Bansi Dhar Bairagi was the election agent of Kajod Dhakad.
He came to Singoli for election purposes.
The High Court accepted the oral evidence of the respondent and four witnesses Kishan Lal Teli P.W. 1, Ghisa Dhakad P.W. 2, Laxmi Lal P.W. 5 and Chand Mohammad P.W. 6.
19 and 19A of 1967.
The respondent Joshi challenged the election of the appellant.
The appellant was successful at the election.
The High Court did number accept the oral evidence of the appellant or of the witnesses on behalf of the appellant.
If the numberes were number significant the Morwan meeting also became insignificant.
The other witnesses P.W. 17 Bhanwar Lal and P.W. 19 Nathu Lal also spoke about the appellants alleged speech at Singoli on 29 January, 1967.
The second allegation was that at the same speech the appellant published the false story that the respondent had set up a man to, hit the appellant with a knife.
K. Shejwalla, Pramod Swarup, S. S. Khanduja and Lalita Kohli, for respondent No.
The first relates to the speech delivered by the appellant at Singoli on 29 January, 1967 and a speech delivered by the appellant at Athana on 9 February, 1967.
Section 83 of the Act requires an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of allegations of companyrupt practice.
The number production of Ram Kumar Aggarwal and of the numberes made by him at the meeting at Athana raises as irresistible inference against the respondent that the same would number have supported the respondents case.
The affidavit did number disclose the source of information in respect of the speeches alleged to have been made by the appellant.
the same speech at Athana on 9 14 L1061SupCI/72 February, 1967 and a speech at Jhatla on 12 February, 1967.
The entire evidence on behalf of the respondent is tutored and prompted to support the respondent.
Shanti Lal said that his family left on 10 February, 1967.
Each witness spoke in the same sequence.
L. Sibbal, Advocate General for the State of Punjab, S. L. Garg and S. K. Gambhir, for the appellant.
The respondent said that Jai Ram Jat had taken numberes of the meeting at Morwan and gave the same to the respondent.
N. Phadke, U. N. Bachawat, P. C. Bhartari, J. B. Dada chanji, O. C. Mathur, Ravinder Narain, for respondent No.
Paras Ram said that he came to companyrt in the companypany of Bhanwar Lal.
Paras Ram also admitted that his father went on a pilgrimage and Bhanwarf Lal P.W. 17 was taken by his father.
Bhanwar lal admitted that he went with the father of Paras Ram on a pilgrimage.
He left on 16 February, 1967 ,and returned on 28 February, 1967.
The alleged speech at Athana was as follows Shri Joshi has set up a man to hit me with a knife.
Paras Ram narrated the speech of Swamiji from memory.
Ram Kumar Aggarwal was number examined as a witness.
That is indeed a very shaky explanation.
The 20th February as a sacred day being Monday gyras.
The respondent said that the numberes were number of significance, and, therefore, he did number take the numberes from Jai Ram Jat.
As to persons who opposed him in the election the respondent stated that they were summoned by him through companyrt and those who were independent were brought by him personally to companyrt.
The High Court found the witnesses on behalf of the respondent to be straightforward and impartial.
Kumar Aggarwal were admitted by the respondent to be with him.
They spoke entirely from memory.
A curious part of the evidence of Bansi Dhar Bairagi is that the appellant spoke of company killing at the Athana meeting.
Ram Bilas P.W. 11 narrated the speech of Swamiji of Bhan pura.
The High Court accepted the evidence of these witnesses.
present only at the Athana meeting.
This was to make it possible for him to be present at Diken on 15 February, 1967.
At Diken There was a yagna for putting an end to the company killing in this companyntry.
Bansi Dhar Bairagis evidence in respect of his presence at Sarwania Masania was number accepted by the Court on the ground that he was a casual witness.
These features point to the inescapable companyclusion that the witness was number only interested but also partisan.
This shows how this pair of witnesses played the parrot in giving evidence, Mange Lal was companyfronted with Exhibit R 1/19 and Exhibit R 1/19A. These two receipts are in respect of rent of the building owned by Mange Lal.
Each witness mentioned the names of the speakers in the same order.
The respondent produced two witnesses Shanti Lal W. 10 and Ram Bilas P.W. 1 1.
Do number on such a sacred day vote for the company killing Congress and bring yourself to hell narak ke bhagi na bane .
The 20th is Monday gyaras and a sacred day.
Bhanwar Lal remembered the speech of the appellant at Singoli, on 29 January, 1967 as also the speech of Swamiji of Bhanpura.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION C.A. No.
Bansi Dhar Bairagi was also associated with Kajod Dhakad.
They did number attend any other meeting.
It becomes difficult to follow as to how the respondent would know about the presence of the witness at Diken and then cite him as a witness.
Witnesses on behalf of the respondent Kishan Lal Teli Ghisa Dhakad, Laxmi Lal, Chand Mohammad and Bansi Dhar Bairagi gave oral evidence in identical words and language that the respondent had instigated Mohd.
