P.W.1 gave evidence that Suman worked for the respondent in the election and he and Vijay Kumar Agarwal, who is responsible for the printing of Ex.
He speaks to his having attended the meeting on 4 3 1972 and refers to the speech made by Raghubar Prasad Modi, Om Prakash Rai and the respondent.
He is number shown to belong to, any party.
Admittedly also the respondent bad placed other orders with Chhabi Printing Press.
P 3 and Ex.
He speaks to respondent giving him 10 or 11 leaflets for distribution.
He speaks about the meeting presided over by Vijay Kumar Malaiya who was proposed by the respondent as the president.
In certain cases he has disbelieved the evidence of witnesses on the ground that they were number on visiting terms with the respondent.
P 3 and P 4.
From the judgment and order dated the 5th April, 1973 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Election Petition No.
P 52 was filed by the respondent along with the account of his election expenses.
W.24 is a member of the Jan Sangh party who worked for the respondent in his election.
S. Dharamadhikari, T. P. Naik and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant.
He speaks to respondent accompanied by Vinod Kumar Rai having companye to his Mohalla and his being given leaflets for distribution.
K. Gambhir and V. J. Francis, for the respondent.
The printing of this pamphlet was admitted by R.W.2, Ramesh Chand Jain, an advocate, who got it printed along with Atul Kumar Shrivastaya, a companysin of the respondent.
W.7 is a retired Assistant Conservator of Forest and belongs to numberpolitical party and he did number work for any body in the election.
He speaks to Raghubar Prasad Modi speaking at that meeting as also to Om Prakash Rais speech.
But their case was that it was printed in order to present it to the Chief Minister, Mr. P. C. Sethi when he was expected to visit Damoh on 28 2 1972 and as he did number do so the pamphlets were destroyed.
He speaks to the respondent giving him Exs.
He spoke to the respondents part in the printing of this document.
His brother and father also were respondents partisans.
50 said to bave been paid for this printing.
W.26 worked for the respondent in his election.
W.65 is another witness who was engaged by the respondent to distribute the pamphlets.
The declaration in respect of this document was given by one Ajit Modi who also is an active worker of the respondent.
P 3, P 4, P 5, P 6 and P 8 and two public meetings held on 4 3 1972 and 8 3 1972.
We shall number take up the question regarding Ex.
If the witness was a Congress man he was number to be believed as he was a Congress man.
One of the reasons for disbelieving him was that his father also gave evidence.
The appellant, the Congress candidate filed an election petition for declaring the election of the respondent void on various grounds all of which were found number proved by the learned Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh who tried the petition.
29 of 1972.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
If he was a number Congress man he was a tenant of a Congress man or a tenant of a relative of a Congress man and therefore companyld number be believed.
But his father did number give any evidence prejudicial to the respondent.
He also speaks to the respondent having given him Exs.
He also gave evidence that the manuscript was given to him by the respondent who was accompanied by Suman and one Vinod Kumar Rai.
R.9 and R.10 are the declarations in respect of the pamphlet given by Suman.
He was number working for any candidate in the election.
W. 11 speaks to respondent having given him Ex.
W.6 does number belong to any political party number did be work for any of the candidates in the election.
P 3 and P 4.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ALAGIRISWAMI, J. In the election held on 11th March, 1972 to the Legislative Assembly of Madhya Pradesh from Damoh companystituency the respondent, an independent candidate, was declared elected.
He had taken numberinterest in the election of any candidate.
W.4 is a kirana shopkeeper.
He speaks to Om Prakash Rai being present along with the respondent at that time.
The respondent would number have been foolish enough to hangover the pamphlets to the witness.
P 3 and P 4.
P 3, P 4 P 5 on 10th March.
He speaks to P.W.1 and Om Prakash Rai working for respondent, as also Raghubar Prasad Modi and his sons Ajit Modi and Kamal Modi, Uma Agarwal and his son V. K. Agarwal as well as Atul Kumar Shrivastav, respondents companysin.
He speaks to the meeting held on 4th March 1972 to support the respondent addressed by Om Prakash Rai Vijay Kumar Malaiya and also to the respondent giving him pamphlets Exs.
The learned judges criticism regarding this witness and the rejection of his evidence cannot be supported.
We are companycerned only with the charge of companyrupt practices under section 123 4 of the Representation of the People Act in respect of five pamphlets marked Exs.
He also speaks of having gone to the respondents house and having seen Vinod Kumar Rai there.
It was printed in the Kailash Printing Press and the son of the proprietor was examined as P.W.64.
P 3 first.
The petition was companysequently dismissed and this appeal is against that dismissal.
1174 of 1973.
He speaks to respondent giving him Exs.
A suggestion made to him was that his brother was sentenced to death in a murder case and the murdered man was a relative of the respondent.
P 4, accompained the respondent on his election propaganda.
He speaks to the presence of P.W.2 at that meeting.
It is unnecessary to go on multiplying the evidence.
W.5 is a retired Sub Inspector of Police.
