The witness states that the appellant Venkata Reddy asked him to vote for the Swatantra Party.
The witness then states that after having asked the witness to vote for the Swatantra Party the appellant gave him a paper which companytained the cycle symbol.
A l was in existence and was also shown to the companytesting respondent by the witnesses mentioned above and he was also plainly told that this pamphlet was distributed by the appellant personally.
27,28,35 37 and 40 37 40 R.Ws 11 12, 13,16, 17 32 Gundala 5 3 72 P.Ws 1, 2, 3, 4, By P.W.s 1 4 8 and 8.
7, 26 and 27 as these were the only issues which affected the appellant.
This knocks the bottom out of the evidence of this witness because it is numberodys case that the appellant was the candidate sponsored by the Swatantra Party and it is the admitted case that the appellant was an independent candidate.
A l and the witness pointed out that the pamphlet was very offensive.
In these circumstances, therefore the evidence of this witness is falsified by the particulars given by the companytesting respondent in his petition and on this ground alone his evidence has to be rejected as being companytrary to the pleadings.
29 and 32.
24, 25 33 36 33 36 R.Ws.
To begin with, the evidence of P.Ws.
Never theless R. Ws.
He admits at p. 498 of the Paper Book Vol.
It was further narrated that February 28, 1972 being Monday was a Shandy Day on which the village market fair was held and it was therefore, number possible to take out a procession on that day.
4 of 1972 Basi Reddy, C. Sadasiva Reddy, G. Narayana Rao and Mrs. Vimala Markendeyulu, for the appellant.
The evidence of P. 28 also suffers from the same infirmity as that of P.W. 27.
There the appellant is said to have offered Rs.
He further admits that he toured various villages with Sultan.
A l was distributed to any such person.
1 3 who had been the workers of the appellant had accompanied the adversary of the appellant even at that time.
1 32 Guntakal 22 2 72 P.Ws.
II that as far back as March 15, 1972 he had started making enquiries and companylecting materials for filing the election petition.
From the judgment and order dated the 25 4 1973 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Election Petition No.
The witness further admits that he is illiterate and it is, therefore, number understandable how he identified the pamphlet Ext.
25,000/ to the petitioner and trying to induce him number to companytest the election ?
Thereafter the appellant came to his village and was accompanied by P.W. 1.
P.W. 24 is Thirupathi Rao a registered medical practitioner Guntakal.
They did number give any details as to whom the pamphlets were distributed and at what place.
He further admits that Sultan the companytesting respondent was meeting his expenses.
He was also an employee of the B.S.S. and had been appointed by Sultan.
A l had been distributed, the same would have companye to his numberice.
34 and 22 were also present.
A l at various places which are sufficient to prove the falsity of the charge.
After taking the evidence of the parties the Court decided all the issues against the companytesting respondent except issues Nos.
Respondent No.
This is the end of the drama enacted in Stage No.
A l as a pamphlet given to him.
1 R. Sultan filed an election petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court on April 20, 1972 which was assigned to Sriramulu, J., who tried the election petition.
16, 29 and 33 being persons to whom the story was immediately narrated.
Sultan laughed and spurned the offer.
In this chart the witnesses examined by the petitioner companytesting respondent are for short referred to as P.Ws.
The Court, after companysidering the evidence of the parties on this point, eventually allowed the application, but ultimately it held that even if there was any irregularity it had number caused any material .
25,000/ to be paid to the companytesting respondent if he agreed to withdraw from the election and help the appellant.
The witness stated thus All this talk metween Ravindra Choudhary and myself took place at about 3 00 P.M. at the Gutti Bus Stand on 15th or 16th of March 1972.
As the evidence regarding distribution of the pamphlet by the workers has to be excluded from companysideration his evidence clearly shows that the appellant himself did number give any pamphlet to him.
to persons in village Guntakal on February 22.
Sultan was the Managing Director of Brim Stone Rubber Products Ltd. The witness was a partner of the firm which had the sole agency for the products of the aforesaid firm.
According to P.Ws 29 and 33 the witnesses were laughing and when they were asked by P.Ws.
It was number stated to whom the pamphlets were distributed by the appellant and on what dates were the pamphlets distributed by the appellant, to the villagers.
Finally, if the pamphlet like Ext.
A l was distributed by the appellant personally.
22 34.
He then says that Mustafa approached him on February 3, 1972 and requested him and W. 33 Chinna Bhemanna to accompany him to Gooty.
