On a review of the evidence the High Court observed that the number of the lorry was number given by any of the witnesses, and there was numberevidence about its ownership.
There were inherent improbabilities in the allegation itself.
Those amounts were sent by his friends who were interested in him.
ii In respect of the charge of bribery of Rs.
The evidence clearly does number make out the case of the appellant.
He de posed that he did get the leaflet print ed on his own account and number at the instance of anybody else, that he defrayed the expenses and paid on April 9, 1967 the printing charges amounting to Rs.
The leaflet in question is in the form of several interrogations.
The caption, however, is different.
10,000/ to one D. Jagannatha Rao a resident of that village for companystructing a High School building in that village.
10,000/ , it was alleged in the petition that Latchhana, election agent of the respondent visited Kothakota at 8 00 p.m. on April 26, 1967 and paid Rs.
In regard to the testimony of Kolla Appanna P.W. 12 the High Court observed that his assertion that he went in a lorry was highly doubtful and that the story deposed to by the witness was palpably false, that the story that the witness Gedala Lakshmi Naidu P. W. 16 that he travelled by the lorry was open to doubt, that testimony of Ganapala Narsimha Rao who is closely related to the appellant was tainted, and that the evidence of Sanapali Raja Rao P.W. 24 was also number believable.
607 94 were shown in the account 4 that various amounts aggregating to Rs.
Boyana Kanakiah P.W. 13 and Boyina Kama Raju P.W. 14 are companysins of the appellant.
The payment, it was said, was made with the object of inducing the voters of Kothakota and three companytiguous polling stations to vote for the respondent.
There was again numberevidence as to its procurement for free companyveyance and the alleged use of the vehicle for free companyveyance was, therefore, number established.
He relied also upon two documents Exts.
Did number your Government appoint the Regional Officer of Co operative Societies, Panchayati Samiti, Araadalayalasa, to inquire into the affairs of the Gandhi Building Society which is managed under the companytrol of Sri Boddepalli Narayana Murthy who is the brother of Rajagopala Rao, member of the Legislative Assembly?
APK 9250 which was flying the Swatantra Party flag and was used for free transport of voters on the polling day between 10 A.M. and 2 P. M. from the surrounding villages to the polling station at Guttavalli.
This was denied by the respondent.
Parts of the leaflet related to the personal character and companyduct of the appellant and were defamatory of him and were likely to lower him in the estimation of the electorate.
There was some discrepancy about the date of placing the order.
The appellant filed an application in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to set aside the election of the respondent on the ground that the respondent had companymitted diverse companyrupt practices described in Section 123 1 A a , b , 5 and 6 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
APG 35 11 and motor bus No.
besides the respondent and his election agent, were examined to disprove the case of the appellant.
APK 9486, motor lorry No.
In his additional written statement he also pleaded that there was absence of essential particulars relating to the names of the voters and that the petition did number disclose a cause of action since the allegations did number make out a companyrupt practice.
Copies of the leaflet were distributed at several meetings held by the Swatantra Party at Srikakulam and other places.
APK 9486 was used for the free transport of voters between 10 00 A.M. and 2.00 P.M. on the polling day from Killoi village and Killoi Colony to the polling station at Konkadapatti.
He companyld number vouch for the fact that those who alighted were voters or that they had voted at that polling station.
Latchanna deposed that he did number send the leaflet for publication in the newspaper from Srikaku lam to Hyderabad.
In support of the allegation the appellant examined Dhavala Appalla Suri P. W. 7, Kusumanchi Adinarayana P. W. 8, Galala Ramulu P. W. 9 and Amballa Appalla Suri P. W. 11 and relied upon some documentary evidence also.
He denied the suggestion that it was number D. Jagannatha Rao but he himself who caused the publication of the article in Bahujana.
1,000/ odd shown in the account rendered, and that the motor spirit purchased during the period from the motor spirit bunks at Srikakulam, Sompet, Itchapuram, Amadalavalasa and Takkali and other places was ridiculously low, that a number of lorries from outside or within the District were engaged by the respondent during the last week of the election for propaganda purposes, as also on the polling day for companyveying voters to the polling stations, and the expenditure on diesel oil, drivers and cleaners in respect of those vehicles had number been included in the account.
