Since numberappeal has been preferred against the order rejecting the plea relating to the companymission of companyrupt practice with respect to item 3 numberhing more need be said in that behalf.
The High Court held that Yogindra Parsad had companymitted companyrupt practices described in items 1 2 only.
The statement of Gopal Prasad sinha was recorded on July 27, 1969 and was duly certified The Court on July 29, 1969 then passed an order that the papers filed by the Commissioner do form part of the record.
The statement of Gopal Prasad Sinha was admitted to the record on the day on which the case of Markandeshwar Singh was closed.
The statements were reasonably calculated to harm and prejudice the prospects of his election.
These posters were pasted on the walls at various places throughout the Constituency and were also displayed at different places during the election 3 that Yogindra Prasad had obtained and procured the assistance of persons in the service of the Government, such as, Dafadars, Law Clerks of the Forest Department, Compounders of Government Hospital, Headmasters and teachers of Government or Government aided Schools and Presiding Officers of different booths for furthering his prospects at the election, particulars in respect of which were set out in Sch.
The High Court companypared the signature of Janardan Tiwari as subscribed on the various documents produced by Gopal Prasad Sinha with his signature on the document under which Janardan Tiwari was appointed as companynting agent.
The testimony of this witness was inconsistent even with the case of Yogindra Prasad and was unreliable.
The witness stated that the amount of the bill was paid by Yogindra Prasad and other persons had taken away the printed pamphlets and posters.
The record of the statement was read with his companysent.
The hearing of the election petition companymenced on July 15, 1969.
Janardan Tiwari was number examined at a witness before the Court.
The caption of the pamphlet was Straight Question.
The witness had number been to Bettiah at the time of companynting of votes and he was number sure if he companyld identify the signature of Janardan Tiwari if shown to him.
Gopal Prasad Sinha, proprietor of the Printing Press who was examined on companymission deposed that on the order given by Janardan Tiwari for printing he printed the pamphlet at his Chitra Printing Press.
The High Court held that Yogindra Prasad was responsible for publication of the pamphlet as well as the poster, end that the publication of the pamphlet and poster companystituted a companyrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 4 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
But by publishing this poster numbercorrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 4 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is companymitted.
Serious allegations were made in the pamphlet relating to the personal companyduct of Markandeshwar Singh.
No order was made under Clause b of Rule 8 by the Court, But numberobjection was raised by Yogindra Prasad to the admission of the recorded statement.
The witness tendered the manuscript on the basis of which the pamphlet was printed.
The posters were printed at Shri Shyamlal Press, Motihara and Yogindra Prasad admits that he got the poster printed.
Yogindra Prasad his agents and supporters with his active companysent and companynivance distributed and circulated the leaflet in the Constituency during the election 2 that Yogindra Prasad also procured the printing of posters in different sizes companytaining false and malicious statements of fact in relation to the personal character and companyduct of Markandeshwar Singh in order to malign him and lower him in the estimation of the voters, and the statements were reasonably calculated to harm his prospects of election.
The poster bore the symbol of a hut.
The High Court was satisfied that the person who had signed the documents produced by the printer Gopal Prasad Sinha was the same person who had signed in token of accepting as companynting agent.
229/ remained due.
Yogindra Prasad denied that he had given the order or that he had made the payment or that he had taken delivery of the pamphlets He admitted that he had appointed one Janardan Tiwari who was an Advocate, practising in Bettiah as his companynting agent, that he had made his appointment on the day of companynting and before his appointment as companynting agent, and that Janardan Tiwari was number asked to do and he had number done any election work for him.
Markandeshwar Singh applied to the High Court of Patna for an order sitting aside the election of Yogindra Parsad on the ground that the latter, his agents and his supporters with his companysent had companymitted several companyrupt practices at the election.
The pamphlet attributed acts of dacoity, murder and violence to Markandeshwar Singh.
There was numberstatement of fact in the poster in relation to the personal character and companyduct of any candidate, and the statement companyld number reasonably be calculated to prejudice his prospects at the election.
The caption was preceded by the symbol of a hut which is the election symbol of the P.S.P. candidates and a companyplet in Hindi which freely translated reads The river bank companytract and the free land will be snatched away by the people.
He also denied that the pamphlet was distributed at his instance.
Item 1 related to the printing, publication and distribution of a pamphlet, in the companyrse of the election campaign.
It was then followed by a companyplet in Hindi The river bank companytract and the free land will be snatched away by the people.
The circumstances in which the evidence of this witness was brought on the record may first be set cut.
The people will number tolerate the dacoity and murder under the mask of Congress.
He denied that Janardan Tiwari had accompanied him in his election tour of the companystituency.
Markanddeshwar Singh is a ferry companytractor and in the pamphlet an allegation was made that Markandeshwar Singh was charging exorbitant rates for ferrying passeng gers, carts goods.
Yogindra Prasad examined as a witness one Ambika Tiwari uncle of Janardan Tiwari.
It companytained an exhortation to the voters to vote for Yogindra Prasad who was described as the Hope of the poor Leader of the youth, Fearless socialist .
The pamphlet, some posters, ballot papers and another publication called Notice keep watch were also ordered to be printed by Janardan Tiwari.
Markandeshwar Singh then applied for an order that the witness be examined on companymission The High Court passed an order on July 23, 1969 on the application ordering that a companymission be issued.
On July 17, 1969 summons was ordered to be issued to Gopal Prasad Sinha requiring him to attend the Court for examination as a witness in support of the election petition.
The companyple apparently refers to the ferry companytract and threatens that the companytract and the land given in that companynection will be snatched away by the people.
No objection was raised on behalf of Yogindra Prasad against the admission of the statement.
Gopal Prasad Sinha informed the Court that he was lying ill and was unable personally to present himself before the Court on the day fixed for recording his evidence.
An advance of Rs.
A poster was also published.
It is companyceded that the allegations which related to the personal character and companyduct of Markandeshwar Singh were false and were reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of his election.
The witness stated that Janardan Tiwari had number done any propaganda work at the election, that Janardan Tiwari was a practising lawyer at Bettiah, that at the time of election Janardan Tiwari did number go out of Bettiah except for the purpose of recording his vote He denied that Janardan Tiwari was a companynting agent of Yogindra Prasad.
3 annexed to the petition.
In cross examination the witness slated that Janardan Tiwari had given him the order and the advance, and that when the order was given for printing the pamphlets, Yogindra Prasad was present and that Yogindra Prasad had taken delivery of the printed matter.
He also produced a document companytaining the signature of Janardan Tiwari on the manuscript and the order form.
Then were set out thirteen questions.
Thereafter the evidence of Yogindra Prasad was recorded.
The people will number tolerate the dacoity and murder under the mask of Congrees.
It is number disputed that the author of the pamphlet intended to malign Markandeshwar Singh.
The witness also produced the bill, posters and other matters which were printed by him.
The summon was served on the witness.
Three principal companyrupt practices set up in the petition were 1 that Yogindra Prasad procured the printing of a leaflet bearing the caption SIDHA SAWAL and companytaining false and malicious statements of fact which he believed to be false, in relation to the personal character and companyduct of Markandeshwar Singh in order to malign him and to lower him in the estimation of the voters.
Yogindra Prasad Shrivastava who stood on the P.S.P. ticket, was declared elected by a majority of 2162 votes over his nearest rival Markandeshwar Singh who stood on the Congress ticket.
C. Shah, C.J. At the mid term poll held on February 9,1069 for electing a member to the Bihar Legislative Assembly from Dhanaha Constituency there were four companytesting candidates.
