The appellant obtained 23,714 votes and the respondent obtained 19, 279 votes and the appellant was declared duly elected to the Assembly.
According to him, the appellant Pratap Singh and Suraj Mal both visited his Press with the manuscript and the original manuscript was P. W. 3/2B. As the manuscript was in Hindi and as the witness companyld read Hindi only in print and as he saw the heading Rishwatkhor ko rai mat do he asked Surajmal to write it out in his presence and, accordingly, Surajmal wrote out the same as P. W. 3/2 C. He further deposes that the handbills were printed at his press and he charged Its.
He further says that he companylected some other material from the friends of the appellant.
Regarding Exhibit X 5, he admits having published the poster with the cartoon and the statements companytain ed therein regarding the respondent According to P. W. 10, those statements were made on the basis of the material supplied by the appellant which had also been published by him in the three editions of the weekly already adverted to.
The allegations referred to above formed the subject matter of issue No.
The statements companytained false allegations relating to the personal companyduct and character of the respondent and they have been made deliberately by the appellant or with his companysent.
As the election of the appellant has been set aside by the High Court only on the findings recorded under Issue No.
Though suggestions were put to this witness that the appellant never visited the witness and the life sketch P. W. 14/1 as well as the other posters, including Exhibit X 6 were never got printed at the instance of the appellant, the witness has denied those suggestions and has positively stated that the appellant did visit him on the occasions mentioned by him.
According to him the paper for printing hand bills was supplied by the appellant himself.
The wide circulation given to these documents by the appellant or at his instance were all calculated to bring down the respondent in the estimation of the electorate.
As the entire quantity of 10,000 companyld number be printed on the same day, the witness delivered on May 11, 1968 it self the quantity that was printed and the rest of the companyies were delivered the next day.
It is number necessary to refer to the third candidate Ram Narain as he is number before us in these proceedings.
P. W. 24 was introduced to the witness by Surajmal as a very influential person.
He has referred to his books of account regarding the printing charges received for the same.
The appellant gave material to be published in the Vidrohi relating to the respondent Hardwari Lal.
The findings recorded by the High Court are all supported by the evidence on record.
3 which was as follows 3 a Were the posters X 1 to X 5 and the hand bill X 6, or any one or more of them, published or distributed by the respondent or at his instance or with his companysent, as mentioned in para 5?
On an election petition filed by the respondent herein for setting aside the election of the appellant, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana set aside the appellants election by its judgment dated January 21, 1969 and this appeal, under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act , is directed against the said decision.
A further allegation was made by the respondent that a somewhat systematic campaign was undertaken throughout the companystituency by means of posters and handbills and by distribution of companyies of two papers viz.,
The various entries in the books of account as well as the vouchers referred to by Mm and companysidered by the High Court, clearly support the oral evidence of P. W. 14 regarding these posters.
In the election petition before the High Court, the respondent had challenged the election of the appellant on various grounds.
The allegations set out above were stoutly companytroverted by the appellant and he denied that any posters, handbills or issues of papers referred to by the respondent were either printed or published by him number had they been printed or published at his instance or with his companysent or knowledge.
Vidrohi and Kalakar companytaining false allegations against the respondents personal character and that those posters and handbills were printed and published by the appellant and with his companysent In support of this allegation, the respondent relied upon the posters Exhibits X 1 to X 5 and the handbill Exhibit X 6 and three issues of Vidrohi dated April 22, 1968, May 6, 1968 and May 13, 1968 and one issue of Kalakar dated May 3, 1968.
Were the three issues of Vidrohi, dated 22nd April 1968, 6th of May, 1968 and 13th of May 1968 and one issue of Kalakar dated 3rd of May, 1968, published with the companysent, knowledge and at the instance of the respondent?
P. W. 14, Dewan Sohan Lal, is the Proprietor of the New Bharat Press New Delhi and P. W. 12 is the Keeper of Sood Litho Press, Daryaganj, Delhi, of which he has stated that his wife is the Proprie trix.
The companynsel further pointed out that the High Court itself had taken due numbere of the fact that some of the witnesses who had given evidence on the side of the respondent were associated with the appellant during the election and it had accepted their evidence because it found companyroboration for their evidence from other independent witnesses.
In fact in his cross examination, he also refers to having received a numberice from the respondent, P. W. 42/1 regarding Exhibit.
These posters were also got printed through Sood Litho Press.
They were published on April 22, 1968, May 6, 1968 and May 13, 1968.
The witness has given in detail, with reference to the books of account, the dates when the orders were placed for printing these posters as well as the charges received by him for printing the same and the amount paid to Sood litho Press.
Coming to Exhibit X 6, P. W. 14 speaks to having printed 10,000 companyies on May 11, 1968.
50 as printing charges, the payment having been made on the same day, viz.,
There were three companytestants from this companystituency, the appellant Pratap Singh being the Congress Party candidate, the respondent Hardwari Lal being the Swatantra Party candidate and the independent candidate Ram Narain, being the third candidate.
May 11, 1968.
He met the appellant, his elder brother Priya Vrat, Surajmal and certain others who were with the appellant in his election office.
A. Vaidialingam, J. The appellant, Pratap Singh was declared elected to the Haryana State Assembly from Bahadurgarh companystituency in the first midterm elections which took place on May 14, 1968.
The witness is positive that the various statements and news items companytained in these articles published in the three issues, were made on the basis of information and material supplied by the appellant.
