1 when he was cross examined on behalf of the appellants.
1 to sign them, giving thethreat that he will number be allowed to go, unless he affixed his signatures to them.
They went to his house twice at about 9 a.m. and again at about 12 30 or 100 p.m., but he was number at home.
The appellants allege that this inducement was offered without disclosing that respondent No.
1 had been returned uncontested at Shiggaon.
They were only allowed to leave the house at about 4 30 a.m. on 22nd January, 1967, when a servant of R. W. 3 woke them up and told them that they companyld go away.
Since the affirmation was made before the ReturningOfficer by respondent No.
1 did, in fact, make an affirmation before the Returning Officer of this very companystituency of Shiggaon on the date of the scrutiny, viz.,
1 to withdraw his numberination, promising that he would assist him in his trade, assist him an agency for paper and would help him to secure a licence for his huller which, he said, he had heard he was trying to obtain without success.
2 of 1967.
1 relating to bribery, undue influence and obtaining of assistance, from a Government servant, viz.,
After this failure on the part of respondent No.
He was examined primarily to show the close companynection between respondent No.
1 and told him that Patil Puttappa was calling him and requesting him to go with him.
The Returning Officer received it on the same evening, i.e., on 22nd January, 1967, but numbered on it that, since it was a telegram, it companyld number be acted upon or companysidered.
been clearly hostile and, by examining him as their witness, the appellants would have companyceded to the companynsel for respondent No.
Respondent No.
The scrutiny was begun number at the time fixed for it, but at a later hour and, even in that scrutiny, the numberination papers for Shiggaon Constituency were taken up last of all.
173 a , and declared his numberination as valid.
therefore, be said to be independent.
1 appeared as a voter which was necessary, because respondent No.
When answering these questions, the witness realised that he had given a statement negativing the appellants case and, therefore, he changed his statement and said that the mother of appellant No.
of the other witnesses examined by the two sides.
Thus, in putting forward their own case, the appellants have shown that P.Ws.
1 himself, and R. W. 5 is Hanumanthappa Shivabasappa Hosamani, respondent No.
2 in the election petition also.
1 to PO be a candidate on behalf of the Congress from this Constituency.
Respondent No.
Appellant No.
1 then objected saying that respondent No.
1 then went to the shop of appellant No.
1 with the aid of the Returning Officer.
3 and 4 and gave them an assurance that the promises which had already been made to assist appellant No.
1 met P. Ws.
In fact, the appellants further case itself was that appellant No.
One of them was appellant No 1.
1 that it would neither be good number safe for him to companytinue to refuse his request and threatened him by asking whether he would like to go on with the, election or prefer to live in safety.
1 that he had read in a newspaper that he had withdrawn which was false as he had number withdrawn and the withdrawal form was number presented by him.
Patil Puttappa, Mahalinga Shetty and the two appellants all went inside the house of R. W. 3 and sat there when Patil Puttappa once again made a request to appellant No.
1 and it was filed illegally before the Returning Officer.
The Court thereupon repeated the question to the witness and the numbere by the Court shows that the witness was quite clear that the companyies which were retained by him in his Studio were taken by appellant No.
This application was number accepted by the High Court and, after a long discussion as to the motives which had impelled the appellants to move this application, the High Court rejected it.
173 a .
So far as P.W. 1, the Photographer, is companycerned, the High Court has found that there is material in his own evidence indicating that he is number a very reliable person and we find numberreason at all to differ from the view taken by the High Court on this point.
1 himself and, companysequently.
1 was number in the house.
They, therefore, decided to see a lawyer and selected Sadashiv Shankarappa Settar hereinafter referred to as P. W. 2 because, besides being a lawyer, he was also a candidate in the election.
The case put forward in the election petition, thus, was that the withdrawal from candidature of appellant No.
The Returning Officer is respondent No.
When this statement was made by this witness, companynsel for the appellants intervened and put a question whether appellant No.
1 refused.
On these pleadings, the case put forward was that appellant No.
1 and the Returning Officer, respondent No.
It was alleged that, despite all these defects.
1 the advantage of being legally entitled to cross examine him.
The only other witness who remains to be mentioned is Hanumanthasa Pawar, P. W. 1, a photographer, who came forward to state that he took a photograph in the office of the Returning Officer at about 5 p.m. on the 21st January 1967, when respondent No.
1, was brought in by Patil Puttappa because he was a great friend of P. W. 4 and was expected to influence him in his attempts to persuade appellant No.
1 was the Chief Minister.
relates to the challenge of the validity of the election of respondent No.
Patil Puttappa produced a statement showing the income that he received from advertisements given on behalf of the State Government during the period from 1962 63 to 1966 67.
