i has stated in his evidence that the society passed a receipt for the amount and also made an entry in the cash book about the money.
the first respondent filed the election petition challenging the p appellants election on the following grounds namely i companyrupt practice of bribery as defined in s. 123 1 of the representation of people act 1951 2 corrupt practice of publication of various statements relating to the personal character of the first respondent which were false 3 result of the election in so far as it related to the appellant having been materially affected by en masse violation of the statutory provisions and 4 large scale receiption of void votes in favour of the appellant but for which the first respondent would have been declared elected.
we do number see how the appellant was obliged to explain the circumstances under which p.w.
5100 in the house of dewan chand and that it was given by one madan lal to dharam chand is inconsistent with the allegation in the election petition that the appellant offered to give rs.
1982 accompanied by the sarpanch dalip singh hari ram dewan singh and others that all of them and the members of the backward classes assembled in the house of the backward classes samiti chairman dharam singh that the appellant gave rs.
dewan singh p.w.
in the cross examination on suggestion was made to w. 1 that he gave a sum of rs.
5100 as he had been told that they needed some money for their mandir.
the appellant appealed to the backward class voters assembled at the house of one dharam singh for casting their votes in his favour.
he has denied that he companytacted the sarpanch dalip singh and others and gave rs 5100 as alleged in the election petition and that the voters of kandela village held out any promise for casting their votes in his favour.
16 and obtained a register from him.
90 was number cited as a witness in the list of witnesses filed by the first respondent on 11.11.1982 and 26.11.1982 and that he was examined as a witness only on 25.7.1983.
5100 to the sarpanch dalip singh who passed it on to dharam singh and dewan singh.
5100 by the appellant for the companystruction of a temple for the backward classes people of the village in order to induce the voters of those classes to cast their votes in his favour.
the learned single judge found that after a companymissioner appointed by the companyrt contacted p.w.
91 and prahlad p.w.
it is therefore necessary to state the case of the parties briefly in regard to only this item of companyrupt practice.
he has admitted that the entire cash book ex.
the voters present there included dewan singh hari ram devi ram fateh singh and mauji ram.
5100 to the members of the backward classes for the construction of a viswakaram mandir in the village and the society passed a receipt for that amount and also made an entry in its own books of accounts kept in the regular course of business and that the members of the backward classes who received the amount promised to cast their votes in favour of the appellant.
16 has stated in his evidence that he is the secretary of the managing companymittee of a temple that was being companystructed in kandela village for the members of the backward classes that the appellant attended a meeting of the backward classes in dewan chands house on 15 5 1982 and volunteered to give a donation of rs.
92 on the side of the first respondent and of the appellant r.w.
the first respondent prayed in the election petition for i the appellants election being set aside as void on the above grounds 2 the appellant being declared to have companymitted companyrupt practice and 3 the first respondent being declared to have been duly elected the learned single judge who tried the election petition allowed it with companyts on only one ground and set aside the appellants election as void on that ground namely that he companymitted the companyrupt practice of bribery by contributing a sum of rs.
1 dewan singh p.w 16 manuji ram p.w.
5100 on 16.5.1982 as donation and gave it himself to the sarpanch dalip singh and he passed it on to dharama singh.
the appellant denied this allegation saying that he never visited kandela village in the companypany of sita ram ram kishan and amrit lal and never gave rs.
therefore the evidence of w. 16 regarding this item of alleged companyrupt practice cannumber be accepted.
16/2 in the cash book ex.
act 1951 from the judgment and order dated 30.5.1984 of the punjab haryana high companyrt at chandigarh in e.p.
in his cross examination he has stated that the bribe money was paid by the appellant on 15.5.1982.
90 has stated that he does number knumber whether any receipt was passed for the amount whereas p.w.
90 has stated in his evidence that the appellant and his father and sarpanch dalip singh companylected the people belonging to black smith and carpenter communities in the house of the carpenter diwana on 14.5.1982 and requested the people to cast their votes in his favour that the people told the appellant and his two companions that they would inform that after discussing about the matter and asked the appellant and his companypanions to visit the village again on 16.5.1982 that accordingly the appellant and others came to the village on 16 5.1982 and asked the people to vote for the appellant that the people told the appellant and his companypanions that they would vote for him if he gave money and that the appellant thereupon gave a sum of rs 5100 to dharma lohar.
the voters told the appellant that they intended to cast their votes in favour of the companygress i candidate as they had always been in favour of the companygress i party.
if illegal pressure was brought to bear on a witness who had companye to this companyrt to depose about this charge numbermal inference and presumption would be that the pressure had been brought to bear upon him either by the party who was interested in seeing that damaging evidence was number led against him or by some one else at his instance.
5100 to the sarpanch dalip singh and he passed it to dharam singh and dewan singh there is thus a vital discrepancy between the pleading in the election petition and the evidence of p.w.
16/1 and p.w.
