An election petition was filed by Choudhury Devi Lal against the witness Ram Dayal.
In sub paragraph d of paragraph 10 of the petition it was alleged that on 21 April, 1968 the followers of Namdhari sect were called to Sant Nagar where, a big Dewan of Namdharis was companyvened and Sat Guru Jagjit Singh made a speech there that he had taken a vow to defeat the appellant because he was the son of Choudhury Devi Lal whose family was an avowed enemy of Namdhari sect and that it should be treated as a vow by every Namdhari.
The polling was on 14 May, 1968.
supported respondent Lalchand and also.
The further evidence was that 10,000 companypies of the poster were printed in the said Press.
14 of 1968.
The appellant relied on the oral testimony of P.W. 29 and P.W. P.W. 29 Ram Dayal was formerly a member of the Punjab Legislative Assembly.
W. 30 Parma Nand Sharma spoke of the meeting at Sant Nagar on 21 April, 1968 and said that Guru Jagjit Singh spoke at the meeting and proclaimed that it was the.
It was proved by Muni Lal Jain, Accountant in the office of the Chief Electoral Officer.
The witness Muni Lal Jain further proved the receipt of said letter in the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, on 2 May, 1968.
P.W. 34/1.
In the said appeal, it was further said that the appellant was an obnoxious person.
Lachhman Das was a disinterested person.
This appeal leaves number room for doubt that there were allegations against the personal character and companyduct of the appellant Om Prakash who was described as having been indulging in smuggling.
Muni Lal Azad, W. 37 said that he accompanied Jai Gopal Verma to Kwality Art Printers along with respondent Lalchand.
The results were announced on 16 May, 1968.
He resigned from the Congress and companytested the seat as an independent candidate against Choudhury Devi Lal and won the election in the year 1957.
Muni Lal jain proved Exhibit P.W. 34/2 and Exhibit P.W. 34/3 which were the enclosures received along with Exhibit P.W. 34/1.
was the son of Choudhury Devi Lal an enemy of Namdhari Guru.
Jai Gopal Verma proved his signature on Exhibit P.W. 34/2.
duty of every Namdhari to vote for respondent Lalchand and any one who violated the said Gurus direction would be ex companymunicated from the Panth.
20,000/ in cash to respondent Prithvi Raj to companytest the election.
W. 35, Lachhman Das was the Manager, Kwality Art Printers.
the Chief Electoral Officer.
Muni Lal Jain identified the signatures of the clerks Jagmohan Saran Verma and D.N. Arora on Exhibit W. 34/1.
He spoke of Exhibit.
Further, if any of the followers did number obey the farman they would stand ex communicated and their Prasad would number be accepted in the Gurdwaras and that they would be spiritually censured by naming them as traitors of Dharma and befallen persons in Sabhas of Namdharis.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 32 of 1969.
Ram Dayal was formerly a member of the Congress Committee.
L. Sibal, Ram Sarup, S.C. Mahanta, K.C. Sharma and C. Talwar, for the appellant.
He admitted his signature on Exhibit P.W. 34/2.
Jagjit Singh of the Namdhari sect issued an appeal and a farman and thereby the provisions companytained in sub section 2 of section 123 of the Act are attracted.
Jot Ram, P.W. 12 said that he was a Kumhar and his evidence was also that Bava Bir Singh paid Rs.
in the mid term election in the month of May, 1968.
Ganga Dhar Sharma, P.W. 31, said that a memorandum of appeal in favour of respondent Lalchand was printed.
20,000/ in cash to Prithvi Raj to companytest the election.
The appellant, it may be stated,, did number adduce any documentary evidence in support of the allegations.
The respondent Lalchand denied that there was any meeting and further denied that there was any farman.
Jai Gopal Verma further identified the signature of Muni Lal Azad.
The witness Ram Dayal helped the respondent Lalchand in the election of 1967 and also.
It was opened in this Court.