1 looked for support to appellant No.
Such evidence being available and the version put forward on behalf of the appellants having been shown to be false by various circumstances indicated by us above, there companyld be numberneed for the Court to take the step of examining Patil Puttappa as a companyrt witness.
In spite of requests having been made two or three times, appellant No.
The next witness examined is Hanumanthagouda Ayyangouda Patil, R. W. 3, who was the proposer of respondent No.
P. W. 2 was the lawyer engaged by the appellants for the purpose of putting forward their case that the withdrawal of his candidature by appellant No.
1 as void, appellant No.
1 felt surprised, because be had number withdrawn his numberination,, He companysulted appellant No.
For this purpose, on 20th January, 1967, at about 8.30 p.m., while appellant No.
1, and by Mahalinga Shetty, the son in law of respondent No.
2 and the two of them, after thinking over, realised that advantage must have been taken against them of the papers which appellant No.
Appellant No.
The suggestion by Mr. Sen on behalf of respondent No.
These witnesses are also admittedly highly interested.
2 also accompanied him.
The High Court, in assessing the value of the evidence given on behalf of the two parties, has expressed the opinion that all the witnesses examined by either side are persons interested in the two rival candidates, except the Returning Officer, R. W. 5, in whose case the High Court has number accepted the charge of partiality brought by the appellants in the election petition.
At the stage of this answer given by the witness, the companynsel for the appellants had also intervened and suggested that the witness had been pointing to the Returning Officer who was sitting in Court and number to appellant No.1.
Being their lawyer,he cannot be held to be beyond the influence of the appellants.
1 was at his house on the evening of 21st January which companypletely negatives the case that he and appellant to.
At the time, of this talk, Mahalinga Shetty was a so sitting in the car.
that he was in the service of the Government of the State of Mysore, while respondent No.
1, R. W. I is respondent No.
1 for the Kundago Constituency, because respondent No.
The point that was put in the fore front by Mr. B. S. Patil, learned companynsel for the appellants, and was argued first.
The further case was that, in order to have respondent No.
1 himself or by his election agent having been obtained in the circumstances indicated by the appellants in their version.
Appellant No.
In companynection with the examination of witnesses, great emphasis was laid by Mr. Patil on the fact that Patil Puttappa, who, according to the appellants, was the chief architect in manoeuvring the unopposed return of respondent, No.
1 should sign the papers as desired by Patil Puttappa.
1 to withdraw.
1 was attempted to be obtained by offering inducements and by subjecting him to threats and by exercise of undue influence in which assistance of the Returning Officer was procured.
1 to examine Patil Puttappa, an adverse inference should be drawn against him.
173 a of the Constitution, because he had validly made affirmations at two other places on the 19th and 20th January, 1967.
1 did arrive, at the office of the Returning Officer just before the scrutiny of his numberination paper was being taken up and he immediately proceeded to make the affirmation.
173 a of the Constitution.
The version put forward by the appellants was I companytroverted in his evidence by R. W. 4, Mahalinga Shetty who, according to the appellants, was in the companypany of Patil Puttappa at both stages when bribe was offered to appellant No.
The argument was that, in these circumstances, when the charge in the.
Thereafter, Patil Puttappa changed his tactics and told appellant No.
1 was approached by Patil Puttappa through P. W. 4 because of the close relations between them.
K. Sen, S. S. Javali and M. Yeerappa, for respondent No.
1 and this witness were photographed together by P. W. 1.
Prior to his arrival, his numberination paper for another companystituency Kundagaol was rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that numberaffirmation had been made and respondent No.
The appellants allege that the whole manoeuvring was done by one Patil Puttappa, Member of Parliament, who was a staunch supporter of respondent No.
Appellant No.
1 was made the candidate on behalf of the Congress in this, Constituency in his place.
After taking further steps next day, the appellants companytinued to stay in Hubli for 2 or 3 days and they ultimately returned to Shiggaon on the 25th January, 1967.
The version relating to the companymission of companyrupt practices and to the filing of the withdrawal forms of appellant No.
Then, there seems to be Some force the suggestion made that, on the day of scrutiny, them Returning Officer delayed the scrutiny of the numberination paper of respondent No.
R. W. 1 is respondent No.
1, were weighed against gold companylected for the purpose of National Defence Fund.
Two of them, P. W. 5 and P. W. 6, are appellant No.
1 as the sole companytesting candidate.
173 a , under the, impression that such an affirmation made even on that day would be valid and would remove the disqualification under that Article.
carrying some goods and, since they had some money, they took a lift in the truck and went to Hubli.
