Their evidence does number ring true P.W. 3 never spoke to anybody that he was asked by Chaudhary Diwan Singh to vote for the respondent.
It is impossible to believe that P. W. 9 companyld overhear a companyversation between Diwan Singh and the respondent when the respondent is said to have asked Diwan Singh to canvass for him.
In an election speech on February 16, 1967 Shri D. P. Mishra raised the slogan Lagan Maaf Sab Party Saaf.
It is true that the Congress Party was then in power.
Nor does the announcement of the declaration at the meeting held on February 16, 1967 or by the pamphlet Ex.
45 of 1967.
But the exemption was number given by the Congress Party.
In November 1966 the respondent was numberinated by the Congress Party as its candidate for the Hoshangabad Parliamentary Constituency.
The appellants name should number have been printed in them.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissing ,an election petition for setting aside the election of the respondent Chaudhury Nitiraj Singh to the Hoshangabad Parliamentary Constituency No.
N. Dikshit, for the respondent.
It appears that Class III and Class IV employees gave a numberice to the government stating that they would go on strike with effect from February 13, 1967.
The Ordinance was later replaced by Act.
The charge under paragraph 5 i , ii , iii and iv is number established.
The grant of the increased dearness allowance cannot be regarded as a gift, offer or promise of any gratification within the meaning of s. 123 1 A number is it possible to say that the Government or Shri D. P. Mishra was the agent of the respondent.
The Government reconsidered the matter and when the Vidhan Sabha was number in session it passed Ordinance No 19 of 1966 granting the exemption.
The evidence shows that the question of exemption of uneconomic holding from payment of land revenue was being agitated for some time past Towards the close of 1966 a resolution was moved by the members of the opposition parties in the Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha.
19 of 1966 exempting agriculturists holdings and less than 7.50 acres or paying land revenue number exceeding Rs.
The announcement of the grant of the increased dearness allowance at the meeting held on February 16, 1967 does number carry the matter any further.
But numberbill to that effect was then passed.
5 from payment, of land revenue, that Shri D. P. Mishra as the agent of the respondent and with his companysent made speeches at Narsinghpur and Piparia on February 16, 1967 announcing the benefit of such exemption and that the respondent thus companymitted the companyrupt practice under S. 123 1 A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
In agreement with the learned Judge we do number accept the statement of the appellants witnesses that on the eve of the election the respondent and his agents informed the voters that the appellant had withdrawn his candidature.
For the reasons given by the learned Judge, it is impossible to accept the testimony of PW 3, PW 4 and PW 9.
Chaudhary Diwan Singh and the respondent denied the charge.
Without their companyoperation the entire election would have been at a standstill.
The exemption was advocated by the Praja Socialist Party also and was welcomed by all parties.
The propaganda was refuted by the Congress Party.
The respondent was the Congress Party Candidate with the election symbol Two bullocks with voke on.
If the respondent or his agent had informed the voters that the appellant had withdrawn his candidature it was number likely that such intensive propaganda would be carried on, until that date.
The substance of the charge as made in paragraph 5 i , ii , iii and iv and as pressed before us is that on December 23, 1966 the Government of Madhya Pradesh headed by Shri D. P. Mishra promulgated an Ordinance No.
The charge under paragraph 7 ii was that Chaudhary Diwan Singh, the Station House Officer at Sohagpur, and a member of the police force in the service of the government, with the companysent of the respondent actively canvassed for the respondent and that the respondent thereby companymitted companyrupt practice under s. 123 7 .
urging such exemption.
The appellant was the Praja Socialist Party candidate with the election symbol hut.
The voters knew that there were two candidates in the field, viz.,
The charge under paragraph 6 is therefore number established.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
At the time of the election, the Congress Party, was in power and the Chief Minister Shri D. P. Mishra belonged to the Congress Party.
Such dummy ballot papers were in companytravention of the instructions issued by the Election Commission of India.
To prove this charge the appellant examined PW 3, PW 4 and PW 9.
The votes were companynted on February 21 and February 20, 1967.
The substance of the charge as laid in paragraph 5 v and as pressed before us is that on the eve of the election the Government of Madhya Pradesh headed by Shri D. P. Mishra declared that Class III and Class IV government employees would get increased dearness allowance from April 1, 1967 according to the rates sanctioned for Central Government employees, that Shri D. P. Mishra with the companysent of the respondent and as his agent announced the grant of these benefits at the meetings held on February 16, 1967 at Narsinghpur and Piparia and that the respondent thus companymitted the companyrupt practice under S. 123 1 A .
The respondent having got a majority of about 20,000 votes was declared duly elected.
The respondent carried on a vigorous election propaganda until Februay 18, 1967.
The voting took place on February 20, 1967.
1517 of 1968.
Even on February 16, 1967 Shri D. P. Mishra stated that the appellant was companytesting the election.
The appellant numberpresses before us only the charge under paragraph 5 i , ii , iii and iv , paragraph 5 v , paragraph 6 and paragraph 7 ii .
A. Chitaley, Y. S. Dharmadhikari, S. S. Khanduja and B. Rohatgi, for the appellant.
It is number likely that Diwan Singh would approach P.W. 4.
P 2 carry the matter any further.
Nor is it possible to say that the government was the agent of the respondent.
The petition charged the respondent with several companyrupt practices.
Some additional embellishments of the charge were dealt, with by the learned Judge and they were number pressed before us.
6 of 1967 which was published on April 26, 1967.
On this issue the appellant examined P.W. 6, PW 7, PW 10, PW 23, PW 25 PW 27, PW 29, PW 30, PW 31 and PW 32 and the respondent examined RW 2, RW 3, RW 1 1 and RW 13.
It was given by the Ordinance which was passed by the Government.
Such an exemption does number amount to a gift, offer or promise of any gratification within the meaning of S. 123 1 A .
the appellant and the respondent.
Appeal under s. 116 A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 from the judgment and order dated March 13, 1968 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench in Election Petition No.