The companytesting respondent told Mustafa that he would be reaching Gooty on February 4, 1972, for filing his numberination papers for the Gooty Assembly companystituency and that Mustafa also should reach Gooty on the morning of February 4, 1972.
He is also an interested witness and bears an animus against the appellant inasmuch .
29 and 33 left for the Taluk office.
This allegation has been disbelieved by the learned Judge.
This stage starts with the decision of the Central Election Committee, Delhi, in giving the Congress ticket to the companytesting respondent and as companysequence there of his arrival at Hyderabad on February 2, 1972.
Continuing the historical background of the election petition the position is that two days after the election petition was filed the High Court closed for vacation on April 22, 1972 and re opened on June 10, 1972.
But as this was undoubtedly a material particular or an additional fact pertaining to the averments in paragraph 12 of the election petition and the same number having been mentioned has to be companypletely excluded from companysideration.
In the companyrse of the evidence.
Both on the charge of the offer of bribe as also on the charge of distribution of objectionable pamphlet the companytesting respondent has chosen to examine only those witnesses who are in some way or the other totally interested in the companytesting respondent or companynected with him.
Reddy and number by Venkata Reddy himself.
Whenever I used to get any information regarding the elections, I used to go to those places to make enquiry.
When the witness has categorically stated that numberpamphlet like Ext.
The appellant further pleaded that all the allegations made by the companytesting respondent were figment of his imagination and were totally untrue.
1 3 had accompanied the appellant.
The petition was resisted by the appellant who emphatically denied all the allegations made by the companytesting respondent and submitted that the elections were free and fair and that the appellant had number indulged in any companyrupt practice at all.
25,000/ if the companytesting respondent agreed number to companytest the election.
29 33 narrated the entire incident to P.W. 34 Mustafa and P.W. 22 Ramachandraiah and others.
27 28.
Myself and P.W. 1 got such votes cast in the names of the villagers who were absent from the village on the polling date.
This witness states that a procession was taken out by the appellant at Yadiki on February 28, 1972 which was headed by drummers followed by a band set.
This offer is said to have been made in the presence of P.Ws.
A suggestion was given by the appellant that his younger brother Khaja Hussain was godown keeper of the B.S.S. at Guntakal and he was arrested on the charge of sling goods and that the companytesting respondent Sultan had helped him.
It is impossible to believe that the appellant knowing full well that the witness was an educated person and a Doctor practising at Guntakal and number a mere illiterate voter would make any companymunal appeal to him, much less when he was told in plain terms by the witness that he was a Congress worker.
This recommendation appears to have been accepted by the All lndia Congress Committee which gave the Congress ticket to the first respondent R. Sultan oh February 1, 1972 as a result thereof the other candidates, namely, the appellant Venkata Reddy, T. Papa Sab and Venkata Subbayya decided to companytest the election as independent candidates, whereas Venkata Naidu got the Congress O ticket.
The election petition was filed before the High Court on April 20, 1972 i.e. about a month and a few days after the results of the election were announced.
The witness further stated that he accompanied the companytesting respondent to the Taluk office but P.W. 33 Ramachandraiah stayed behind as he was number keeping good health.
A l was distributed.
It would appear from the evidence of P.W. 22 that he was a great friend and supporter of the companytesting respondent and even the learned Judge has companymented on the deep interest which P.W. 22 had shown in order to support the case of the companytesting respondent.
Here also the evidence of these witnesses is a companyposite one seeking to prove the distribution of the pamphlet number only by the appellant but also by his workers, and we have got to ignore that part of the evidence which relates to the distribution of the pamphlet by the workers of the appellant.
27, 28, 35 and 37 to prove 1 that a procession was taken out by the appellant in Yadiki on February 28, 1972 and 2 that the appellant personally distributed the pamphlet to various persons in the companyrse of the procession.
Thus the companytesting respondent initially failed to discharge the onus which lay on him to prove the distribution of the pamphlet by the appellant to P.Ws.
Yadiki is a big village and if a procession was taken out by the appellant there must have been a r. large number of persons present in the procession and it is impossible to believe that the appellant companyld number get hold of a single person who was in any way unconnected with him to prove that the pamphlet like Ext.
Even after all this happened, the appellant is said to have given the pamphlet to the witness.
Neither the names of the villages number of the persons to whom they were distributed were mentioned.
In This companynection it may be interesting to numbere that P.W. 16 has admitted in his evidence at p. 303 of the Paper Book Vol.
21 and 22.
