4 of 1967.
Thereafter he has brought this appeal under S. 11 6A of the Act.
S. Bobde and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for respondent No.
M. Singhvi, S. S. Khanduja, M. P. Khaitan and P. Krishna Rao, for respondent No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. This appeal raises the question as to the validity of the election of Mr. R. K. Birla to the Lok Sabha, in the General Election held in 1967, from the Jhunjhunu companystituency in the State of Rajasthan.
1 incurred an expense of about six lakhs of rupees for purchasing petrol and mobil oil in companynection with his election.
In Ex.
The polling took place on February 15, 18 and 20th.
Thereafter cash .deposits of over 2 lakhs of rupees were, made in that account.
In fact it was Mr. Tibriwalla who withdrew the amounts from that account and utilized the same in companynection with the election ,of respondent No.
PW 42/6, Mr. M. P. Birla had written to respondent No.
2 companytested the election.
The election of respondent No.
1 gave numberice of filing recrimination against Mr. Morarka.
In his election return respondent has shown an expense of only Rs.
He himself companytested one of the assembly companystituencies in the Jhunjhunu parliamentary companystituency.
The election for that companystituency was held in the month of February 1967.
5,700/ to M s. Gangaram Jamnadhar of Burmah Shell.
2 , 123 5 hiring or procuring vehicles for the free companyveyance of electors and 123 6 incurring or authorising the incurring of expenditure in companytravention of s. 77 .
At the trial of the case most of the grounds alleged in support of the petition were number pressed.
1 PW 32 lent his name as a companyer.
It was alleged in the election petition that respondent No.
The numberification calling upon the companystituency to elect one member to the Lok Sabha was published on January 13, 1967.
Counsel for the appellant asked us to hold that the account in the name of PW 32 was in reality the account of respondent No.
It was further alleged therein that respondent No.
On the very day of the opening of the account a cheque for Rs.
Was the position in law at all different from the position that the father had given these employees a holiday on full pay and they voluntarily rendered assistance to the appellant in companynection with his election.
Several persons filed their numberinations but some out of them withdrew later.
1 a sum of Rs.
an account was opened in the Pilani branch of the United Commercial Bank in the name of P.W. 32, Mr. Raghuvir Singh who was at that time the President of Jhunjhunu District Swatantra Party.
According to the declaration made by the returning officer, respondent No.
As regards your further requirement of jeeps, you write that 10115 jeeps can be delivered immediately by the Rajasthan agent of Mahindra.
It is number necessary to refer to the other candidates in the companyrse of this judgment.
The account books of those firms were also number got produced.
1 to Mr. M. P. Birla.
5,0001 and, another sum of Rs.
The respondent denied the allegations made against him.
2,000/ to the proprietor of Arjundeo Dharmat of Caltex and 2 a sum of Rs.
To prove the, payment of sum of Rs.
Counting companymenced on the 21st of that month and companypleted on the 23rd on which date results were declared.
Though the petitioner alleged in his petition that respondent No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In the election petition the petitioner alleged that respondent No.
717/68 decided on 23 8 1968.
1,50,000/ issued by C.A.C.O. Cement Allocation and Co ordination Organization was credited.
1 and Mr. Morarka Radheshyam Respondent No.
PW 14/5 the genuineness of this letter is in dispute respondent No.
2, 1,04,023.
In Ex.
The last date for filing the numberination was January 20, 1967.
S. R. Chari, G. V. Pai, H. J. Thakkar, Janendra Lal and B. R. Agarwala, for the appellant.
1 was an independent candidate and that he was put up by the House of Birlas, one of the wealthiest business houses in the companyntry who own and or companytrol and or manage several companypanies.
Later on he was told by the proprietor of the firm that it was in companynection with the supply of petrol and oil to respondent No.
Respondent No.
Eleven persons including Mr. R. K. Birla respondent No.
1 was declared elected.
It is clear from his cross examination the companyrt permitted the Counsel for the petitioner to cross examine him much reliance cannot be placed on his evidence.
2 and lost the election by a narrow margin.
As found by the trial companyrt voluminous false evidence has been adduced in this case both on behalf of the petitioner as well as on behalf of respondent No.
1 during his cross examination were number found to be true by the trial companyrt.
In the 1962 General Election, he opposed respondent No.
1 secured 1,50,546 votes and respondent No.
1 had incurred an expense of about 6 lakhs for purchase of petrol and mobil oil, evidence was led only about three payments in that regard viz.
In support of this companytention he relied on the following circumstances The money was paid by C.A.C.O., a companycern in which Birlas were interested.
1094 of 1969.
5466 89P under that head.
His petition was tried and dismissed by a single judge of the Rajasthan High Court.
1 to the companystituency and they lived there for over a month and worked for respondent No.
1 himself was a man of companysiderable means.
He was a supporter of respondent No.
1 had spent about 2 lakhs of rupees on printing of posters, pamphets, leaflets and cartoons and the preparation of badges of the election symbol Star, rubber balcons with the slogans vote for Birla and flags of silk and companyton clothes and their distribution as also on wall paintings.
Immediately thereafter Mr. Morarka withdrew his claim for the seat and companytended that the petitioner companyld number claim the seat for him.
These monies were drawn by P.W. 32 mostly by issuing cheques in favour of Mr. Tibriwalla, one of the Birla Executives.
Several of the answers given by respondent No.
It is dated 30 12 1966.
As seen earlier the petitioners allegation in the petition was that respondent No.
According to the petitioner during the companyrse of election companypaign many top Executives of several companypanies owned or companytrolled by the House of Birlas were brought by respondent No.
The appellant who is a voter in the Jhunjhunu companystituency and a supporter of Mr. Morarka challenged the election of the repondent under s. 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act on various grounds.
P.W. 32 is undoubtedly an interested witness.
It was alleged that he had companymitted companyrupt practices companying under S. 123 1 bribery , 123 4 false statements as regards the personal character and companyduct of respondent No.
1 was challenged on various grounds.
1 and cheques were mostly issued in favour of Mr. Tibriwalla.
1 to say that he would persuade A.C.O. to make some companytribution to Swatantra party and further the cheque companyld be sent through respondent No.
No person companynected with any of these pumps was examined in support of the alleged payments.
Appeal under s. 116 A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 of the judgment and order dated February 17, 1969 of the Rajasthan High Court in Election Petition No.