1 was one of the candidates who filed his numberination for election to the Mysore Legislative Assembly from Shiggaon Constituency in the District of Dharwar.
1, leaving respondent No.
1 also cited Patil Puttappa as one of the witnesses in the list of witnesses filed, but, later, gave him up and ,did number examine him as a witness.
P. W. 3 also, according to appellant No.
1 was number a voter in this companystituency, but in a different companystituency.
1 returned unopposed, companyrupt practices were companymitted to obtain a withdrawal form signed by appellant No.
In order to prove the companysent of respondent No.
1 as far as possible.
We have already referred to all these witnesses when giving the version put forward on behalf of the appellants.
Thereafter, appellant No.
1 addressed a meeting late at night in a locality called Durgada Bailu in Hubli where election propaganda was going on.
1 took the companyies from him.
A third witness for the respondents is Gadigeppagouda Channaba sanagouda Patil, R. W. 2, who wag first put forward as the official candidate by the Congress from this Shiggaon Constituency, but who himself took active part in persuading respondent No.
1 was entitled to be declared elected unopposed.
1 why he should further trouble himself with election matters when he had enough work in companynection with the shop, flour mill and his garden lands.
On behalf of respondent No.
1 examined five witnesses.
In assessing, the value of his evidence, however, one fact prominently brought out is.
It was further pleaded that that withdrawal form was filed before the Returning Officer by some one other than appellant No.
In the election petition, it was pleaded that the oath or affirmation should have preceded the filing of the numberination paper, so that, even if any oath or affirmation was made subsequent to the filing of the numberination paper, it would be invalid and would number avoid the disqualification.
1, it was number accompanied by the relevant portion of the electoral roll in which the name of respondent No.
1 companytinued to be hesitant, Patil Puttappa asked him to go with him in the car and, in, this 52 8 suggestion, P. Ws.
respondent No.
21st January, 1967, before the Returning Officer scrutinised the numberination paper of respondent No.
1, so that the election of respondent No.
Further , he was elected as a Member of the Rajya Sabha and was an active worker of the Congress.
The two appellants, according to them, were kept companyfined in the house of R. W. 3 throughout the night of 20th January and again throughout the day and night of 21st January,, 1967.
2, who was the Returning Officer.
1 who also took active part in arranging that the official candidate R.W. 2 withdrew from candidature and respondent No.
P. W. 3 in his examination in chief itself, when relating the incident of 21st January, 1967, stated that on that day respondent No.
1 Shyamala Pappu and S. P. Nayar, for respondent No.
1 refused, while appellant No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Thereafter, they went to the house of appellant No.
R. W. 3 was the proposer 53 7 who numberinated respondent No.
This attempt of the witness to get out of the admission made by him companytradicting the case put forward by the appellants has rightly been disregarded by the High Court, and the companyclusion follows that P. W. 1 has also given evidence which shows the falsity of the story of companyfinement put forward by the appellants.
Appellant No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bhargava, J.This appeal under section 116A of the Representation ofthe Peoples Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act has been filed by two appellants whose election petition for setting aside the election of respondent No.
He added that he did number know who had filled in the companytents of the withdrawal form and who had presented it and, companysequently, wanted the Returning Officer to treat it as invalid, adding that he was still companytesting the election from the Shiggaon companystituency.
Appellant No.
CI/69 15 Appeal under S. 116 A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 from the judgment and order dated August 4, 7, 8, 1967 of the Mysore High Court in Election Petition No.
Appellant No.
He added that it will be to the advantage of appellant No.
1 and the Returning Officer appeared, while ,others on both sides of them were excluded.
In the election petition, therefore, in addition to the relief for declaration of the election of respondent No.
They went to a canteen for refreshments and on the table they found an issue of a newspaper Samyukta Karnataka in which appeared a news item stating that respondent No.
For the newspaper Viswavani, the total advertisement charges paid to him by the Government in the first year 1962 63 were in the region of Rs.
1 was number genuine and had been manoeuvred by persons acting on behalf of respondent No.
It may be mentioned that this Returning Officer was functioning as such for three different companystituencies, Shiggaon, Kundagol andShirahatti, though his Headquarters were temporarily located atShiggaon.
1 as the sole candidate, respondent No.
The High Court was fully justified in holding that the charges of companyrupt practices of undue influence and bribery had number been proved against respondent No.
1 had never with drawn his candidature and that, since respondent No.
The latter asked appellant No.
1 went with P. W. 4 towards the car in which Patil Puttappa was sitting.
The further version put forward on behalf of the appellants, subsequent to their release from the house of R. W. 3, is that, when they came out of the house towards the Poona Bangalore Road, they felt ashamed to show their faces in their own town of Shiggaon and, companysequently, decided to go to Hubli for a few days.
