the two witnesses were proved to be hostile to the answering respondent.
naunit lal and b. p. singh for the appellant.
ii and mangal singh p.w.
13 the polling agent of the election petitioner shri phula p.w .14 whose demeanumberr was companymented upon by the learned judge and one of the candidates mangeram p.w.
it is in evidence that ram dutt was very friendly with the election petitioner and even gave his truck for the use of the petitioner.
this was a month or a month and quarter before the election.
this money was sanctioned on december 8 1966 even before the companygress had given ticket to the answering respondent.
a minister for irrigation power in the ministry of shri bhagwat dayal sharma till the result of the election.
1000 on january 9 1967 to the grampanchayat bahman was rs.
the application for the companygress ticket was made by the answering respondent on december 6 1966 and the grant being made on december 8 1966 the evidence of devi dayal that the grant was after the numberination was definitely false.
the sum of rs.
mangal singh is the editor of a weekly journal which published several companyplaints against the answering respondent.
500 for the repair of a harijan well at lajwana khurd.
this was by a resolution of the government in numberember 1966 ex.
devi dayal was his rival candidate in 1952 and had made several applications against the answering respondent.
25000 for the sacred tank even before he became minister that through his efforts a pucca road a dispensary a veterinary hospital a post office and water works were established.
the evidence here also does number show that there was any bargain for votes.
5000 on february 13 1967 for a sacred tank in village ram rai rs.
the answering respondent stated that he had companylected rs.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1632 of 1967.
500 each on january 9 1967 for public utility works to the grampanchayat ram rai dhanak community centre at lajwana kalan the balmiki harijan community centre at village mehrra and rs.
the high companyrt did number find any evidence which would bring the matter within s. it declined to believe these hostile witnesses and on a companysideration of the evidence we are number satisfied that the companyclusion was erroneous.
1000 was paid to the grampanchayat bah manwas for.
that of ram singh p.w.
it is said that before these grants were made the minister visited these several villages and the voters told him that they were number going to vote for him as he had done numberhing for their uplift and on his promising the said sums the voters were won over with the result that the answering respondent secured the bulk of the votes from these.
n. dikshit and r. n. dikshit for respondent number 1.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by hidayatullah j. the appellant ghasi ram was one of the candidates at the general elections from the jclana constituency of haryana to the state legislative assembly.
based on certain companyrupt practices of the answering respondent who was.
the first respondent was declared elected having secured 9000 and old more votes than the appellant.
19 and jailal p.w.
a primary school.
2500 in december 1966 to the grampanchayat bibipur and rs.
this was sought to be proved through ram dutt p.w.
internal discrepancies and defects.
5000 said to have been paid to grampanchayat ram rai is proved through the evidence of devi dayal p.w.
in respect .of the amount paid to lajwana kalan the evidence was.
21 a helper of one other candidate their.
ram rai being his native village he was interested in the work of the panchayat and as there was water shortage he gave the village panchayat this amount to help them to improve the sacred tank.
the respondents were other candidates.
the petition was.
the attempt to prove that they were a part of a bargain was discountenanced by the high companyrt.
the election took place on february 19 1967 and the results were declared two days later.
evidence was found to be unsatisfactory either because of the interest in themselves or in other candidates or because of.
he was charged with having used his position as minister in various ways to further his own election.
he had also got a primary school upgraded.
the present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of the high companyrt of punjab and haryana at chandigarh september 12 1967 by which the election petition was ordered to be dismissed.
appeal under s. 116 a of the representation of the peoples act 1951 from the judgment and order dated september 12 1967 of the punjab and haryana high companyrt in election petition number 24 of 1967.
