He also states that he does number know who ultimately won the election.
P.W. 4 Harpal Singh and P.W. 5 Badan Singh are the two witnesses for the petitioner as to what happened at this meeting.
Of the pamphlets, exhibits P. 20 and P. 22 companytain an appeal to all the resi dents of the companystituency to vote for the first respondent, and the High Court rightly held that these two pamphlets cannot be called objectionable.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10 12 1975 of the Allahabad High Court in Election Petition No.
The High Court doubted the authenticity of this companyy as the date, February 23 appearing on the letter was admittedly number in the hand writing of the District Magistrate number of the witness.
Of the two witnesses who speak about this meeting, P.W. 16 Lotan appears to have admitted on cross examination that he had number attended the meeting and P.W. 15 Raghubir says, like Ws.
found that neither W. 8 number P.W. 22 was a disinterested witness, P.W. 8 being an active member of the Congress and P.W. 22 was a polling agent of the appellant.
The election petitioner challenges the companyrectness of the decision in this appeal under section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
by the District Magistrate, Mathura.
These letters put in evidence to companyroborate the oral testi mony on the issue of undue influence have themselves numberintrinsic merit and are far from reliable and therefore do number advance the petitioners case any further than what the oral testimony does.
The case of bribery rests on two incidents, one relating to payment of Rs.
The additional company tention that donation to public or charitable institutions companyld number amount to bribery appears to be a legal plea asserting that even on the statements made in paragraph 13 of the election petition the allegation of bribery was number sustainable.
The first two issues are interconnected The allegations relating to these issues are based on three pamphlets, Exhibits P. 20, P. 21 and P. 22, and oral evidence of meet ings where speeches were delivered appealing to voters on the ground of caste and attempting to promote hatred between different castes.
Exhibit P.9 is a companyy of a letter dated February 23, 1974 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Mathura.
Exhibit 14 is another letter dated February 23, 1974 ad dressed to the District Magistrate, Mathura, by the appel lant.
The High Court further finds that P.W. 15 was a man in the companyfidence of the appellant and P.W. 16 was admittedly a man of Congress.
P.W. 1 Alla Noor, P.W. 3 Ashraf Ali and P.W. 7 Fiaz Khan are witnesses to this inci dent.
The first respondent in his written statement denied all the allegations.
128 of 1976.
100/ each to Chatur Singh who made them over to one Ida who is said to be the president of the school.
The High Court held that the election petitioner had failed to prove the charge of companyrupt prac tice alleged against the successful candidate and dismissed the election petition.
On April 14, 1974 the appellant presented an election petition in the Allaha bad High Court calling in question the election of the first respondent alleging that he was guilty of adopting companyrupt practice within the meaning of sub sections 2 , 3 and 3A of section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The only Sector Magistrate examined on behalf of the election peti tioner, P.W. 37 Rajendra Kumar Pathak, does number support the petitioners case.
From the testimony of P.W. 4 Harpal Singh it seems extremely unlikely that he was present at the meeting.
365 in District Mathura in the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly elections held in 1974.
The circumstantial evidence which is claimed as companyroborative of the oral evidence on this issue companysists of certain let ters, namely Exhibits P.7, P.8, P.9, P. 10, and P.14 Exhib its P.7 and P.8 are two letters sent to the appellant by W. 14 Habura and P.W. 29 Brij Mohan Bhardwaj respectively companyplaining about the various irregularities at the polling stations.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
At Neemgaon a meeting is alleged to have been held on February 19, 1974 at 12 numbern in the primary school premises.
N. Dikshit, M.V. Goswami, S.V. Goswami and Ambrish Kumar, for the Appellant.
The first respondent who was sponsored by Bhartiya Kranti Dal, it will be referred to as B.D. hereinafter, was elected securing 33565 votes.
The appellant who came next was a numberinee of the Congress party he polled 20731 votes, 12,834 votes less than the successful candidate.
This apparent unconcern suggesting that he was an impartial witness which is hardly believable marks him out as thoroughly unreliable.
There is numberreference, however, to these pamphlets in the election petition.
The other witness P.W. 5 Badan Singh says that the meeting was held at 2 P.M. According to him a pamphlet Exhibit A was distrib uted at the meeting.
On a scrutiny of their testimony the High Court found both of them unreliable witnesses and was of the view that these two letters were brought into existence for the purpose of this case after the result of the election had been declared.
M. Shinghvi, Pratnod Swarup and S.K. Verma, for Re spondent No.
The High Court also.
February 24 and 26, 1974 were the dates when poll was taken and the result was declared on February 28, 1974.
1, by paying several thousands of rupees for companystruction of a school building and a mosque, as alleged in para 13 i , ii and IV of the petition ?
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GUPTA, J. The appellant was one of the eight companytest ants from Mat Constituency No.
It is dear therefore that he companyld number possibly attend the meeting at 2 P.M. The witness however attempts to prove his presence at the meeting by saying that the meeting started at about 1 P.M., thus companytradicting his earlier statement.
The companyy was proved by P.W. 30 Was ud din Quareshi who was a Stenographer to the District Magistrate at the relevant time.
The meeting at Surir Kalan is said to have been held at 2 P.M. on the Ramlila platform in the village.
This pamphlet which companytains the description Decision of Kashatriya Mahasabha companytains an appeal to all the members of the Kashatriya caste to attend the meeting to be held on February 8, at 2 P.M. at Surir Kalan.
Exhibit P. 10 dated February 25, 1974 was also addressed to the District Magistrate Mathura by the petitioner.
Near about midnight between the 23rd and the 24th February, 1974, the first respondent Chandan Singh along with Chatur Singh and several others drove in a jeep to Naujhil at a place where about 200 Muslims were sitting around a fire.
35/74 .
The appellant then came to the place visited by the first re spondent earlier and remonstrated with the Muslims crowd still present there for having accepted the money from the first respondent.
Some from the crowd went upto the jeep, had a talk with Chandan Singh and told him that whoever would donate money for Islamia school, the Muslim votes would be cast in his favour, Chandan Singh Offered to pay and gave twelve currency numberes of Rs.
P.W. 4 is the Head Master of a junior high school.
If in these circumstances the High Court refused to rely on the evidence of these two witnesses, numberinterfer ence is called for.