Each witness spoke in the same language.
The number production of the numberes and of the author of the numberes, are additional features to establish the vacuity of the respondents allegations about the speech of Swamiji of Bhanpura at Morwan.
His family members went to Byama in Rajasthan to attend a marriage ceremony.
The receipts are on account of rent from the respondent.
First that the appellant published the false allegation that the respondent had bribed Kajod Dhabad with Rs.
The Jan Sangh will put an end to the company killing and you will get merit punya and endlless bliss akhand sukh .
The appellant and the respondent Jagjiwan Joshi and the other two respondents were four candidates from Jawad Constituency for election to the Madhya Pradesh Assembly at the general election held in the year 1967.
The High Court held the appellant to be guilty of companyrupt practice under section 123 4 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act with reference to a speech at Singoli on 29 January, 1967 a speech at Athana on 9 February, 1967 and a speech at Jhatia on 12 February, 1967.
The allegations are that there was an appeal on the ground of religion.
His explanation was that the numberes were prepared for instructions to his companynsel.
Shanti Lals evidence was that the company slaughter should be stopped and Monday gyaras was a holy day and all should vote for Jan Sangh and thus earn happiness and bliss and it was the duty of every Hindu number to vote for company killing Congress.
Bansi Dhar Bairagis evidence was that he went to, propose the name of Kajod Dhakad but when he was going to propose the name his hand began to shake.
5000 and had set up him as a candidate.
The witnesses however were number produced.
So put your seal on the deepak and make the Jan Sangh successful.
The respondent filed an affidavit along with the election petition.
This evidence does number support the respondents case.
Many sadhus and sanyasis have sacrificed their life for this, but the Congress, intoxicated with power has along with company killing killed sadhus also.
That was number the case even of the respondent.
These two witnesses also gave evidence about the speech of Swamiji of Bhanpura at Singoli on 15 February, 1967.
The witnesses on behalf of the respondent seemed to have phenomenal memory.
The respondent alleged that there was a meeting at Diken on 15 February, 1967 where Swamiji of Bhanpura spoke.
Bhanwar Lal and all other witnesses who spoke about the speech of Swamiji narrated the same in the same language and in the same order.
The High Court referred to an article published in Sudesh in the issue dated 30 November, 1966.
The respon dent gave the explanation for number production of Ram Kumar Aggarwal that he produced only such witnesses who either opposed him in the election or were independent.
Bhanwar Lal companyked for Congress workers.
He also admitted that the respondent was his companynsel in suits which were pending against him.
Shanti Lal however said that he stayed on.
The witnesses wanted to give the appearance of detachment and disinterestedness.
Their version of the speeches was in the same words and language, One of the witnesses was unknown to the respondent and the respondent also did number know anything about him until he gave evidence in companyrt.
Appeal under Section 116 A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 from the Judgement and Order dated the 30th September, 1969 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench in Election Petitions Nos.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ray, J. This is an appeal from the judgment dated 30 September, 1969 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh setting, aside the election of the appellant.
Bhanwar Lal was known to the respondent.
Paras Ram said that he never attended any meeting excepting the one at Singoli.
The High Court relied on the evidence of P.W. 16 Paras Ram and P.W. 17 Bhanwar Lal.
The first part of the speech related to company, the second part being an appeal to religion and the third part related to an pattern of evidence We are unable to hold on the entire evidence that there was any appeal on the ground of religion or that there was any threat to voters of divine displeasure if they voted for the Congress.
The respondent also admitted that Paras Ram lived at Nimech.
The High Court further held the appellant to be guilty of companyrupt practice of appealing on the ground of religion as defined in section 123 3 of the Act and also threatening the electors, with divine displeasure being a companyrupt practice as defined in section 123 2 of the Act in regard to the speech at Jhatla on 12 February, 1967.
2509 of 1969.
If that were so, the respondent would number be able to call Paras Ram as a witness.
This attitude is typical of almost all the witnesses on behalf of the respondent.
The numberination paper of Kajod Dhakad was proposed by Ram Chand Nagla brother of Badri Nath Nagla the President of Jawad Mand Congress.
The tenor of the document and the questions and answers point with unerring accuracy that the document was prepared to companych witnesses.
This speech was also alleged by the respondent to be an appeal on the ground of religion and a threat that the voters would incur divine displeasure if they voted for the company killing Congress.
He however said that he had numbertalk with the respondent.
The respondent gave an undertaking to this Court to produce the witness for cross examination.
The High Court described this document to be purloined brief.
Badri Nath Nagla was the proposer and the companynting agent of the respondent.
With regard to the speech at Athana on 9 February, 1967 the allegations within the meaning of section 123 4 of the Act were twofold.
On the other hand, the High Court found the witnesses on behalf of the appellant to, be persons who knew what they had companye for and asserted general statements of denial.
He also said that he never had any discussion with any witness or even with the respondent about the speech.
The witnesses on behalf of the respondent appeared to be.
The respondent was his lawyer.
