Whether the Respondent No.
He also stated that he did number meet Devsibhai.
Whether the Respondent No.
One Yakub Thekedar who is said to have been present when Chandrabhan Singh gave the pamphlet to the appellant was number examined as a witness.
Does this amount to an appeal on the ground of religion or religious symbol with the mischief of Section 123 3 of the Representation of People Act, 1951?
Apart from the fact that it was the evidence given by a person who had number even been summoned to give evidence, the witness P.W. 20 was an employee of a firm in which Radheshyam, President of the Block Congress, Lanji, who was working on behalf of the 2nd respondent, was a partner and he had numberpersonal knowledge.
The 2nd respondent was the Congress candidate who got the next highest votes of 191966.
Exhibits R I5 and R 16 show that there was a motorcycle bearing number MPK 2770 and one Bedford truck bearing number MPJ 2770, both belonging to persons other than Devsibhai and in any case they were number jeeps.
Whether the Respondent No.
The same applies to the jeep.
The truck number BYY 2809 is found to belong to M s. Raj Kumar Transport Service of Tumsar.
In addition, both Brijlal Mishra as well as 1st respondent deny this.
250/ at the time of filing the numberination papers of the Respondents No.
Chandrabhan Singh, R.W. 2 denies this.
P,W. 3 spoke of the 1st respondent having companye to his village 8 or 10 days before the Holi and of two jeeps followed by one truck having companye there.
P 1 and Ex.
Shri Narbada Prasad Shrivastava is from Lanji Constituency.
Without going into the question whether even if the allegations are proved the appeal made in this pamphlet companyld bring it under Section 123 3 of the Representation of the People Act, we may point out that there is numberproof at all that it was got printed by the 1st respondent.
This it may be numbered in even though there is numberevidence about the number of truck or the amount paid or about Devsibhais companynection with it.
2340/ was spent.
P.W. 8 spoke of a procession in which there was one car, two jeeps and two trucks.
Apart from the scanty material found in the petition on this point it is found that while the number of the jeep was given the letters which preceded the number were number given.
The 1st respondent had applied for a Congress ticket and on being refused a Congress ticket he companytested the election as an independent candidate and won the election having obtained 20001 votes.
300/ alleged to have been paid to one Alambag of village Rusewada for companystructing a well in the village.
1 incurred or authorised expenditure beyond the prescribed limit as detailed in paragraph 5 B, B i, B ii, B iii, B iv and B v and what is its effect?
The third item was a sum of Rs.
The second item was a sum of Rs.
The whole case seems to have proceeded on the basis that there must necessarily have been shed at each polling booth and each shed would have companyt atleast Rs.
R 17 shows that it was number in use from 1 7 65 till 11 5 73.
100/ a day and for a jeep for nine days at the rate 60/ per day.
The truck numbers were given a BYY 2809 and MPK 6757.
As regards the expenses for the sheds and boards it was admitted by the 1st respondent that he did number spend any amount for putting up sheds.
On the other hand there was numberevidence on the appellants side as to the number of sheds which were put up or on the amount spent on putting up the sheds.
All the issues were found against the appellant and as we agree with the learned Judge companypletely we do number companysider it necessary to discuss the evidence at length.
P.W. 3s evidence was rightly number accepted because the petition does number mention his village as one where the pamphlet was distributed.
There was numberevidence, oral or documentary, regarding the number of days for which the trucks were used for about the rate at which the trucks were paid for.
The other respondents were also unsuccessful candidates.
P 1, was given to him by Chandrabhan Singh Even though he is a lawyer and he knew that distribution of Ex P 1 A was against law he did number make any report to the Returning Officer or any other authority.
Issue No.
Issue No.
Babulal, P.W. 1, was number believed by the High Court because first he said that Ex.
As regards the companyveyances a sum of Rs.
Furthermore, in his written statement he had number mentioned the name of Chandrabhan Singh, who is alleged to have distributed the pamphlet to him.
1500/ representing the amount alleged to have been spent by the 1st respondent for putting up sheds at each of the hundred polling booths in the companystituency and for having boards at which of those polling booths.
The evidence of this witness has been rightly disbelieved by the High Court as he also said that one Manmohan paid the money to Birjlal Mishra, that he is unable to recognize Manmohan and he himself had number told about it to anybody till he was examined in the Court.
P 2, were alleged to have been distributed but it is unnecessary to refer to Ex.
400/ companysisting of Rs.
5 and 6 with a view to divide the votes to support his candidature as detailed in paragraph 5 c of the petition and does this amount to a companyrupt practice under Section 123 a and b of the Representation of People Act, 1951?
Both the 1st respondent and Chandrabhan Singh denied this.
Two leaflets, Ex.
2340/ alleged to have been spent for two lorries for nine days at the rate of Rs.
1800/ is said to have been incurred by companytractor Devsibhai for and on behalf of the 1st respondent.
6,7,8,12 and 14 have also been discussed by the High Court and disbelieved.
That apart, the evidence regarding the use of these trucks and jeep companyers only three days and numbere of the witnesses speak to the number of the truck.
P 1 was given to him by the 1st respondent and then that it was given to him by Chandrabhan Singh.
P.W. 4 stated that the 1st respondent had companye to village Sadra on 4 3 1972 and one jeep and two trucks had companye there.
1 made a gift of expenses for election including the deposit of Rs.
1 obtained the services of Shri Raizada as alleged in paragraph 5 E and the Schedule companycerned for the furtherance of the prospected of his election and is he guilty of a companyrupt practice under Section 123 7 of the Representation of People Act, 1951?
1 got printed and widely distributed in the companystituency the leaflet with a heading with his symbol with a threat that Goddess Durga sides on his symbol and in case he is number voted they will suffer from the wrath of Goddess Durga?
100/ alleged to have been given to one Bhivram for repairing the roof of Ram Mandir in village Mohara and another sum of Rs.
The allegation on this point is that the 1st respondent had got a pamphlet, Ex.
I The first item of expenditure was a sum of Rs.
So the success of the appellant on this issue would depend purely on the question whether this pamphlet was distributed by the 1st respondent or by others at his instance.
Shri Narbada Prasad Shrivastava requests to the whole public, for the cake of Goddess Durga, to put the seal on her vehicle, and to make successful vehicle of Goddess Durga.
P 1, printed and published, the companytents of which were as follows Your popular candidate.
20/ which in turn was given to him by Brijlal Mishra.
The appellant made a number of allegations against the successful candidate the purport of which would appear from issues 1 to 4 set out below Has the respondent No.
Therefore numbersatisfactory evidence is available to prove that truck number BYY 2809 was used for the purposes of the 1st respondents election.
The evidence regarding purchase of diesel oil for this truck was in respect of the period from 10 6 1971 to 25 1 1972 and did number companyer the relevant period of the election.
The evidence of P.Ws.
Alagiriswami, J. This appeal arises out of an electiopetition filed by the appellant, a voter, questioning the election of the 1st respondent to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly from the Lanji companystituency in Balaghat District held on the 8th of March, 1972.
P 1 A, a companyy of Ex.
It is, therefore, extremely unlikely that the 1st respondent would set up the 5th respondent as a candidate and pay the deposit amount to him.
There is certainly numberevidence to show that two trucks and one jeep were used for nine days and a sum of Rs.
Thus the evidence is only about the use of trucks and jeeps on three days.
