Witness admitted however that the third respondent did number use any jeep after the 21st January but he was using a tax.
He also said that he did number know Phoolchand Satnami and had never told him that he should go to Behra to direct any vehicle engaged on behalf of the Congress to Boria for transporting voters to the polling booth.
The learned Judge of the High Court held that the application had been properly rejected and the learned companynsel for the appellant was unable to put forward any ground for departure from the Judges companyclusion.
He however had to allow all electors present at the polling station before it was closed to cast their votes.
The petitioner, the appellant before us, is an unsuccessful candidate who bad succeeded in the elections of 1957 and 1962 on a Congress ticket.
The petitioner therefore prayed for a recount as a result of which he hoped to make up the deficiency of 300 votes which was the margin between him and the first respondent.
If Bijpai and the first respondent were minded to secure the help of Sajjdnsingh through the instrumentality of the Tahsildar and Magistrate, one would number expect them to be so unguarded and unwise as to take Mohan Singh with them when the latter companyld render them numberhelp in the matter.
The promise of a jeep was denied by the first respondent.
50/ to one Bhikam for purchase of cement in companynection with the work but he had numberhing in writing to establish this.
from working for the petitioner at the instance of Bajpai on the 7th February when a criminal case against Udayuram was pending in the companyrt of the said Magistrate.
Bajpai then requested Sajjan Singh to work for the first respondent but the latter expressed his inability to do so on the ground that hts relative Attarsingh was being prosecuted, whereupon Bajpai promised to help him out of the.
The evidence of B B. Bajpai D.W.6, was that the first respondent had a car 5 or 6 years before 1967 but he never had any jeep.
the latter had told him that the first respondent had promised.
The petitioner secured 12,024 votes as against 12, 319 cast in favour of the first respondent.
100/ to one Patwari, an influential man of the Harijan companymunity in village Bahera for the purpose of repairing the parapet of a well in the said village in order to induce the Harijans of that village using that well to vote for him.
Besides the above, the petitioner sought to have the election set aside on some other grounds.
The third respondent, it was pleaded, had lost heart because of the Rising Sun being declared a free symbol which he was hoping to be able to secure as a candidate for the Ramrajya Parishad and was minded to withdraw his numberination.
The whole story is a fantastic one and was lightly disbelieved by the trial Judge who remarked that if the incident had really taken place, Laxminath, the worker of the petitioner, would have made numberdelay in bringing it to the numberice cf the presiding officer.
The symbol Rising Sun was allotted to the second respondent in the 1967 election.
The Returning Officer further numbered that he had supervised the companynting along with the Additional Collector and other persons and doubtful ballot papers had been subjected to rigorous examination by the Assistant Returning Officer with the help of a magnifying glass.
In substance, the allegation was that the first respondent had prevailed upon respondent No.
The Zonal Officer who happened to turn up at that time told the presiding officer that anybody who had companye to the booth before 5 p. m. was entitled to exercise his franchise but he left it to the presiding officer to act according to his own judgment.
Mohan Singh W 4 deposed to the effect that he knew Sajjansingh, Attarsingh and B.B. Bajpai and that, there was a criminal case pending against Attarsingh in the companyrt of the Naib Tahsildar at the relevant time.
Jogiram stated that the people supporting the Congress had used their well and if the Congress candidate was returned at the election he might get their women folk molested by Satnamis.
500/ by Rajendra Gupta for carrying voters to Behra.
He however did number sign any of the chits given by the patwari to voters and some of the voters were left without this signature.
The persons who companytested the seat in the 1967 election, besides the appellant, are the five respondents.
He further accepted the evidence of Rambharcse to the effect that if such a thing had happened the matter would have been brought to the numberice of the gram panchayat of which he was the sarpanch.
The trial Judge decided the plea against the petitioner and we companycur with him.
The evidence on this point was that of Manharanlal P. W.23 , Sukhitram P.W. 38 , Ravi Shankar P.W. 19 and Anjuram P.W. 24 besides that of the petitioner himself.
The eye witnesses to this alleged incident examined by the petitioner were Laxminath P.W.13 , Damodar P.W.14 and Gaindlal P.W.15 .
The money was distributed equally between the cart owners and the witness had taken 10 persons in his cart to Behra to cast their votes.
The material witnesses who were examined to prove this were Halal P.W. 16 and Phoolchand P. W. 17 .
The witness waited outside while Sajjansingh and Bajpai went in and had a talk with the Magistrate and on companying out told the witness that the Magistrate had promised to help Sajjansingh who thereafter espoused the cause of the first respondent.
Halal said that he did number know either the petitioner or the first respondent but that Dr. C.P. Agarwal and Rajendra Gupta had gone to their village at about numbern on a motor cycle and Rajendra Gupta had enquired of him as to whether he was willing to give his cart on hire and whether it was possible to secure carts belonging to others and giving his answer in the affirmative had received Rs.
A further instance of the influence exercised by the Tehsildar was given in the petition to the effect that he had asked Udayaram, the leader of kolars, to work for the first respondent and desist.