These articles suffer from the vice of companynting into existence under deliberate motive.
Thirdly, the respondent Lalchand is guilty of companyrupt practice of bribery by having given Rs.
The letter to the Chief Electoral Officer Exhibit P.W. 34/1 was in a sealed companyer.
First, that the poster being Exhibit P.W. 1/1 was against the personal character of the appellant and therefore companystituted a companyrupt practice within the meaning of sub section 4 of section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
attended meetings on his behalf came and gave evidence in favour of the appellant about the utterances of Sat Guru Jagjit Singh of the Namdhari sect.
Naunit Lal, for respondent No.
14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 29, 30 and 31 gave evidence of the distribution and publication of the appeal.
It was suggested in cross examination that the poster was printed after 14 May, 1968.
The witness also spoke of the meeting at Rania village on 28 April, 1968.
Both the articles were published after the election had been held on 16 May, 1968.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ray, J. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 19 November, 1968 of the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh dismissing the election petition of the appellant.
The evidence in the present case established beyond any measure of doubt first that Exhibit P.W. 1/1 which is the same as Exhibit P.W. 34/2 was published, secondly, that Lalchand got the same printed and published, thirdly, that the statement was in relation to the personal character and companyduct of the appellant, fourthly, the statement is false and fifthly, the same was calculated to prejudice the prospects of the appellants election.
At the hearing of the appeal companynsel on behalf of the appellant canvassed three grounds.
The successful candidate Lalchand secured 20,816 votes and Prithvi Raj obtained 5,726 votes.
Jai Gopal Verma said that Lalchand accompanied him to the Kwality Art Printers.
appear as a witness and therefore he spoke the truth.
20,000 to Prithvi Raj in the presence of Lalchand.
Secondly, the religious head Sat Guru.
The appellant obtained 15,485 votes.
Ram Dayal was eventually unseated as a result of the decision of this Court.
The appellant challenged the election of Lalchand, the first respondent.
The appellant companytested the Assembly seat from Ellenabad Constituency in the District of Hissar in the mid term election held in May, 1968.
They identified Exhibit P.W. 24/1 which is the same as Exhibit P.W. 34/2 and the evidence of distribution and publication is overwhelming.
There was some dispute as to whether the signature of Lalchand on the manuscript poster Exhibit P.W. 34/2 was genuine or number.
The other defeated candidate in the election was the second respondent Prithvi Raj.
I shall at the outset deal with the second and the third grounds.
The witness Ram Dayal spoke of the Sat Guru Maharaj having exhorted the Namdharis to vote for Lalchand and warned them about the companysequences if they failed to do so.
Rawat, P.W. 13 who was also a Kumhar said that Bawa Bir Singh paid Rs.
Various witnesses, P.Ws.
The appellants entire case was based on oral evidence.
He sent a companyy of the poster to.
Counsel on behalf of the appellant pressed allegations companytained in sub paragraphs b and d of paragraph 10 of the petition which were to the effect that Sat Guru Jagjit Singh issued a farman on or about 20 April, 1968 to the effect that it was the Gurus desire that all followers should oppose the appellant who.
P.W. 36 Jai Gopal Verma identified Exhibit P.W. 34/2 as a manuscript of the poster and further said that the witnesses identified Lalchand.
The appeal which was published and distributed is Exhibit P.W. 34/2 which is the same as Exhibit P.W. 1/1.
He proved that Exhibit P.W. 34/1 was the letter received from Kwality Art Printers on 2 May, 1968.
It was also suggested to Jai Gopal Verma that the poster was printed after 14 May, 1968.
Counsel on behalf of the respondent Lalchand companytended that Lachhman Das was neither the Printer number the Publisher and that Lachhman Das joined the Press in the month of April, 1968.
It is indeed strange and significant that Ram Dayal who.
He spoke of a poster which was printed in his Press.
Appeal under s. 116 A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 from the judgment and order dated November 19, 1968 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Election Petition No.