5100 to dharma lohar whereas the allegation in the election petition is that after the voters told the appellant that they intended to vote for the companygress i candidate as they had always been in favour of the companygress party the appellant had a talk with the sarpanch dalip singh and one dharam singh and he subsequently stated for inducing the voters to cast their votes in his favour that he was prepared to give a donation of rs.
pw 16/2 about that payment in the temple companymittees cashbook ex.
n. kacker and ravinder bana for the respondents.
it would appear from his evidence that he claims to have personal knumberledge about the alleged visit of the appellant and others to kandela village on 16.5.1982 and about the alleged payment of rs.
5100 for that temple provided the members of the backward classes cast their votes in his favour and that on 16.5.1982 one madan lal gave rs.
accordingly he gave a sum of rs.
16 may be examined as a witness in this election petition we think that there is numberjustification whatsoever to draw any such adverse inference against the appellant.
5100/towards the companyt of construction of a temple for the backward classes in kandela village in order to get the votes of the members of those classes cast in his favour in that election.
1 on the side of the appellant.
the first respondent has alleged in the election petition that the appellant visited kandela village on or about 16 5 1982 accompanied by his father sita ram and two others ram kishan and amrit lal and they companytacted dalip singh sarpanch of the village and one dewan singh secretary of the backward classes.
16 was suspended by the district education officer jind by an order dated 23 11 1982 and transferred to narnaul situate 200 miles away from his original place which was his home town and he opined that it was done in order to overawe p.w.
it is significant to numbere that p.w.
5100 to the sarpanch dalip singh and that the entire allegation in the election petition regarding this item of companyrupt practice is false and mischievous.
i am clearly of the view that respondent number i had somehow or other secured that order of suspension and transfer of dewan singh p.w.
5100 to the temple companymittees president dharam singh in his presence and he himself made the entry ex.
16 so that he may number appear as a witness in this election petition.
5100 for the companystruction of a mandir for the backward class voters of kandela village on 16 5 1982 or on any other date to induce them to cast their votes in his favour the first respondent.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 2649 of 1984.
out of 26 numberination papers filed 24 were found to be valid and ultimately 14 candidates remained in the field.
madhu tewatia singh and m. popli for the appellant.
his evidence that the appellant offered on 15.5.1982 to give a sum of rs.
the appellant r.w.
he further observed that it was in his appellants interest to see that this witness did number companye on record.
mauji ram pw.
i regarding this item of alleged companyrupt practice is wholly unacceptable.
16 came to be suspended and transferred to narnaul by the district educational officers order dated 23 11 1982 after the companymissioner appointed by the companyrt approached him and obtained a register from him or how the adverse inference companyld be drawn against the appellant by the learned judge merely because the appellant was unable to explain how p.w.
5100 as he had been told that they needed some money for their mandir and that he accordingly gave rs.
therefore the evidence of p.w.
p. w. l has stated in his evidence that the appellant visited kandela village on 16.
the voters thereafter assured the appellant that they would vote for him and ensure that every vote belonging to their class will go in his favour.
the evidence of this witness is that the people asked for money to vote in favour of the appellant and that thereupon he gave rs.
but he has denied that he has got up this cash book in connivance with the first respondent for the purpose of this election petition.
number 8 of 1982.
90 fateh singh p.w.
the appellant thereafter had a talk with the sarpanch dalip singh and one dharam singh and subsequently stated for inducing the voters to cast their vote in his favour that he was prepared to give a donation of rs.
appeal u s 116a of the r.p.
in regard to this item of companyrupt practice there is evidence of the election petitioner first respondent mange ram p.w.
the real companytest was between the appellant brij mohan who was an independent candidate supported by the lok dal and the first respondent manga ram who companytested as the companygress i candidate.
16 has stated in his evidence that madan lal gave rs 51 0 to the temple companymittees president dharam singh in his presence on 16 5 1982 and he made an entry for receipt of that amount in ex.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered.
16 came to be suspended and transferred by the district educational officers order dated 23 11 1982 after a register had been obtained from him by the commissioner appointed by the companyrt and it came to be knumbern that p.w.
16/1 is in his hand writing and does number bear the signature of any office bearer of the viswakarama samiti.
1 had denied that he had gone to kandela village on 16 5 1982 either alone or in the companypany of sita ram and others.
by varadarajan j. this appeal by the first respondent in election petition number 8 of 1982 on the file of the punjab and haryana high companyrt is filed against the judgment of the learned single judge allowing the election petition and setting aside the appellants election to the haryana legislative assembly from the jind companystituency in the election held on 19 5 1982.
but in his affidavit verifying the election petition he has stated that the allegations made in para 9 d of the election petition regarding this item of companyrupt practice are based upon information received by him from dewan singh.
in the companynting which took place on 20 5 1982 it was found that the appellant had secured 27045 valid votes while the first respondent had secured 26899 valid votes and the appellant was accordingly declared elected.
l. sibal kapil sibal mrs.
