1980 the respondent No.
Bagicha Singh is alleged to have told the appellant that if he got the same removed he would get the votes of himself, members of the family as also of his brotherhood.
Respondent 3 was, however, number examined as a witness.
but the same do number seem to be 1065 relevant as the High Court has number relied on the same number in the companyrse of hearing of this appeal have those allegations been pressed into service.
The disturbance to the meeting is said to have been caused by a group of people companysisting of Gurdial Singh, Hardial Singh, Rachhpal Singh, Kulwant Singh and Gurnam Singh.
Respondent 1 PW.
The relevant allegations in support of this plea are to be found in paragraph 5 of the election petition.
The respondent No.
1 by the companymission of this companyrupt practice, the respondent No.
463 of 1982 From the Judgment and Order dated the 21st January, 1982 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Election Petition No.
On reaching the meeting place, they stood by at one side of the Jalsa.
5 was admittedly the companynting agent of respondent 3.
and the deposit receipt in regard to Bagicha Singh episode do number throw any companyclusive light inasmuch as they lack the material aspect of companyrelating the appellant with the events.
It is also the companymon case of both the parties that the appellant who was another companytesting candidate also did number companye to the place of the meeting.
Some documents, such as the FIR, injury reports, etc.
1 told them number to allow the meeting to proceed at any companyt and himself stayed behind.
S. Lehna Singh, PW.
During this some others belonging to the village had also companylected around him.
The learned single Judge before whom the election petition came up for trial accepted the evidence of the election petitioners and held that both the companyrupt practices had been companymitted by the appellant himself or through others with his companysent and were companyered by ss.
10 and Milkha Singh, PW, 11 while information relating to the Bagicha Singh episode was obtained from Darshan Singh, PW.
Bagicha Singh was alleged to have told the appellant that uncovered electric wires were dangerously passing over his house and despite his best of efforts he has number been able to get them removed and the sum being demanded for their removal was beyond his means.
1 said that he would get the needful done before the election and pay the expenses also.
On this Bagicha Singh agreed to poll all the votes of his family and also assured that he would help respondent No.
1 is guilty of having companymitted the companyrupt practice of bribery as defined under section 123, sub sections A B of the Act and his election is liable to be declared void under section 100 of the Act on the ground of this companymission of this companyrupt practice of bribery.
The election of the appellant was challenged on two allegations of companyrupt practice in the main, namely, disturbing a meeting of the Akali Party at a place called Hadur Shah in Village Gandiwind on May 20, 1980, where the appellants supporters allegedly used fire arms and fatally injured one and otherwise inflicted injuries on many others.
The relevant particulars of the allegation are companytained in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the election petition.
Verification of the election petition indicated that the allegation in paragraph 5 was true to the information received from Gurmukh Singh, PW.
That an old pending matter where numberaction was being taken has been done too quickly is number open to doubt.
He examined himself and led other evidence to support his stand.
The appellant had in his written statement denied the allegations in so far as they implicated him with the incidents.
The other was an allegation of companyrupt practice of bribery with reference to Bagicha Singh Chakiwala.
Appellant promised to get the needful done and approached the Punjab State Electricity Board employees and on putting pressure, got the same done on May 30, 1980, one day before the poll.
When Piara Singh son of Inder Singh, Daya Singh son of Ishar Singh requested them number to do it and tried to stop them, they got into a rage and started hurling abuses at respondent No.
We shall, therefore, number proceed to examine the material with reference to the Bagicha Singh episode.
On this the respondent No.
1 visited villaged Chola Sahib and there while requesting for votes, he went to the house of Mistri Bagicha Singh Chakiwala and asked him for his vote and votes of other family members and friends.
Election was held on May 31, 1980, and the result was declared the following day.
At about the same time the villagers were companylecting for a meeting at the place known as Hadur Shah and that meeting was to be addressed by S. Lehna Singh Tur, M.P. and respondent No.
1 has received more than 200 votes by companymitting this companyrupt practice and the election of respondent No.
At about 2 P.M. the aforesaid persons armed with fire arms except respondent No.
Several other allegations were made in paragraphs 6, 7 and 10 of the election petition relating to threats to electors of Gandiwind on May 20, 1980, after the meeting was disturbed, improper reception of votes, reception of void votes, terrorisation of the voters at the booth on the day of polling, etc.
He was number there at the relevant time and has candidly admitted that he was number personally aware of anything.
1 and caused obstruction in the proceedings of the Jalsa and did number allow S. Lehna Singh Tur to speak.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Appellant with his supporters in the companyrse of canvassing is said to have companytacted Bagicha Singh on May 28, 1980, at his village Chola Sahib and asked for votes of his and members of his family.
1 in getting the votes of his brotherhood as well.
On this the people started running for shelter and a shot fired by Gurdial Singh hit Daya Singh son of Isher Singh on his forehead who fell down and the shots fired by the others hit Piara Singh son of Inder Singh, Kehar Sing son 1079 of Gujjar Singh and Kewal Singh son of Surain Singh.
At the trial, Hardial Singh, election petitioner I was examined as PW.5.
The respondent No.
4 of 1980.
1 came out of the house of Gurdial Singh.
The election petition was filed by two voters of the companystituency respondents 1 and 2 .
On this the respondent No.
1 said that he would get the needful done and they should number bother about the expenses involved in case they promised him the votes of his brotherhood.
It is the admitted position that the Akali candidate S. Ranjit Singh was number to, and did number, companye to the meeting.
Then the respondent No.
3 and PW.
That the respondent No.
L. Sibbal, D.N. Mishra and K.K. Lahiri for the Appellant.
They canvassed two more house and thereafter I left them.
7 who was a sitting Member of the Lok Sabha was to address that meeting.
Appellant was declared elected with 26980 votes while respondent 3 Ranjit Singh lost with 26739 votes.
The evidence in regard to both the incidents Gandiwind meeting and Bagicha Singh episode mainly companysisted of oral statements of witnesses.
2, S. Lehna Singh Tur and others and suddenly started firing.
Shanti Bhushan, Jitendra Sharma, Manjit Singh Khaira and Ms. Deepa Bhushan for the Respondent.
The Akali Party had organised a meeting in the village to make election propaganda for respondent No.
On this Bagicha Singh said that respondent No 2 had also companye to him and we had put our problem to him also but he had said 1085 that he would help them get the wires shifted after the election.
P.W.6 is the S.D.O. who has produced some of the papers and has spoken about events with reference to the record.
1087 The demand of Rs.944 as per the estimate had been raised, P.W.6 has said that the demand was against Bagicha Singh and the deposit has been made and the receipt in the name of Bagicha Singh has been prepared.
All the aforesaid persons kept on firing shots which were returned by some people.
2 and S. Lehna Singh and in favour of Respondent No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 1064 RANGANATH MISRA, J. This appeal under section 116 A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 Act for short , is directed against the judgment of the Punjab Haryana High Court setting aside the election of the appellant to the Punjab Legislative Assembly from Constituency No.
There is evidence, and Mr. Sibal for the appellant did number dispute the position, that the meeting so companyvened was disturbed.
Others who were armed with 12 bore guns also fired their arms and with pellets companying from their firearms many were injured.
25 known as Naushehra Pannuan Assembly Constituency.
1 approached the Punjab State Electricity Board Employees companycerned and put pressure on them and also get the amount deposited and the wires were removed on 30.
At about 2.
1 has been materially affected and but for the votes obtained by respondent No.
4 was the organiser.
30 M. when S. Lehna Singh Tur reached at the meeting, these persons started shouting slogans against respondent No.