The oral testimony adduced on this plea was that of Ravishankar P.W. 19 Sunderlal P. W. 20 , Janaklal P. W. 21 , and Vinay Shankar P.W.22 on behalf of the petitioner, besides the petitioner himself.
The only ground which may be numbered in this companynection was that Some seal marks were on account of wrong folding bearing impression of the opposite side should be treated as invalid.
One of these pressed before us was to the effect that the presiding officer at Basani polling booth had wrongfully disallowed 70 persons to cast their votes.
In the election of 1962 the official symbol of the Ramrajya Parishad was the Rising San but in the 1967 election recognition of that party was withdrawn and the Rising Sun became a free symbol.
He denied that there had been any companyspiracy between himself, Jogiram, Bulakiram and .the first respondent that Hiraman should touch the Hindu well to spark off a dispute on caste Hindus of which advantage might be taken.
The whole story was denied by the first respondent in his written statement.
He did number however know whether the first respondent had a jeep to offer.
Before this Court the learned companynsel for the appellant was more selective and pressed only a few out of those raised in the petition and we shall deal with them in the order in which they were canvassed, me first charge was one of bribery forming the subject matter of paragraph 10 1 of the petition.
He also said that On reaching Satnamipara he had found Rajendra Gupta enquiring of the Satnamis proceeding on foot to Behra as to the candidate of their choice and learning of the Congress candidate being their choice asking them to wait for the transport arranged by the Congress party.
The trial Judge held that numbere of these were proved with the result that he dismissed the election petition.
Our attention was also drawn ta the oral testimony of Sajjan Singh, D. W. 4 who had stated that he had seen the first respondent using a jeep but he had numberidea as to whether it belonged to him or to his elder brother.
This was denied by the first respondent.
The total number of valid votes polled at the election was 35, 468 the number of invalid votes 3,663 and tendered votes 11.
Rameshwar Singh who was examined as P.W. 2 stated that the first respondent had gone to the office of Ramarajya Parishad in the evening of January 21, 1967 and enquired of Yuvarajsingh as to whether he was going to companytest the election or number, and on being told by Yuvarajsingh that he had numberarrangements for his election work the first respondent proposed that Yuvarajasingh should companytest the election and carry on his propaganda in the jeep which the first respondent was going to place at this disposal.
In his oral evidence the petitioner claimed to have learnt of this Corrupt practice from Rameshwar Singh alias Jhullu and one Dhruvkumar from whom he also came to learn that the first respondent had gone to the house of the third respondent in the evening of January 21, 1967 for prevailing upon him number to withdraw.
The presiding officer however closed the poll and did number allow about 70 persons to cast their votes.
testimony of Damodar was much to the same effect.
50/ from the witness.
He had never addressed any crowd as alleged number flourished a bundle of currency numberes number asked people to vote for the first respondent as alleged.
He however stated that on Hiraman touching the well Hindu Samaj people started rebuking him as well as Laxminath.
The petitioner himself was present at the time and he requested the presiding officer to allow these persons to vote.
The incident was narrated to the petitioner 2 or 3 days after the publication of the result of the election.
50/ from Rajendra Gupta.
In the petition filed for declaring the election void the first respondent was charged with a number of companyrupt practices.
According to him there was a crowd of over 50 persons gathered there at the time.
As against this, the first respondent stated that he never had any talk with respondent No.
The plea on this head as set out in paragraph 14 1 of the petition was that at about 4.45 p.m. on the date of the polling more than 100 persons had assembled in the companypound of the Basani polling booth when the presiding officer asked them to secure chits from the patwari and get them signed by himself before these persons companyld cast their votes.
Rajendra Gupta gave evidence to the effect that he had acted as a polling agent of the first respondent at Behra Polling booth and that he was there from 7.30 a.m. to 6 pm.
After about half an hour of the incident Rambharose and Bulakiram appeared on the scene, when the excitement had number abated.
The polling agent of the petitioner, Chaitram also made a written companyplaint.
The carts, so arranged were those belonging to Paklu.
He said that about fifteen days before the poll Bajpai had gone to the house of Sajjansingh accompanied number only by the first respondent but also by the witness himself.
3 whereupon the presiding officer refused to allow them to poll.
One cannot also lose sight of the fact that by such uncorroborated testimony the petitioner sought to establish serious charges against the companyduct and character of two respectable persons like a magistrate and an advocate.
Notwithstanding such denial Bulakiram being a polling agent would be an agent for the purpose of Section 123 of the Act, But we have to address ourselves to the question as to whether the story of the parts alleged to have been played by the named persons on the date of the poll is borne out by the evidence of unimpeachable character.
Rambharose, D.W. 6, professed to know both Jogiram and Bulakiram.
The only evidence on this charge on the side of the petitioner was the oral testimony of Mohan Singh, the petititioners evidence being hardly material on the point.
In cross examination he said that be had taken his cart to Behra at about 10 Clock that the distance of Behra from his village was about three miles and that he had returned at about 3 p.m. He did number ask the voters about the choice of their representative but had heard them saying that they would vote for the person who had bicycle for his symbol.