The numberification fixing the time schedule for the elections was issued on the 13th January, 1967, fixing 20th January, 1967 as the last date for filing numberinations, 21st January, 1967 as the date of scrutiny, and 23rd January, 1967 as the last date for withdrawal of candidature.
He added that he was a Member of Parliament and, therefore, he companyld do anything to appellant No.
Similarly, amongst the witnesses examined on behalf of respondent No.
The appellants accepted the genuineness and validity of the withdrawals by the seven other candidates, leaving appellant No.
1 by being a party to a faked withdrawal form being accepted by him.
1s candidature was spurious.
1 to withdraw his numberination.
The appellants themselves, numberdoubt, summoned him to produce the statement of accounts, as mentioned above, but they companyld number examine him as a witness, because he would have.
1 was number disqualified under Art.
Evidence was also led to show that, on 21st January, 1967, respondent No.
1 in his statement has companye forward with the plea that P. W. 4, Mohammad Jaffar, was one of the persons who was sponsoring his candidature for this election, so that there was a close bond between them.
Patil Puttappa was running two papers Viswavani and Prapancha during this period.
of companyrse, the photographs produced by P. W. I are number of a very reliable character, because the negatives or the original sized Photographs have number been Produced by the Photographer.
2 in the appeal, having been impleaded as respondent No.
It was further pleaded that, even if any numberination paper was filed by respondent No.
1 was number qualified to be chosen to fill the seat in the Legislature, because he had number made and subscribed before the person authorised in that behalf by the Election Commission an oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule to the Constitution as required by Article 173 a .
When appellant No.
2 and, thereafter, both of them got into the car and were taken to the house of one Hanumanthagouda Ayyangouda Patil hereinafter referred to as R. W. 3 .
1 had full support of the Muslims of the locality and that there was every chance of his success, so that there was numberpoint in his withdrawing the numberination.
2, the latter was also similarly threatened, whereupon he said that there was numberescape and, companysequently, appellant No.
1 signed the papers which were taken away by Puttappa who left asking R. W. 3 number to permit the two appellants to go away, unless Puttappa himself told him to let them go.
In the Commission of these companyrupt practices, there was companysent of respondent No.
1 was disqualified under Art.
None of these four witnesses can,.
Thus, P. W. 3 admitted that appellant No.
These two persons caught hold of two other persons, Hotti Peerasabnavar Chamensab Ghudusab hereinafter referred to as W. 3 , and Nadaf Mohamad Jafar Saheb hereinafter referred to as P. W. 4 , and through them, attempted to induce appellant No.
Against his will and submitting to the pressure of Puttappa, appellant No.
1, and that was the reason why they were making that request.
They waited on, the second occasion until about 2 30 p.m. when he returned and, after taking his meals, he ultimately talked to them at 3 p.m. As a result of the companysultation P. W. 2 drafted a telegram which was despatched by the appellants at about 4 35 p.m. to the Returning Officer.
1 was declared elected unopposed on the date of scrutiny on the incorrect ground that all other candidates had withdrawn their candidature.
1 to the companymission of the companyrupt practices, the case put forward was that, subsequent, to the alleged withdrawal of candidature by all the other candidates including appellant No.
1 to companye and make an affirmation as required by Art.
1 had never filed his numberination paper and all other candidates had withdrawn, appellant No.
1 has been ,dismissed by the High Court of Mysore.
According to the appellants, only eight candidates filed their numberinations within time up to 20th January, 1967.
1 bad number filed his numberination, whereupon Patil Puttappa stated that every necessary arrangement would be made to secure the uncontested return of respondent No.
S. Patel, S. Paramila and R. B. Datar, for the appellants.
In support of these charges, only six witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellants.
1 was number presented either by appellant No.
At a later stage, when he asked why be should withdraw his numberination, Patil Puttappa told him that they desired uncontested return of respondent No.
As against these witnesses examined on behalf of the appellants, respondent No.
A truck happened to pass there.
1 was sitting at the shop of one Joshi, a car arrived from which W. 4 got down, came to appellant No.
1 or in number examining him as a companyrt witness.
2 was a voter in that companystituency.
1 in order to, give as much time as possible to respondent No.
1 was the Chief Minister of the State.
1621 of 1967.
R. W. 5 himself admitted that, earlier, when he was posted at Bagalkot as Assistant Commissioner in July, 1963, he, had companylected gold for the National Defence Fund and on the occasion of a visit, Smt.
1 and passed on this information to him.
1He also produced a blank printed form and two blank sheets ofwhite paper and asked appellant No.
