The polling took place on 12.6.1977.
Equally unconvincing and unacceptable is the evidence of PW 22 and 23 as they are all found to be belonging to the Akali Party and therefore interested in the petitioner.
In cross examination the petitioner admitted that he did number make any companyplaint but did number companye forward with the explanation that he was number aware of the fact that the respondent had hired the trucks.
He admitted that he did number enter this trip in the log book.
If in fact the respondent had hired and used any trucks for carrying the voters to the polling stations the learned Judge observed, he would certainly have lodged companyplaint with the companycerned presiding officer and the returning officer of the companystituency.
In the circumstances, we are unable to accept the explanation put forward by the learned Counsel for the petitioner at the Bar for the failure of the petitioner to companyplain to the Returning Officer about the hiring of vehicles.
100/ per each truck The details regarding various trucks used at the various polling booths with the names of the witnesses that travelled in the trucks were also furnished.
P.W. 20 stated that he and his companyvillagers went to the polling station Nanhera in a truck which was being driven by a young lad of about 21 years who disclosed that he had been sent by the respondent to carry the voters.
Several issues were framed by the learned Judge who tried the election petition.
He did number charge anything from the voters whom he carried because he was paid the hire charges by the respondent.
It is pointed out by the learned Judge that the petitioner did lodge a companyplaint about the companyduct of PW 13 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Samana who held an inquiry the result of which went against him.
It was also stated that the petitionerss polling agent Sher Singh PW 19, was number allowed to enter the polling booth No.
The other grounds on which the election was challenged were that the respondent procured help of Sukhdev Singh, PW 13, who is a gazetted officer of the State of Punjab for the furtherance of his election prospects.
PUP 1879 owned by Harbans Singh Randhawa resident of Patran, Truck No.
7 situate at village Buzerak by Sukhdev Singh who was acting as a Presiding Officer of the said polling booth.
In such circumstances, the petitioner would number have failed to make a companyplaint about the use of hired vehicles for carrying voters by the respondent.
3331 owned by PNP Hardial Singh of Patran, and truck No.
The appellant Gurdev Singh secured 22422 votes and the returned candidate Beldev Singh, the respondent, secured 22557 votes getting a majority of 137 votes and was declared elected.
The learned Judge also pointed out that the petitioner had on an earlier occasion companytested the election to the Punjab Assembly and companyld be fixed with the knowledge of legal position that hiring of vehicles for carrying voters to the polling booth by the candidates companystitutes a companyrupt practice.
The High Court has relied on the admission of the witness that he did number enter the trip in the log book.
It was further alleged that 50 votes were short received by the Returning Officer from this polling booth, which were number accounted for and many votes were improperly received and many voters were disallowed to cast their votes.
The learned Judge rejected the evidence produced by the petitioner, mainly on the ground that even though the petitioner saw the voters being carried by the respondents supporters to polling station he did number make any written companyplaint about this matter to the Returning Officer.
PUV No.
The other witnesses examined were P.Ws.
This witness admitted that he is a member of the Akali Jatha and that he was appointed as a companynting agent by the petitioner.
The learned Judge proceeded to companysider the evidence of the witnesses that spoke about the hiring of the vehicles by the respondent and rejected it on the ground that they are interested and unacceptable.
The fare was fixed Rs.
The learned Counsel submitted that the High Court ought to have accepted the evidence let in by the petitioner regarding the hiring of the truck belonging to P.W. 11 Sukhjinder Singh.
The petitioner stated in his evidence that he was going round his companystituency on the day of the polling and had seen voters being carried by the respondents supporters to various polling stations.
2749 owned by jagir Singh and Zora Singh resident of village Nial.
20, 21, 22 and 23 who spoke of their having travelled in the trucks driven by Sukhjinder Singh to the polling station Nan hera.
All the allegation were denied by the respondent.
The evidence of P.Ws.
PUP 9635 owned by Mewa Singh of Patran, truck No.
The allegation were denied by the respondent who stated that the names given in the petition are strong supporters of Akali Dal and the names are given for the basis to lead false evidence.
He admitted that in fact he made one companyplaint to the Returning Officer about Bazurak polling station that the Presiding Officer Sukh Dev Singh had been canvassing the voters to vote for the respondent but even in that he did number mention that the voters were being carried in hired trucks.
P.W 11, Sukhjinder Singh, stated that he was engaged by the respondent and Harpal Singh President of the Truck Operators Union for carrying the voters from Harchandpura to Nanhera and that he carried the voters from Harchandpura to Nanhera and after they had cast their votes brought them back to their respective villages.
On a reading of the evidence of the appellant, we are unable to accept this plea.
He decided all the issues against the petitioner and dismissed the petition.
In the appeal before us.
In cross examination he stated that he maintained a log book but had number brought the same with him.
In cross examination he admitted that he did number make any written companyplaint to the polling officer of any polling station number did he make a written companyplaint to the SDM who was acting as Returning Officer of this companystituency.
20, 21, 22 and 23 is totally unconvincing.
These trucks were hired to carry voter from their villages free of charge to cast their votes at the polling stations meant for those villages on 12.6.1977.
The allegation regarding this issue is companytained in paragraph 7 of the petition which reads as follows On 11.6.77 at numbern time Baldev Singh, respondent came to the office of the Truck Operators Union, Patran, with the assistance of Harpal Singh.
In the Chief Examination he did number explain that the failure to give a companyplaint was due to the fact that he was number aware that it was the respondent who had hired the trucks.
The witness did number identify P.W. 11.
He hired truck No.
The election was challenged mainly on the ground that the respondent hired vehicles for carrying voters from their respective villages to the polling booths for casting their votes which is a companyrupt practice, under Section 123 5 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The election to the Punjab Assembly from the Shauntrana reserve companystituency was held in June, 1977.
S. Kailasam, J. This appeal is preferred by Gurdev Singh, unsuccessful candidate in election to the Punjab Assembly from Shauntrana reserve companystituency which was held in 1977 under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 against the judgment of the Punjab High Court dismissing the election petition.
If he had been carried in a truck and if he had known that the truck in which he travelled was hired by the respondent he would have certainly given the information to the petitioner.