It was sought to be proved that a large number of vehicles were used for his election campaign by the respondent and the expenditure incurred according to the appellant exceeded Rs.
In the view of the learned Judge the procurement of the jeep for free companyveyance was number proved.
P 357 at those meetings.
In the first newspaper the caption shows that it was a questionnaire of Srikakulam public to the Minister and in the second newspaper the caption showed that it was a questionnaire by the Srikakulam public through D. Jagannatha Rao, President of Nogrskatakam Swatantra Party.
In answer the respondent examined himself, his election agent and witnesses K. Chalapatirao Patnaik, R. W. 1, Dola Jagannatha Rao R. W. 6, D. Kondaih Choudari R. W. 8 and Alla Venkatarao R. W. 16, and relied upon certain documentary evidence.
The appellant said that the leaflet was printed at Sri Ramakrishna Printing Works at Srikakulam and the printing expenses thereof amounting to Rupees 85/ were according to the appellant defrayed by the election agent of the respondent, that the election agent of the respondent caused the distribution of those leaflets at several meetings held by the Swatantra Party at Srikakulam at 9 00 P.M. on April 24, 1967, at Mandasa at 6 00 P.M. on April 21, 1967, at Takkali at 7 00 P.M. on April 20, 1967 and at Palasa at 11 00 AM.
D. Ramamurthy P. W. 26 was examined on behalf of the appellant in support of his case on this plea of companyrupt practice.
The third branch under this head related to the use of motor lorry No.
though in fact the respondent incurred and paid an amount of Rupees 10,000/ for the purchase of motor spirit from the Esso Standard Bunk, Srikakulam, only an expenditure of about Rs.
It is companymon ground that one Dola Jagannatha Rao procured the leaflet printed at Sri Ramakrishna Printing Works at Srikakulam.
Thus the companytention as to the alleged incidence must be held against the appellant.
The respondent said that the amount spent by him was partly his own and partly received from donations.
Thereby the respondent companymitted a companyrupt practice under Section 123 4 of the Representation of the People Act.
In the view of the learned judge the testimony of Papi Naidu, P.W. 10, did number satisfy all the companyponent elements of the companyrupt practice alleged.
According to the appellant Suvari Sanyasi Apparao who was defeated in the companytest for a seat in the Legislative Assembly of Andhra Pradesh in the general elections held in 1962 and February, 1967, intended to companytest for the Lok Sabha seat in the bye election and was canvassing support before the appointed date for filing numberinations, but the respondent and his election agent at a meeting on March 29, 1967 in the travellers bungalow at Amadalvalasa dissuaded Suvari Sanyasi Apparao from companytesting the election in companysideration of payment of Rs.
Witness D. Ramamurthy sought to support the case of the appellant on several other matters.
Latchanna denied all knowledge in companynection with the printing and dictation of the companytents of the leaflet Ext.
Besides, the evidence of the witnesses as found by the High Court.
4,000/ as gratification.
It was further averred that the respondent and his election agent exhorted the people at those meetings number to vote for a person who had misappropriated public funds.
The companytents which were published in the Bahujana largely tally with Ext.
15,834 92.
The appellant amended the petition and submitted particulars of certain companyrupt practices set out in the original petition.
The High Court held on a detailed companysideration of the evidence that the companyrupt practices alleged by the appellant in the petition were number proved, and dismissed the petition.
4,000/ paid to a candidate in the election as gratification for number standing for election, Rs.
1,000/ paid for companypleting the excavation of a well in companysideration of promise of votes for the respondent.
P 357.
APS 1315.
Thereby a companyrupt practice under Section 123 5 was companymitted Causing the printing and publication of a leaf let companytaining false and defamatory statements in relation to the personal character of the appellant.
He examined D. Ramamurthy P.W. 26 who stated that the leaflet Ext.
200/ was shown in the account of election expenses 3 that an amount of Rs.
D. Jagannatha Rao was examined as a witness for the respondent.
Is he number still in the hospital?
Suvari Sanyasi Apparao was also examined as a witness R. W. 2.
The High Court also observed that apart from the interested nature and the fact that their testimony was replete with material companytradictions, there were inherent improbabilities in the story told, which made it highly difficult to accept the testimony.
Latchanna is the printer, publisher and editor of Bahujana.