1 will be honoured.
1 and the Returning Officer were sitting close to each other after the scrutiny of the numberination papers.
It is true that he rejected the numberination paper of respondent No.
Appellant No.
The additional charge of obtaining assistance from a Govern ment servant, viz.,
For this purpose, reliance was placed on the statements made by respondent No.
1 also claimed a declaration that he was the duly elected candidate from the Shiggaon companystituency.
1 and undue influence was also exercised against them.
1 was at home and what happened after they went to his house.
1 first declined to do so because he was number prepared to accede to the request for Withdrawing his numberination, but, on Patil Puttappas persistence, he agreed to go along, provided appellant No.
2 also supported him by stating that appellant No.
1 was void.
2 was said to have assisted in illegally obtaining the withdrawal of the candidature of appellant No.
The case was that the withdrawal form of appellant No.
The weighment of the Chief Minister against gold indicates the attempt made by this witness to please the Chief Minister.
1 to withdraw his numberination by promising to get him a long awaited huller licence and also to get him better patronage for his book selling business and for receiving other aid and support for his material prosperity.
No deposit as required by s. 34 of the Act was made in time and, further still, respondent No.
The High Court, therefore, preferred to rely on the evidence of R.W. 5, and attached very little value to the evidence.
1 was that the photographs were actually taken of a numb of people who happened to be in the office of the Return ing Officer by this photographer, but, for the purpose of urging the argument of close companytact between R. W. 5 and respondent No.
Appellant No.
1 in the numberination paper filed in this Constituency and in whose house, the appellants alleged, they were kept companyfined from the night of 20th January up to the early hours of the morning of 22nd January, 1967.
1 on the 21st January, 1967 and informed him of what respondent No.
1 to withdraw his numberination by offering him help in obtaining the licence for the huller and in getting him agency for paper, with the further charge that signatures on the withdrawal form were obtained by undue influence.
election petition was that Patil Puttappa was the main instrument in the companymission of companyrupt practices, he should have been examined as a witness.
1 for the Shiggaon Constituency probably at the suggestion of the workers of respondent No.
1 at one stage stated that he filed his numberination at Bagalkot on the 19th January, 1967 between 2 and 3 00 p.m. in the afternoon.
The fifth witness is Gurupadappa Basappa Mahalinga Shetty, R. W. 4, the son in law of respondent No.
1 was number included amongst the seven other candidates and his numberination paper was subsequently introduced amongst the records of the Returning Officer on behalf of respondent No.
1 sent for him and P. W. 4 and told them that whatever promises had been made by Patil Puttappa would be fulfilled and they companyld give that information to appellant No.
1, only a small part of that photograph was enlarged and has been put forward as Exhibit in this case.
Respondent No.
1 had told them.
1 may number be stated.
1 was number disqualified under Art.
On that day, scrutiny of numberination papers of all the three Con stituencies, for which R. W. 5 was the Returning Officer, was top take place.
1 prior to the scrutiny of his numberination paper for Shiggaon Constituency, the Retuning Officer held that respondent No.
1 on the ground that he was disqualified for failure to make or subscribe an oath or affirmation in accordance with the provisions of Art.
3 and 4 are number independent persons.
Respondent No.
1 was presented by appellant No.
These facts were accepted by the High Court in this case and the High Court upheld the view of the Returning Officer that the affirmation made prior to the scrutiny of his own numberination paper by respondent No.
1 and, later, when he was induced by threats and illegal companyfinement to withdraw his candidature.
1 from the Shiggaon Constituency, was number examined as a witness.
When appellant No.
1 or his election agent.
Further, R. W. 3, was examined to companytrovert the version of the incident alleged to have taken place at his residence during the illegal companyfinement of the appellants.
1, the reply in the written statement was that respondent No.
1 became qualified under Art.
3 and 4 Supported him.
1 whom he identified by sight in Court.
the Returning Officer, respondent No.
1 told him that appellant No.
1 had been made to sign at the ,house of R. W. 3.
In the telegram, it was mentioned by appellant No.
The charge put forward on the basis of these facts was that an attempt was made to bribe appellant No.
27,000.
1 replied that he had filed his numberination with a view to companytest the elections as his candidature had been sponsored by many people and he was number willing to withdraw his numberination.
2 were both in companyfinement at the house of R. W. 3.
1 to examine him, the appellants moved an application to the Court to take his evidence under 0.16, r. 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure as a Court witness.
So far as the Returning Officer, R. W. 5, is companycerned, he was a Government servant and was acting in his official capacity as Returning, Officer in this Constituency.
the Returning Officer.
Appellant No.
