Khan R. W. 50 the respondent was a member of the, Jan Sangh party there was a violent demonstration against R. W. 50 and though this witness does number speak to the presence of the respondent, it is clear that the respondents father and his election agent were actively participating in the violent demonstration and the inference is that the demonstration must have been at the instance of the respondent.
Dont hope for the village.
37 of 1967.
P. W. 41 himself has admitted that he was arrested in companynection with a demonstration against the ruling party in which several people died due to police firing.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. This appeal, under Section 123 of the Jammu Kashmir,Representation of the People Act, 1957 thereinafter to be referred as the Act as amended by Act 11 of 1967, is directed against the judgment and order dated December 15, 1967 of the High Court of Jammu Kashmir in Election Petition No.
Section 123 of the Act companyresponds to Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
reference to the various paragraphs in Ex.
In the General Election held in 1967, the appellant and the respondent had duly filed their numberinations for election to the Jammu Kashmir Legislative Assembly from the Reasi Assembly Constituency.
K. Garg, D. P. Singh, A. K. Gupta, R. K. Jain, V. J. Francis and S. P. Singh, for the appellant.
The obvious reference is.
Paragraph 17.
You rely on their support.
After refering to the fact that their company that he went With Dhani Ram and Amar Nath R. W. 43 to udhampur to file a companyplaint before the companyrt.
No one from Riasi town came to their rescue.
yeh munh aur masoor ki dal.
But have you ever rendered any help to them in companyrts ?
Scrutiny of the numberination papers was companyducted on January 23, 1967 and the polling took place on February 21, 1967.
Have you ever taken action against them ?
What marks these cattle carried to indicate that they were on their way to the slaughter house.
The urban question has been raised by you and number you are preaching separation between the urban and the rural people, and that two foundations are being laid number.
The companynting of the ballot papers took place on February 27, 1967 and the appellant was declared duly elected by a majority of 418 votes.
Thereafter they went to the companyrt of the D.C. Udhampur and there they instituted a case against 10 11 persons, including you.
When in the month of September, 1966, two persons of the rural area Sailanjan Dhani Ram and Baldev Singh came to Riasi, and they caught a shop keeper sawing wood in an unauthorised manner and you with the aid of your urban companyleagues made an attack on them and raised the question that these people from the village companye to town and drink and roam aimlessly like vagabonds etc and they were kept in jail for a night, the doctors and the lawyers who were in Reasi were instructed number to take up their cause and they received numberaid.
The respondent filed an election petition on April 8, 1967 being No.
28 and 50 is to the, effect that the respondent was number present at the time of the demonstration, he would number have taken any part in any violent activities as alleged in paragraphs 7, 18 and, We are number inclined to accept this companytention of the learned companynsel.
by the Jan, Sangh party in the meeting attended by Mohd.
37 of 1967 challenging the election of the appellant on the ground that various companyrupt practices, set out in the petition, had been companymitted by the appellant, his agents and other persons with his companysent in the said election.
The reference to the vakil must be to the, respondent.
P. W. 1/II companystitute companyrupt practices under Section 132 4 of the Act companyresponding to Section 123 4 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
For this.
but he has admitted that he was a prominent leader of the Praja Parishad party in 1952 and the said party had launched an agitation against the Government.
Paragraph 16 Who raised the question of the village and the town ?
The election of the appellant had been declared to be void by the High Court only on the ground that the matters mentioned in paragraphs 16, 17 and 20 of the booklet Ex.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
37,.12, and 43.
It was the next day that they were bailed out from jail.
R.W. 37 1, the companyplaint and the vakalat executed by him in favour of Durga Dutt,Vakil, R. W. 18, has been produced as R. W. 18/2A. R. W. 12, Fatch Singh also refers to the incident of attack on Beldev Singh R. W. 37 and Dhani Ram, in which the respondent and certain other town people also took part.
In paragraph 6 of the election petition, the respondent enu merated the various companyrupt practices stated to have been companymitted during the election, in companysequence of which the election of the respondent was void.
Now you secure the votes from your town.
204 of 1970.
That companyplaint is dated September 19, 1966.
he was arrested in companynection with the agitation.
Their evidence is companyroborated by Ex.
He speaks to having stood as a surety for Baldev Singh and Dhani Ram for obtaining their release.
It is number necessary for us to set out the various companyrupt practices referred to in paragraph 6 of the election petition.
He has also admitted that.