85, that he wrote the draft of the leaflet in his house at Srikakulam that numberone else was pre sent on that occasion, that he did number companysult any other person number did he take any other persons advice in that behalf that before he took it to the press he did number show it to any other person, and that as the printers companyld number properly decipher the manuscript they got prepared a fair companyy by their own employee.
P 357 of his own accord and neither the respondent number his election agent was in any way companycerned with it.
The witness did number give the number of the jeep number the names of the voters.
The witness stated that D. Jagannatha Rao had brought the written matter on 2 or 3 pages, and that the Manager of the Printing Press got it fair companyied and took his signature on the fair companyy which is Ext.
It was said that the respondent had expressed his thanks for the work done by the Vahini news paper during the election.
This was denied by the respondent.
According to him the vehicle belonged to the Swatantra Party and stood registered in the name of Narayan Dandekar Secretary of the Party.
The witness stated that one Chelapati Rao also came over to the printing press but only after D. Jagannatha Rao had paid the charges and that Chelapati Rao had numberhing to do with that leaf let.
The workers were lodged and boarded at a place called Sri Venkateswara Lodging and Boarding Lodge at Srikakulam, and the expenditure incurred for them was met by Sri Venkateswara Lodge.
After companysidering the testimony of the respondent and his witnesses the Court observed that the oral testimony on behalf of the appellant was inconsistent and did number make out a case of companyrupt practice, that the probabilities of the case were strongly against the appellants companytention and there was numberreason to disbelieve the testimony of the witnesses for the respondent.
Thereafter five names of the proprietors of those petrol bunks were mentioned.
The witness admitted that he was a Swatantra party worker and put his signature on the fair companyy of the leaflet.
Counsel for the appellant restricted his argument to the following charges set out in the petition A charge of bribery in respect of an amount of Rs.
While some of the witnesses said it was rice mill premises itself, others said that it was near the rice mill.
It was the respondents case that Latchanna did number have custody of the funds intended to be used for the election campaign, that he the respondent had kept his money for the election campaign with one Kavuri Venkaiah and that the latter spent the amount for election purposes.
The relevant part of the leaflet is Did number 18 gentlemen including Andhra Pradesh Congress Secretary Srikulapu Lokshammana Das, District Board President Sri Gorie Sriramulu Naidu, Ex Assembly member Sri Andhavarapu Tavitayya, Sri Challa Narasimhulu Naidu and others, present a memorandum in June 1966 to the Chief Minister and to the Minister for Co operation stating that Sri Boddepalli Rajagopala Rao, who is to companytest as a Congress party candidate in the Srikakulam Parliamentary Constituency bye election on the 27th of this month, had misused like water nearly 60 lakhs of rupees of governmental monies and peoples monies belonging to Co operative Sugar Factory, District Co operative Central Bank and such other companyoperative institutions which were treated as his own and managed under his companytrol?
He denied that he wrote the draft or took any part in the printing of the leaflet at Latchanns instance.
300 and sent them to Srikakulam.
In support of his case the appellant relied upon his own evidence and the evidence of the with nesses Boyana Kanakiah P. W. 13 and Boyina Kama Raju P. W. 14.
It was proved by the evidence that the party office was in the house of Simma Jagannadham.
1,200/ after the election.
The appellant also alleged that at meetings held at four places Takkali, Palasa, Mandasa and Srika kulam these leaflets were distributed.
The jeep, it was said, carried the Swatantra Party Flag as well as the agent of the respondent one Dunkuru Mangule This was witnessed by the Presiding Officer, among others, when a company plaint was made by the agent of the appellant Hadia Naiko to the Presiding Officer.
The caption of the leaflet is Peoples Questionnaire to the Respected Minister.
The appellant then filed his additional written statement.
The respondent had expended a sum exceeding Rupees 3 lakhs, and the expenditure returned was a gross under estimate of the expenses incurred by the respondent in companynection with his election.
3,500/ provided by him in cash and Rs.
It was then stated that the expenditure incurred by the respondent in respect of cycle rickshaws and jutkas was number shown, that wages and maintenance of about 1,000 workers for about three weeks and about 1500 polling agents on the day of poll was number accounted for, that numberexpenditure incurred towards boarding and lodging of the workers at the election was accounted for that the amount of Rs.
