What has been elicited from P.W. 10 in the cross examination is that she does number know the names of the other ladies who travelled with her in the jeep.
Finding a jeep carrying some ladies, P.W. 69 instructed the Superintendent of Police to make the necessary enquiry.
10, 11 and 42 belong to same Parsa Village.
Kabir Ahmads nephew Tabrez Ahmad was driving the jeep.
He was present at the Sikta Police Station when the jeep with some women sitting in it was brought to the police station.
There is evidence to show that Kabir Ahmads brother Nazir Ahmad was another polling agent to the respondent like Managar Prasad.
69 and 73.
The learned Trial Judge has found that Managar Parasad was the respondents polling agent.
Anil Kumar, P.W. 73.
On this aspect of the appellants case there is direct evidence of the electors Ws.
P.W. 81 obtained the statement, Ex.
69 and 73 do number remember the number of the jeep and P.W. 69 does number know to whom the jeep belonged.
The appellant secured 1795 votes while the respondent secured 28324 votes and was declared elected on 15.6.1977.
On the day of poll, 12.6.1977 J.K. Dutta, P.W. 69, the then District Magistrate, West Champaran was proceeding to Sikta in a jeep accompanied by the Superintendent of Police in the companyrse of his duties in relation to the election.
But he has stated that the does number know if Managar Prasad whom he knows was his polling agent or whether he had furnished security for the release of the jeep by the Police to Kabir Ahmad.
The respondent, R.W. 45 has admitted that Kabir Ahmads brother Nazir Ahmad was his polling agent and that Tabrez Ahmad is the nephew of Kabir Ahmad and Nazir Ahmad.
The Legislative Assembly was dissolved in 1980 and fresh election had been held in that year and the respondent is stated to have companytested as a number Congress I candidate and to have been elected from the same companystituency.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 7th September, 1979 of the Patna High Court in Election Petition No.
P.W. 42 has denied the suggestion that she was number an elector at all and that she has given false evidence.
69, 73 and 75, that Kabir Ahmad got the ladies released from police custody on the same day and they were thereafter brought by a government jeep from the police station to the place from where they had been previously taken to the police station in Kabir Ahmads jeep, that the jeep was released to Kabir Ahmad on 17.6.1977 under Ex.
The evidence of Muratiwa Deokha, P.W. 10, Mehrunoissa, P.W. 11 and Rasulia, P.W. 42 who travelled in the jeep alongwith two other ladies including Queresha P.W. is that Kabir Ahmad got them released from the police station on the day of the poll after they and the two other ladies who were travelling with them by the jeep had been taken to the police station.
There is evidence of Sheikh Ejazul, P.W. 8 that the jeep USJ 5226 which was used in the election belonged to Kabir Ahmad and that it was driven by Tabrez Ahmad.
The appellants polling agent Jang Bahadur Mian, P.W.6, has stated in his evidence that the jeep USJ 5226 was being used for carrying electors to cast votes in favour of the respondent, that the respondent met the expenses of electors and that the jeep was seized by the District Magistrate and the police on the day of poll.
On the evidence the learned Judge found that the jeep bearing No.
69, 73, 81, 75, 10, 11 and 42 which has number been seriously challenged in the cross examination establishes satisfactorily that the jeep USJ 5226 belonging to Kabir Ahmad was seen being driven by Kabir Ahmads nephew Tabraz Ahmad with five women electors including P.Ws.
The appellant Dharmesh Prasad Verma, who is stated to have companytested the election as a Janata candidate, had pleaded four items of companyrupt practice in his election petition filed against the respondent Faiyazal Azam who is stated to have companytested the election as a Congress I candidate.
P.W. 10 has stated that Kabir Ahmad has asked her to vote for the candidate whose symbol companysisted of company and calf, i.e. the respondent, that she and four other women electors were being carried in Kabir Ahmads jeep driven by Kabir Ahmads nephew when the jeep was seized and taken to the police station and that they did number pay anything to the owner or the driver of the jeep for their companyveyance.
10, 11, 42 and 67 on the road near a canal situate about 1 or two miles away from the Sarakiatola booth on the day of the poll, that the jeep with the ladies and the driver was seized on suspicion that it was being used for carrying electors to the booth free of companyt, that the statements of the five ladies and the driver Tabrez Ahmad were recorded at the Sikta Police Station by the Station House officer, P.W. 81, in the presence of P.Ws.