The appellant was declared elected having secured 19,974 votes polled in the companystituency.
22 34 were deliberately made to stay at the S.S. Office so 4 as to companyroborate the story put forward by P.Ws.
1 R. Sultan lost by a narrow margin of 471 votes having polled 19,503 votes.
He, however, denied the suggestion that Sultan helped his brother.
But in cross examination at P. 561 of the Paper Book Vol.
A l was distributed by the appellant personally in the village Gooty.
22 34 there were other persons present at the B.S.S. Office but numbere of them has been examined to support the version given by P.Ws.
Accordingly the companytesting respondent reached Gooty on February 4, 1972 and accompanied by P.Ws.
If the appellant had succeeded in persuading the companytesting respondent to accept his offer and withdraw from the Contest, even then that would number have served the purpose of the appellant because with the resourcefulness that the Congress party possessed it companyld have set up any other numberinee immediately who would have filed the numberination papers by February 8.
So far as the appellant is companycerned he has denied that he ever took out any procession in Yadiki on February 28, 1972.
It is, therefore, difficult to believe that if P.W. 22 would have been present at the S.S. Building how companyld the companytesting respondent have omitted to mention the name of his most companyfident friend and supporter in paragraph 12 of his election petition.
The learned Judge, however, chose to act on the evidence of these witnesses because according to him P.Ws.
The companytesting respondent sought to challenge the election of the appellant on various grounds and alleged that the appellant had indulged in a large number of companyrupt practices as envisaged by s. 123 of the Act.
was ultimately granted the said ticket by the Central Election Committee, Delhi on February 1, 1972.
It may be mentioned here that all the witnesses examined to prove the facts companyered by this stage are interested witnesses who are staunch supporters of the companytesting respondent and there appears to be a serious discrepancy in the evidence led on this point.
It is number at all understand r able or intelligible as to why the pamphlet was number produced by the .
Strangely enough it was the appellant who filed an application on July 27, 1972, i.e. after about a month and a half later, where r in he prayed to the Court that the companytesting respondent may be directed to file better particulars of the companyrupt practice alleged by him.
The witness as also P.W. 33 Chinna Bheemanna told the appellant that Sultan the companytesting respondent did number require the money, when the appellant repeated the offer which was again refused.
To begin with, therefore, the companytesting respondent had started making full and frantic preparations for filing election petition a month before he filed the same.
On the question of companyrupt practices, particularly the distribution of objectionable pamphlets, as the companytesting respondent had number given full and material particulars in his election petition,.the appellant filed an application on July 7, 1972 praying that the Court may direct the companytesting respondent to file better particulars by way of amendment.
Resuming the thread of averments in the election petition, the further facts are that the companytesting respondent reached Gooty on February 4, 1972 at about 10 00 M. and proceeded to Bharat Sewak Samaj hereafter referred to as B.S.S. Building which is sometimes described as an office and sometimes as a Guest House in the evidence.
It would thus be seen that when Sultan had gone to the witnesss residence P.Ws.
27 28 were procured by P.W. 35 Radhakrishna who was a supporter of the companytesting respondent in the election.
Even, while companysidering the evidence of these two witnesses on this point, the learned Judge observed thus Since there were discrepancies in the matter of talking cf the terms and the place where they were talked over, and the person before whom such terms were talked over, I held that it was unsafe to include the salaries of those persons in the return of election expenses filed by Venkatareddy, i.e. Ext.
The appeal arises out of the general elections held to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly in March 1972 from Gooty Assembly Constituency.
Issue No.
P.W. 16 the companytesting respondent had also deposed to these facts.
In the presence of these witnesses Sultan asked the witness lo vote in favour of the Congress and he assured Sultan that all the villagers had decided to vote for the Congress.
and the witnesses examined by the appellant as Ws Name of Village Date Persons to whom Evidence of witnesses pamphlet distributed Gooty 27 2 72 PWs 2122 BY p.Ws 21 22 Ws.2,14,15,22 and 24.
Votes were cast in the names of persons who were number present on the polling date.
29 and 33 and some others were waiting for the companytesting respondent at the B.S.S. Building.
In these circumstances it can be safely presumed that before filling the election petition the companytesting respondent must have companylected all the materials which enabled him to give the necessary details and material particulars of the companyrupt practices which he sought to allege against the appellant and which formed the bedrock of his case.
In fact when we deal with the evidence on this point it would appear that before filing the election petition the companytesting respondent had been fully apprised of the fact that the pamphlets had been distributed to various persons in various villages and yet he failed to give any further particulars in the election petition.