He said that he had seen the leaflet for the first time only after it was printed and D. Jagannatha Rao had taken delivery and never thereafter.
The burden of proving that the respondent and his election agent went to Amadalvalasa travellers bungalow and persuaded Suvari Sunyasi Apparao number to file his numberination paper in companysideration of receiving a bribe lay upon the appellant.
This evidence did number sup port the case of the appellant.
In rebuttal the respondent relied upon his own testimony and of his election agent Latchhana.
The next head under this charge of companyrupt practice as alleged by the appellant related to the use of motor lorry No.
Thereby companyrupt practices of bribery within the meaning of Section 123 A IB were companymitted Providing on the day of polling a number of motor vehicles for the free transport of voters to the polling stations, and especially motor jeep No.
The witness also stated that he saw voters getting down the jeep and joining the queue and that there were 7 or 9 such voters.
The charge of companyrupt practice under Section 123 5 arose out of the allegation that Latchanna procured a number of lorries, jeeps, motor cars, buses and other vehicles, for free transport of voters to the polling stations on the date of polling.
That the account of the expenditure returned by the respondent did number disclose many items of expenditure which were incurred in companynection with the election.
10,000/ for companystructing a high school building in the village Kothakota with the object of inducing the voters in the village and three other companytiguous polling stations to vote for him and Rs.
The witness said that the jeep was entrusted to him at Sompeta to deliver it to Dunkuru Mungalo, polling agent of the respondent at Konkadaputti.
The respondent denied the allegations made in the petition.
There was numberallegation in the petition that the publication in the Bahujana was caused by Latchanna of by the respondent.
5,000/ being the proceeds of a cheque received by him as donation, a sum of Rs.
6,000/ was handed over to Kavuri Venkaiah and that some postal money orders addressed to him were received by Venkaiah in his absence.
He denied that any election fund was opened by him, number was such fund opened by Latchanna.
In rebuttal, the respondent examined Jammana Jogi R. W 7, Garimella Kameswara Rao R.W. 11 and Dannana Appanna R.W. 23 and relied upon the first information which was lodged about the fight.
It was the case of the appellant that these witnesses had seen the incident and had given a report promptly to the Sub Inspector of Police, and that Sub Inspector had detained the motor lorry and bus and got a mediators report prepared.
APK 9250, motor lorry No.
The respondent examined a number of other witnesses K. Chalapatirao Patnaik R. W. 1, Bendi Appalla Suri R. W. 3 Dola Jagannatha Rao, R. W. 6, Sylada Pyditalli Naidu R. W. 9, B. Achuta Raju R. W. 10, B. Narayana Swamy R. W. 15, Kolanganti Sathi Raju R. W. 25 and Cokina Chandra Rao R. W. 26 and relied upon certain documents.
Thereby he companymitted a companyrupt practice under Section 123 6 read with Section 77 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
D. Jagannatha Rao said that the order was placed on April 7, 1967 the Managing Proprietor said it was on April 4, 1967, but that was a minor discrepancy which did number affect the testimony of either witness.
The petition then referred to the expenditure on wall posters, on printing, distributing and exhibiting them was far below the amount incurred, and only an amount of Rs.
In respect of the charge of bribery there were three heads i that the respondent and his election agent G. Latchanna induced one Suvari Sanyasi Apparao number to stand as a candidate at the election by paying him Rs.
After the evidence was closed the appellant applied for calling the Sub Inspector as a Court witness but the application was rejected.
iii In respect of the third head of the charge of bribery, it was alleged by the appellant in his petition that at Pathokota a village falling within the limits of Budarsingi polling station the respondent and his election agent companyvened an election meeting on April 23, 1967, that the villagers assembled at that meeting requested the respondent to donate a sum of Rupees .1,000/ to companyplete the excavation of a well in return for their votes, and that as directed by the respondent on the same day at about 5 00 P.M. Negineni Venkayya agent of the respondent paid Rupees 1,000/ to Biridhar and Judisti, members of the village Youth League in the presence of the Sarpanch and village elders.
To explain his presence at the drafting of the leaflet he stated that Latchanna called him on April 25, 1967 at his residence, that when he reached Latchannas place the leaflet was being drafted and that he was detained till the drafting was over and thereafter he was sent away.
P 357.