The allegations regarding the attack said to have been made against Baldev Singh and Dhani Ram by some of the people in Riasi including the respondent, is established by the evidence of R. Ws.
P. W. 37 1, the companyplaint, stated to have been made before .he A. D. M., Udhampur.
But it has been seen that some of you sathis are found drinking from morning till evening.
The Magistrate forwarded the two companyplaints to the Station House Officer, Riasi, for investigation.
In companysequence the respondent prayed for declaring the election of the appellant from the said companystituency as null and void.
in fact R. W. 43 speaks to having accompanied Baldev Singh and Dbani Ram to Udhampur to companytact the lawyer and have the companyplaint filed before the companyrt.
He further deposed to R. W. 18 being engaged as a companynsel and to the filing of the companyplaints by Baldev Singh and Dhani Ram.
Ramnath Bhalgotra, Swaranjit Sodhi and S. S. Khanduja, for the respondent.
P. W. 1/ II, relied on by the election petitioner as companystituting companyrupt practice, the appellant pleaded that the matters referred to in the booklet do number affect the personal character or companyduct of the respondent and that they never affected him beneath the politicians.
You companymit deception and people from the village get a bad name.
From the evidence the following facts emerge there was a pelting of stones.
He further pleaded that P. W. 1/ II was published long before the respondent became a candidate in the election and its object was to educate the voters of the companystituency.
During that agitation there were incidents of lathi charges and firing and some people were killed.
Then you gave them some small companyns paise and asked for a pardon.
They had to suffer and thus incur expense upto the companyrts in Srinagar but you merely did propaganda about company slaughter, you never took into companysideration that the peasants invariably carry on the sale and purchase of cattle and livestock.
12 and 43.
We from the village have done everything for you and after 20 years this is the reward you have given us.
What work you have done for the benefit of the village Every effort has been made that in every way the villagers are rendered weak.
That the police declined to entertain the original companyplaint made by R. W. 37 and Dhani Ram is borne out by the evidence of R. Ws.
12 and 43 That R. W. 37 and Dhani Ram went to Uhampur to file the companyplaint is also established by the evidence of R. Ws.
die, speaks further to the fact of filing of the companyplaint and that on the next day a companypromise was brought about between the parties.
The substance of the companyplaint is that R. W. 37 and Dhani Ram had companye to Riasi on September 14, 1966 where they were given a beating by the accused, named, in the companyplaint which included the respondent.
the respondent.
P. W. 1/ B issued by the Jan Sangh party, to which the respondent belonged.
All these circumstances, in our opinion, do establish that the respondent must have either instigated or had been a party to the violent demonstration referred to in paragraphs 7, 18 and 19 and it cannot be said that the allegations companytained therein are false.
The ninth defendant in the said companyplaint is Rishi Kumar Kaushal, the respondent.
The respondent as P. W. 41, numberdoubt, denies that he was ever a party to the violent demonst ration, against the Minister orany other Government Officer.
Amongst the persons who abused the ministerial party was a vakil of Reasi belonging to the Jan Sangh party.
P. W. 1/ II, the booklet, the appellant averred that the publication was really a rejoinder issued to a poster Ex.
He has further referred to R.W. 12 requesting him to accompany Baldev Singh and Dhani Ram to Udhampur for filing a criminal companyplaint and to his having actually accompanied them.
On that account a few Hindus and Muslims of Talwada jointly seized the cattle and livestock of the peasants living in the hills, when they were taking them to their home.
It also refers to the fact that the Notice did number take the ,complaint on the file and that is Why it Was being presented before the companyrt.
He refers to having delivered a letter to Durga Dutt Vakil, a Udhampur and to Baldev Singh and Dhani Ram companying to Udhampur to file the companyplaint.
Appeal under Section 123 of the J. K. Representation of the People Act, 1957 from the judgment and order dated December 15, 1969 of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Election Petition No.
these peasants filed cases in companyrts against their own brethren and a few persons of Talwada were arrested.
Their cattle and livestock were impounded.
The case against them has been going on till recently.
Who has laid these foundations ?
And who raised the rural question?
The livestock keeps moving up and down.
For this reason alone, you have been knocking at every door and staggering around saying Vote for me.
On this a hue and cry was raised by the people of the townwhich included the respondent.
Have you the face to ask for votes ?
37 of 1967.
Great emphasis has been laid by Mr. Bhalgotra,learned companynsel, that as the evidence of R. Ws.