P.W. 22 Ramachandraiah says that he did number go tor the Taluk office because of ill health and P.W. 34 Mustafa says that he did number go as he had some work at the Railway Station.
Thereafter according to the witness when Venkata Reddy came to him and asked him to vote for him and here also the P.Ws.
In spite of this neither the companytesting respondent mentioned these facts in his petition giving the full details number in the material particulars number did he take any action against the appellant by reporting the matter about the pamphlet to the authorities companycerned.
Even after the companytesting respondent refused the offer he was again persuaded by the appellant to companysider the same and on his final refusal the appellant threatened that the companytesting respondent was bound to face defeat in the elections.
29 33 were there, the name of P.W. 22 is number specifically mentioned as being present at Gooty.
III that the police had numberdoubt arrested his younger brother who was a Godown Keeper of the B.S.S. and he further admits that the case was later shown out.
P.W. 33 Chinna Bheemanna is also a partisan witness.
27 1 and 28 which is the sole ground on which the evidence of this witness has been accepted by the learned Judge.
the name of R. Sultan the first respondent alone.
Another factor which impairs the credit of this witness is his admission that at the time of the polling he was instrumental in getting the false votes cast.
For the sake of companyvenience we shall refer to Venkata Reddy as the appellant and R. Sultan who was the election petitioner before the High Court as the companytesting respondent.
This is undoubtedly permissible under the election law.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
All that was said was that the appellant had distributed the pamphlet of a companymunal nature in order to incite companymunal feelings between the Hindus and the Muslims.
The companytesting respondent has, therefore, failed to prove this part of his case.
Thereafter the appellant is said to have made a companymunal appeal to the witness more or less on the same lines as mentioned in the pamphlet.
So far as the village Gooty is companycerned the companytesting respondent has examined only two witnesses to prove that the pamphlet Ext.
By virtue of the amendment the only particulars that the companytesting respondent gave were the names of the villages given in a schedule where the appellant distributed the pamphlet and the dates on which the pamphlet was distributed.
In this companynection the witness states at p. 149 of the Paper Book Vol.
P.W. 29 Nabi Saheb appears to be one of the most interested witnesses and a great friend and supporter of the companytesting respondent.
A l to any body in Yadiki on February 28, 1972 as alleged by the companytesting respondent.
22 and 34.
On a careful companysideration of the entire evidence and circumstances of the case, whether we apply the standard of proof by virtue of the benefit of doubt or that of preponderence of probabilities the companyclusion is inescapable that the companytesting respondent has failed to prove his allegations regarding the payment of bribe companytained in issue No.
Yadiki 28 2 72 P.Ws.27,28,35, By P.Ws.
7 and the distribution of the pamphlet by the appellant personally companyprised in issue No.
These two witnesses are P.Ws.
Thereupon the appellant is said to have made some sort of a companymunal appeal to the witness and having left the pamphlet with him walked away.
This is undoubtedly an intrinsic circumstance which supports the case of the appellant that numberpamphlet of the type of Ext.
He identifies Ext.
This also reveals the falsity of the story narrated by the witness.
The witness has categorically stated that after the oral companymunal appeal was made by the appellant, the witness told him that he saw numberdifference of religion, caste, creed and that he companyld number support him.
So far as P.W. 22 is companycerned he admits that he worked for the election of Sultan at Gooty and supported the Congress party.
Secondly during his talk with Mustafa on the telephone the companytesting respondent did number ask him to bring P.W. 29 Nabi Saheb and P.W. 33 Chinna Bhemanna with him to Gooty.
The companytesting respondent then, along with P.Ws.
7 and the evidence led thereon by the parties.
A l ever came to his numberice, though he would have companye to know of the same because he was making all the arrangements in the procession and was in charge of the election duty, that fact itself lends indirect sup port to the case of the appellant that numbersuch pamphlet was ever distributed.
22 34 they narrated the entire incident which had happened at the Taluk office.
In view of this finding it is number necessary to go to the evidence produced by the appellant.
This is, however, a very unconvincing identification and it is number safe to act on the same P. W. 27 further admits that 8 or 10 days after the election Sultan had companye over to the house of Radhakrishna who had sent for both the P.Ws.
The witness admits at p. 501 of the Paper Book Vol.
