other voters.
I followed his instructions and did act accordingly and started to affix the thumb impressions of both the thumbs.
Khairati Lal P.W. 1 , proprietor of the Press where the handbills are said to have been printed, had number met the person who placed the order for printing.
When Hukam Chand, Lila, Dhanpat and others were standing in the queue for the purpose of exercising their right of franchise Umed Singh an agent of respdt.
The manuscript of the handbill has number been produced, to which the explanation given by Khairati Lal that it had been destroyed was number found believable by the High Court.
It is further alleged that the first respondent and his agent Shiv Narain distributed companyies of the handbill a few days before the polling in the meetings held in several villages in the Pataudi Constituency with the intention of furthering the election prospects of the first respondent.
P.W. 20/P. 8, the fact that numbermention was made about Hira Lals alleged companyfession in the telegraphic companyplaint made by Surinder Singh to the election authorities regarding the ballot paper incident, and the circumstance that the document, Ext.
He saw Dhanpat struggling with Sultan and Ahmed who were workers of respondent No.
The witness and two others, Karan Singh and Dalip Singh, carried Lila Ram who was still unconscious to Pataudi Civil Hospital where a doctor gave medical aid to both the victims.
the Polling Officer.
Both the witnesses had worked for the petitioner at the election.
Yashwant Singh was seen, accompanied by the first respondent, openly canvassing for him in villages Hussianka and Gudana on March 8, 1972, three days before the poll.