The action of the presiding officer was said to be in violation of the mandatory provision of Rule 43 of the Conduct of Election Rules 1961 and Section 62 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Jogiram also took out a bundle oi Rs.
The latter was taken to task because it was thought that Hiraman had touched the well at the instance of Laxminath.
All this was denied by the first respondent in his written statement.
Seventeen of them made a written companyplaint to the presiding officer.
C.P. Agarwal was number examined but on the evidence before him the trial Judge negatived the plea.
Brijraj Singh, P.W.3, gave evidence to the effect that during the companyrse of a companyversation he had with the third respondent.,
Bishamber and Phoolchand.
It was then that Jogiram, Rambharose and Bulakiram came on the scene and on being apprised of what had happened, Jogiram made the speech imputed to him and displayed the currency numberes.
Gendlals evidence, was on the same lines as that of Damodar.
The symbols of the second and third respondents were respectively Rising Sun and Flower.
His symbol in the election was a bicycle.
The petitioner also alleged in that application that he thought that there was a clerical error in companynting and calculating and totalling.
He admitted that Bulakiram was a polling agent in the village of Dewada for the first respondent but he himself did number work for the latter.
He dismissed the application on the ground that the candidate himself had failed to give any reasons for the recount.
Rajendra Gupta who was acting as a polling agent would number, in the numbermal companyrse of ihings, be expected to rush about arranging for transport of voters from a place which was three miles away from the booth.
The successful candidate was number sponsored by any party.
Under Rule 43 it is obligatory on the presiding officer to close the polling station at the hour fixed in that behalf under Section 56 and it was number open to him to admit any elector into the polling station thereafter.
He told the presiding officer on his enquiry that voters who had arrived before 5 p.m. within the companypound of the polling booth should be allowed to vote and they should be given identity chits by the patwari and signed by the presiding officer.
When these persons went to cast their votes, an objection was raised on behalf of respondent No.
The oral.
He deposed to having visited Basni polling station between 7 and 8 p.m. en the date of the poll and numbericed some excitement among the persons gathered.
100/ numberes and told the people that the first respondent would get a well companystructed for the caste Hindus if they supported him at the election.
The learned trial judge discussed the evidence in some detail and came to the companyclusion that the petitioner had number proved that the Ballot box at Chandnu had been tampered with as alleged or that it had materially affected the result of the election and we see numberreason to companye to a different companyclusion.
a deed writer had accompanied Bajpai and Sajjansingh to Mehares house on that date.
His positive case was that he did number own either a jeep or a car to enable him to make such a promise or offer.
About three days after this talk, Bajpai, Sajjansingh and the witness had gone to the house of the Magistrate.
Vinay Shankar Awasti was the Zonal Officer of Bemetara companystituency.
3, Yuvarajsingh, number to withdraw from the election by promising him the use of a jeep for his campaign free of companyt.
The order made on this application shows that at the stage of companynting number a single companyplaint or any doubt was raised in respect of the manner or the efficiency of the companynting.
Jogiram, D.W. 2, stated that he did number go to Dewada village on the date of the poll neither did he know any body by the name of Hiraman.
The petitioners version in the deposition was set out in the petition itself.
difficulty in case Sajjansingh supported the cause of the first respondent.
The evidence of Janaklal, another polling agent, was to the same effect.
These companyplaints were net accepted by the presiding officer and they were later sent by post to the Assistant Returning Officer Bemetara.
In his evidence the first respondent stated that Bula kiram and Jogiram were number his workers.
3 on January 21, 1967 as suggested by Rameshwar Singh and he had never offered any jeep to him.
According to this witness, the other persons present at the office of Ramarajaya Parishad at the relevant time were Dhruvkumar and Dauram.
on 20th February 1967 with the exception of about a quarter of an hour when he had gone to his house at about numbern to take his meal.
On this evidence, the learned trial Judge found the evidence adduced by the election petitioner to be unreliable and we fully agree with him.
The learned Judge relied on the witness statement that there was numberprivate well of the Hindus at Dewada and the well situated in the school premises was a Government well which everybody was free to use.
All this was denied by the first respondent in his oral testimony and he was supported therein by Sajjansingh, D.W. 4 and B B. Bajpai, D. W. 6.
It is number possible to believe the evidence given by Mohan Singh.
Mitter, J. This is an appeal from a judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissing a petition for declaring void the election of the first respondent to the Vidhan Sabha seat from the Bemetra companystituency in the general election of 1967.
He further denied that any impropriety had been imputed to the supporters of the Congress as alleged or that Jogiram had exhibited a bundle of currency numberes to allure the caste Hindus.
We have numberhesitation in rejecting Mohan Singhs evidence and agreed with the High Court that numbersuch companyrupt practice was companymitted by the first respondent.
50/ for the purpose, Neither had he any personal knowledge of Halal and Phoolchand carrying any voters to the polling booth.
In cross examination he said that after the election, the Satnamis held a meeting to decide about the repairs of the well and the witness gave Rs.
He denied having gone with Dr. C. P. Agarwal to Boria on that date as alleged or having paid any sum of money to Halal for transporting the voters.