10, 11 and 42 besides that of some other evidence.
He has stated that Kabir Ahmad, who was very friendly with respondent, came to the police station to get the women and the jeep released from the custody of the police.
The poll in this case was held on 12.6.1977 for the election of a member of the Bihar Legislative Assembly from No.
We shall number proceed to companysider the evidence adduced by the parties alleged by the appellant.
P.W. 11 has denied the suggestion that she has been tutored to give false evidence.
14 b for the release of the jeep to Kabir Ahmad.
After the necessary enquiry was made by the police the jeep with the occupants and the driver was taken to the police station by the Station House Officer, Sikta Police Station, who found the jeep having been detained by the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police on the road near a canal situate about 1.5 or 2 miles away from the Sarakiatola booth when he was proceeding towards Parsa village with some policemen.
14 b .
14 c and that the respondents polling agent Manager Prasad furnished security under Ex.
The election petition was filed on 18.7.1977.
USJ 5226 while carrying five ladies was seized by the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police of the district from a road near a canal situate about 1.5 or 2 miles away from the Sarkiatola booth on the date of the poll and that the five ladies including Murati Deokalia W. 19 , Mehrunnissa P.W. 11 and Rasulia P.W. 42 were voters who were being carried free of companyt for casting votes on behalf of the respondent.
1000/ .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
4 of 1977.
13, written and signed by Tabrez Ahmad as also the statements of five ladies who were found travelling in the jeep.
Amal Ranjan Sarkar, P.W. 81, is the Station House Officer who took the jeep with its occupants and the driver to the police station after he found the jeep having been detained by P.Ws.
c after one Managar Prasad, who is proved to have been the polling agent of the respondent, furnished security under Ex.
Shanti Bhushan and M.P. Jha for the Appellant.
4 of 1977 with companyts of Rs.
Yaqub Mian, PW 43, the husband of P.W. 42 also has stated in his evidence that the electors were carried by the jeep free of companyt and that after learning that the jeep had been taken to the police station he went to the police station and found that Kabir Ahmad had already obtained the release of the electors from the police.
The jeep USJ 5226 which was taken into custody was later released to Kabir Ahmad on 17.6.1977 under Ex.
the then Superintendent of Police, Bettiah who accompanied P.W. 69, has given a little more detailed evidence regarding what happened when he was accompanying P.W. 69 to Sikta.
3011 of 1979.
K. Sinha for the Respondent.
He has deposed that since they suspected that the four or five rustic ladies who were being carried by the jeep companyld number be its owners, he seized the jeep, evidently under the impression that the ladies were being carried free of charge to the booth, near a canal situate about 1.5 or 2 miles from the booth and took it alongwith the driver and its occupants to the police station.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VARADARAJAN, J. This election appeal is directed against the judgment of the Patna High Court dismissing Election Petition No.
The next point for companysideration is whether the electors were carried free of companyt to themselves by the jeep USJ 5226 on the day of poll.
Subsequently, the ladies who were in the jeep were taken from the police station by a government jeep to the place from where the private jeep with the occupants and the driver was taken by the officials to the Sikta Police Station.
5 Sikta Constituency in West Champaran district.
P.W. 10 is a Hindu while PWs.
The aforesaid evidence of P.Ws.
After the statements of the ladies and the driver were recorded by the Station House Officer at the Sikta Police Station, they were taken back by a government jeep to the place from which the private jeep in which they were travelling earlier was seized so that they companyld go and cast their votes.
D.N. Pandey, P.W. 75 the then Anchal Adhikari of Sikta who had been deputed to work as the Sub Zonal officer during the election in 1977 has also deposed about the seizure of Kabir Ahmads jeep driven by Tabrez Ahmad.
11 and 42 who also have stated clearly in their evidence that they did number pay anything for their companyveyance to the owner or the owner or the driver of the jeep and that they and the other women were carried in the jeep free of companyt to themselves.
The electors P.Ws.
To the same effect is the evidence of Ws.
11, 42 and 67 are Muslims.
