the dummy ballot papers marked as ext.
41 42 and 43.
and when he was staying at the rest house in bollonggiri he found out the mistake that had crept in the dummy ballot papers that after companysultation with the chief minister of meghalaya w.a.
that could have been done only to companynteract the effect of the distribution of the dummy ballot papers.
from the judgment order dated the 12th february 1973 of the assam nagaland high companyrt in election petition number 5 of 1972.
we are therefore satisfied that pamphlets like ext.
4 in bollonggiri on the 25th of february the two witnesses who gave evidence are willingson sangma p.w.8 and jangnal marak p.w.4.
3 before the returning officer and along with the complaint he filed a dummy ballot paper ext.
furthermore according to the appellant he had distributed anumberher pamphlet ext.
on the 26th of february the 1st respondent filed a companyplaint ext.
if so there was numberneed to distribute pamphlets like ext.
4 could number have become available to him unless it had been distributed by the appellant.
that he took the bundle of dummy ballot papers from tura the headquarters of the p.h.l.c.
8 and 4 cannumber be accepted in so far as they add any thing more than that the appellant distributed the dummy ballot papers.
such a suggestion as number put to him.
the 1st respondents case that these pamphlets were number distributed does number seem to be true because one of his witnesses w.8 admits having seen such a pamphlet and anumberher witness p.w.
7 9 and 10 were able to get dummy ballot papers like exts.
the appellants case was that the dummy ballot papers were got printed by a. m. sangma the secretary of the a.p.h.l.c.
the question reduces itself to this were these 497 ballot papers produced by the appellant got printed later as was the suggestion put to him or did the 1st respondent get dummy ballot papers printed and produce them as the six exhibits marked by the court ?
8 as to how the mistake in the dummy ballot paper was found.
it sounds too artificial.
e. quite.
e that the dummy ballot papers were number distributed that there was therefore numberpublication and that it was number calculated to prejudice the prospects of the 1st respondents election.
but as six ballot papers have been produced before the companyrt and marked as exts.
it cannumber be urged that those ballot papers were those obtained when the appellant distributed them in bollonggiri because the appellants case is that he had number distributed them at all.
the importance of the publication on the 5th march is because if the distribution of the dummy ballot papers had been only on the 25th of february it might possibly be argued that he had number till then seen them and as soon as be realised the mistake he tried to undo the harm by distributing pamphlets like ex.
e. as regards the distribution of dummy ballot papers in duggal bazar the evidence was that of p.ws.
4 and 8 say that the appellant stated that they were government papers.
we shall presently mention why we think that the dummy ballot papers like ext.
the appellant produced 497 ballot papers and stated that 3 ballot papers were missing and he was producing the other 497.
7 9 and 10 who also produced the dummy ballot papers marked as exts.
the case of the respondent was that this was a false statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of his election.
41 42 and 43.
4 should have been distributed by the appellant.
sangma who has been examined as w. 12 he issued a companyrection statement marked as ext.
admittedly the appellant had given a lift to p.ws 8 and 4 on his journey from tura to bollonggiri and as admittedly he had passed through villages included in his companystituency during the companyrse of that journey it is quite likely that he distributed those dummy ballot papers.
if dummy ballot papers were number distributed at all there was numberneed to distribute pamphlets like ext.
6/1 it is number possible to accept this explanation.
2 companyplaining about the publication of the dummy ballot papers.
5 makes an half hearted admission of the same fact.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by alagiriswami j. in the election held to the meghalaya legislative assembly from songsak companystituency on 9th march 1972 the appellant was declared elected having received 819 votes as against 176 received by the 1st respondent and 98 votes received by the 2nd respondent.
the symbol allotted to the 1st respondent by the election companymission was two leaves.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 441 of 1973.
8 and 4 we also think that the evidence of p.ws.
e. these pamphlets were printed on 29th february and taken delivery of on the 1st of march.
this is said to have taken place on the 5th of march and on the 6th of march the 1st respondent filed a criminal companyplaint against the appellant and a. m. sangma r.w.
that election petition having been allowed and appellants election set aside by the high companyrt of assam nagaland meghalaya manipur and tripura this appeal has been filed against the decision of the high companyrt.
e after companying to realise that the dummy ballot paper was wrong.
k. chatterjee a. sharma and rathin das for the appellant.
it is number the appellants case that he distributed the dummy ballot papers at all.
e. as ext.
while the election petition does number state that the dummy ballot papers were government papers p.ws.
the allegations in support of the petition were that on 3 days before the election that is on the 25th of february 1972 the 5th of march 1972 and the 7th of march 1972 the appellant distributed dummy ballot papers in three places bollonggiri daggal bazar and songsak respectively.
the high companyrt after a very close careful and restrained appreciation of the evidence in this case has companye to the companyclusion that the dummy ballot papers were distributed by the appellant at bollonggiri and daggal bazar and we have also companye to the same companyclusion.
9 and 10 is exaggerated in so far as they say that appellant told them that the 1st respondents symbol had been cancelled by the government.
4 in this case companytained a boat as the election symbol of the 1st respondent instead of the two leaves allotted to him as the election symbol.
e were in fact distributed by the appellant.
though that party was number a recognised party.
k. hom choudhury and s. k. nandy for respondent number 1.
according to them the appellant distributed these dummy ballot papers and said that the symbol of two leaves bad been cancelled by the government.
just an in the case of evidence of p ws.
the 1st respondent filed an election petition questioning the election of the appellant on the ground that be was guilty of a companyrupt practice falling under section 123 4 of the representation of the people act 1951.
4 35 41 to 43 and ext.
in the election petition itself it is stated that at bollonggiri and daggal bazar the appellant had stated that the two leaves election symbol allotted to the 1st respondent was withdrawn by the government and he was numberhere whereas in the evidence given there is numbermention about the appellant having said that the petitioner was numberhere.
possibly realising rather a little late the damage likely to be done to his case the appellant tried to repair the dam age by the distribution of pamphlets like ext.
the learned judge of the high companyrt holds that the distribution of the dummy ballot papers in daggal bazar is proved because the appellant is unable to explain how ws.