The witness did number mention this incident in the report as such companyplaints were number usually mentioned at all.
2,081/ was shown as expenditure incurred by the respondent in his account of election expenses on that account.
He did number give the number of the jeep, number did he state that he had seen the Swatantra flag on the jeep.
He further stated that though he was the editor of the paper he was away from Hyderabad and in his absence his brothers son G. Kranti Kumar was editing the paper, and that he came to know of the publication many days after the election was companypleted.
The respondent and his election agent also exhorted, with the object of tarnishing the image of the appellant and lowering him in the estimation of the voters, the voters at those meetings number to vote for the appellant who it was alleged had misappropriated public funds.
6,000/ was spent for the purchase of motor spirit from Esso Standard Bunk, Sompet, but only Rs.
Dola Jagannadha Rao companyld have personally distributed them or caused their distribution through others.
APS 1315 to vote for the respondent, that the Sub Inspector prepared the statement of the bus companyductor, the lorry driver and other persons and that a mediation report was also recorded in that companynection.
Even in respect of this charge of companyrupt practice numberargument seeking to persuade us to take a different view was advanced by companynsel for the appellant.
In support of this plea of companyrupt practice the appellant examined three witnesses Papi Naidu, Presiding Officer, P. W. 10, Hadia Naiko P. W. 20 and D. Ramamurthy P. W. 26.
The appellant has appealed to this Court under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
In their evidence they did number specify the persons who used the said lorry and bus on behalf of the respondent, number did their evidence disclose the names of the voters companyveyed by the said lorry or bus.
The respondent and the election agent were in numberway companynected with its publication, when several thousands of companyies of the pamphlet had been printed they must of companyrse be for purposes of distribution.
He also submitted that the allegations were vague and indefinite and some of those allegations did number companystitute any companyrupt practice within the meaning of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The witness companyld number explain the reason why the leaflet was number printed at Guntur.
10,000/ were paid at different bunks for motor spirit and diesel oil but those amounts had been deliberately suppressed from the account.
In support of this case Suri Surya narayana P. W. 25, D. Ramamurthy P. W. 26, Kirtichandra Rao P. W. 28, C.V. Babu Rao P.W. 29, M. Narayana Rao P. W. 30 and Sana Veerabhadra Rao P. W. 31 were examined.
He also admitted that he was number usually companysulted in any matter, but whenever required the members of the party used only to take work from him.
In the petition it was expressly averred that the leaflet Ext.
The leaflet was again reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the appellants election.
A companyplaint was given to the police by some of the voters that they were being companyveyed in the lorry, two of those voters being Kolla Appanna and Sarpanch Sinupanapalaum.
During one of the trips, it was said that there ensued a free fight between the persons who were carried by the lorry and others who were present near the polling station as the former raised slogans acclaiming the respondent and denouncing the appellant.
1,192/ paid to Vijaya Auto Service under voucher dated April 30, 1967 for the purchase of diesel oil motor spirit and lubricants was number included 2.
On a companysideration of the evidence, the Court held that the evidence on behalf of the appellant was marred by improbabilities, and it companyld number be accepted.
This was denied by the respondent.
In support of his case the appellant examined Suvari Sanyasi Apparao P.W. 24 and B. Suryanarayana P.W. 25.
There is numberevidence also that either the respondent or his election agent Latchanna had knowledge before the date of the publication or even before the date of the election of the respondent.
85 for printing charges.
4,000/ .
APG 3911 and motor bus No.
In cross examination the witness stated that he companyld number write Telugu, though he companyld read a little.
In support of this plea the appellant examined Khanda Judishtra Kumaro P. W. 17 and Chinchalam Satyanarayana P. W. 18.
APS 1315.
In rebuttal, the respondent examined himself, his election agent Latchhanna, Kavuri Venkaiah R. W. 28, Giridhar Kumar R. W. 13 of village Patakota and two others of the same village Harinarayan Dolao R. W. 17 and Mansing Kumarao R. W. 18.
The Manager of Sri Venkateswara Lodge apparently boarded and lodged those workers free of charge.
The High Court held that on the evidence, the cash bills which were produced by the appellant in respect of the motor spirit expenses were number companynected with the motor vehicles of the respondent or of his agent or of any vehicles maintained by the respondent for election purposes.
It was alleged in the petition that the two vehicles were flying the Swatantra Party flag and were used for transporting voters free of charge on the polling day to Torrivandan polling station from Puruinwada and Appanyaturu that a report was lodged by Boyana Kanakiah and B. Mamaray to the police Sub Inspector of Kothun who was on election duty at Sarnakota stating that a number of voters were being carried by lorry No.
P 357 with some modifications were published in the Vahini and Bahujana and that by that publication a companyrupt practice under Section 123 4 was companymitted by the respondent.
This was number a matter relevant to the issue under companysideration, and the High Court was right in holding that it would be extending the scope of the inquiry companytemplated to be made on the allegations made in the petition to hold that by reason of the publication in the Vahini and Bahujana the respondent or his election agent were guilty of any companyrupt practice.
The learned Trial Judge made a detailed analysis of the evidence and held that there were companytradictions and material discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses for the appellant, and that the statements of the witnesses did number inspire companyfidence.
P 357 was published by the respondent and his election agent.
Is there numberprotection under your Government to your officers who are just and impartial?
But the Sub Inspector of police to whom the report is alleged to have been made was though cited as a witness number examined in the case and the report or the proceedings started pursuant thereto were number brought on the record.
500/ imposed by the High Court on Rajagopala Rao for companytempt of companyrt because he flouted the orders of the High Court in that he by force, oppressive behavior and threat to the Factory Manager, forcibly took all ballot papers and himself, acting as an officer, companyducted the Sugar Factory elections in an irregular manner?
Both the oral and documentary evidence falsified it.
The evidence brought before the Court companyld number cure the defect in the pleadings.
In rebuttal, K. Chalapati Rao Patnaik R. W. 1, Suvari Sanyasi Appa Rao R.W. 2, Bendi Appalla Suri R.W. 3, D. Kondaih Choudari R. W. 8, Garimella Kameswara Rao R. W. 11, B. Narayana Swamy R. W. 15, Narayan Dandekar R. W.20, G. Chandraih Naidu R.W. 21, N. Veerachari R. W. 22, Bendalam Rama Murthi R. W. 24, Allu Suryanarayana R.W. 29 and Raj Vallabh Misra R. W. 30.
What action has been taken against it by the Government?
P 357 was drafted in the house of Latchanna by K. Chelapati Rao Patnaik to the dictation of Latchanna in the presence of Dola Jagannatha Rao, that one week thereafter the leaflets were got printed by Chelapati Rao Patnaik and Dola Jagannatha Rao, and that Latchanna gave them Rs.
The amounts which were paid by Simma Jagannadham were number shown to be paid towards the expenses of lodging and boarding of the workers at Sri Venkateswara Lodge.
At the trial the appellant relied also upon the publication of the companytents of the leaflet in two weekly newspapers Bahujana and Vahini in their issues of April 17, 1967, and April 24, 1967 respectively.
Consent of the candidate or his election agent to the printing of the pamphlet cannot be inferred from that circumstance.
was discrepant and did number accord with probabilities.
But the witness admitted that the people who were getting down the jeep were number known to him, that he had numberopportunity to get them identified, that they had joined the queue but whether they were voters or number he companyld number say, that he asked the agent to put his companyplaint in writing but that was number done, and that the agent was number known to him and he had never seen him afterwards.
He also denied that he or his election agent exhorted the voters as alleged by the appellant.
Again the evidence for the respondent in the view of the High Court was sufficient to disprove the companyrupt practice alleged.
At the time when he took delivery of the printed leaflet, D. Jagannatha Rao paid an amount of Rs.
A companyy of a bank account maintained in the name of Latchanna with the Andhra Bank Ltd., Srikakulam, was tendered in evidence to support the case of the appellant that large amounts were withdrawn from time to time during the election days and it was suggested that all the money withdrawn was utilized by Latchanna for the election campaign of the respondent.
The respondent denied these allegations.
It was averred in the petition that jeep No.
P 358.
P 41 and P 83.
4,000/ to Suvari Sanyasi Apparao by Latchanna after the respondent and Latchhana had requested him number to file the numberination paper and to help the respondent in the election.
The respondent denied the allegations.
APG 3911 and bus No.
on April 21, 1967 and at other places to sponsor the candidature of the respondent to a seat in the Parliament.
The witnesses examined on his behalf are, as found by the High Court, highly interested and their testimony was rebutted by the witnesses named by him as the persons present at the time.
Hadia Naiko was the polling agent of the appellant.
When he companyplained to the police authorities, what action has been taken?
It was admitted therein that while they were being transported for exercising their vote for the respondent there was obstruction from the supporters of the appellant Sanapalli Manumula Appalaw and his son and that a free fight ensued.
but number one pie out of this account was used for the bye election, and out of the amount that was left as balance after discharging debts he paid Rupees 16,000/ for the purchase of a jeep for the Central Party.
The respondent denied that he and his election agent had knowledge or had companysented to, or were companycerned with the leaflet, its printing, publishing and distribution.
The case of the respondent was supported by Venkaiah.
The case of the appellant was sought to be proved by examining a large number of distributors at petrol bunks from whom motor spirit was purchased on cash in respect of various vehicles.
The two witnesses examined on behalf of the appellant deposed to the circumstances leading to their presence at Amadalavalasa travellers bungalow and payment of Rs.
23,000/ for motor spirit alone.
Could anybody deny the fact that when that officer brought to light the inner secrets and brought them to the numberice of the Government, the Government on the ground that that officer did number obey their instructions, brought him out in the mid night, beat him almost to death and broke his legs and threw him on the road ?
C. Shah, J. At a bye election held in April 1967 to elect a member of the Lok Sabha from the Srikakulam parliamentary companystituency there were two companytesting candidates Boddepalli Rajagopala Rao hereinafter called the appellant and N.G. Ranga hereinafter called the respondent.
The respondent was declared elected.
It was number pleaded that the companytents of the leaflet Ext.
He stated that in the general elections, the Swatantra Party had spent large amounts of money and had incurred debts, and in order to pay off those debts the party had asked for donations from members of the State Party and also the Central Party, that an appeal was also made to the press to invite donations and also a request was made to the Central Party to make some grants, that in March and April 1967 some amounts were received in respect of which he maintained an account with the State Bank, Srikakulam, and a joint account in the State Bank at Sompeta in the names of his wife and himself, that certain amounts were received in his name by cheques and drafts and they were put in the joint current account at Srikakulam.
The High Court analysed the evidence of the witnesses on behalf of the appellant.
He further stated that apart from Rs.
He stated that Dunkuru Mungalo was bringing voters from Killoi Colony and Killoi village between 10 A.M. and 2 P.M. and on seeking this he told Dunkuro Mungalo that it was number proper for him to bring the voters in jeep cars and when the latter asserted that he had a right to do so, he companyplained to the Presiding Officer who asked for a written companyplaint which he companyld number companyply with as he was number proficient enough to write one and numbere on behalf of the appellant had companye who companyld do the needful.
In support of the allegations, the appellant examined Kolla Appanna P. W. 12, Gedala Lakshmi Naidu P. W. 16, Sanapala Narsimha Rao P. W. 21, Sanapali Raja Rao P.W. 24 and P. Chandra Rao P.W. 27.
It was averred in the election petition that the printing expenses were de frayed by Latchanna the election agent of the respondent and that Lat channa had caused distribution of the leaflet at several meetings held by the Swatantra Party at Srikakulam on April 24, 1967 at Mandasa on April 21, 1967, at Takkali on April 20, 1967 and at Palasa on April 21, 1967.
It was the case of the appellant, that Latchanna got the leaflet drafted and printed.
In support of the evidence the witness produced Exts.
P 346 and P 346/1 companyies of the order and the voucher evidencing payment by D. Jagannatha Rao.
Chelapati Rao, P.W. 1 was examined on behalf of the respondent.
P 357 and the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent, which ran into as many as 23 printed pages, and in companyclusion observed From the above discussion it is clear that it was Dola Jagannadha Rao himself who got printed Ext.
From the mere fact that D. Jagannatha Rao was a partyman and a member of the State Council of the Swatantra Party of which Latchanna was the President, and that D. Jagannatha Rao had companytested on the Swatantra Party ticket for a seat in the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly in the general elections in 1967, numberinference arises that the leaflet was published with the companysent of the respondent or his election agent.
This testimony fully supported the case of D. Jagannatha Rao.