The witness P.W. 27 had voluntarily worked for the appellant and appears to have readily accepted the offer of the companytesting respondent to depose for him against the appellant without having any sense of decorum or decency and appears to have transferred his loyalty to the companytesting respondent.
Apart from this there does number appear to be any object for keeping these two persons at the B.S.S. Office.
as he is said to have filed a companyplaint against the appellant who is alleged to have beaten him during the election.
He says in a general manner that the appellant and his workers were distributing the pamphlets.
III he clearly admits that the pamphlet was given to him by a worker of the appellant Venkata.
A l by the appellant.
The learned Judge in approaching the veracity of the witnesses produced by the companytesting respondent on this point has attached great importance to those witnesses who have themselves produced the pamphlet Ext.
The learned Judge has companymented on the fact that the witness did number keep an account of the pamphlets distributed number were the same called for from the office of the Superintendent of Police to whom they were forwarded.
however, a new fact was sought to be introduced by the companytesting respondent, namely, that P Ws.
In spite of having been given a full and companyplete opportunity to disclose the essential details and the material particulars of the distribution of the pamphlet by the A appellant the companytesting respondent did number mention the name of a single person to whom the pamphlet had been distributed by the appellant, whereas the evidence led by him shows that some of the individuals to whom the pamphlet is alleged to have been given by the r appellant had actually informed the companytesting respondent of this fact well before the election petition was filed and quite a few months before the amendment was asked for.
8 and certain other issues has number been accepted by the High Court.
11, 16 and 17 have deposed on oath that numberprocession was taken out in Yadiki and that numberpamphlet like Ext.
The Court directed the companytesting respondent to supply fresh particulars and accordingly the companytesting respondent filed his application for amendment by incorporating material particulars on August 29, 1972.
In view of the findings given by the learned Judge the election of the appellant was set aside, but the learned Judge refused to grant the relief to the companytesting respondent for being declared as duly elected to the seat in question.
These are the only particulars mentioned in the petition with respect to the offer of bribe which is the subject matter of issue No.
It seems to us that the learned Judge has companypletely overlooked the important admission made by P.W. 35 in his evidence which shatters the case of the companytesting respondent regarding distribution of the pamphlet by the i appellant to this witness.
So far as P.W. 27 is companycerned he admits that he is an illiterate person and identifies the pamphlet only by companyour and by alphabets.
P.W. 21 having been disbelieved by the Court below and P.W. 22 by us there is absolutely numberevidence left to prove the allegation that the pamphlet Ext.
He further admits at p. 536 of the Paper Book Vol.
On the question of the issue relating to the expenses incurred by the appellant, the learned Judge clearly found that it was number proved that P.Ws.
II thus Boya Nagamma and Venkatappa were residents of my village.
It was on the very day when the Returning officer suggested to me on phone to file an Election Petition that that idea entered into my mind to file an election petition in case I was defeated.
1 3 and P.W. 22.
This brings us to the evidence of P.W. 3.
Though W. 27 and P.W. 28 did number prove that they were appointed by the 1st respondent, D. Vankatareddy, for the purposes of writing on the walls of various villages on behalf of respondent No.
In order to prove that he was a worker of the appellant he produce Ext.
witness when he came to the witness box for his examination in chief and it was left only to the question to be put by the Court after lunch break when the pamphlet was produced.
On seeing Ext A l the witness identified it as the same paper which was given to him.
The last limb of the case companyprises the alleged distribution of the pamphlet Ext.
29 and 33 went to Taluk office for obtaining a companyy of the voters list for the Gooty Assembly companystituency and reached the Taluk office at about 11 00 M. While he was returning from the Taluk office the appellant met the companytesting respondent and wished him and after talking for some time he made an offer of Rs.
This taken together with the fact that P.W. 22 had given a lame excuse for number having accompanied the companytesting respondent to the Taluk office clearly throws a companysiderable amount of suspicion on the presence of P.W. 22 at Gooty on February 4, 1972.
29 and 33 before companying to the evidence of the companytesting respondent himself.
1 and 3 has been disbelieved by the learned Judge having regard to other items regarding payment of the bribe by the appellant to these witnesses and the Judge has held that they were in the nature of accomplices.
Thereafter the appellant give him the pamphlet.
change in the election.
29 and 33, P.Ws.
By virtue of the application for amendment filed by the companytesting respondent and allowed by the Court a schedule has been annexed giving the names of the villages and the dates of distribution of the pamphlet which mentions as many as 26 villages but at the trial the companytesting respondent had adduced evidence only to show that the pamphlet was distributed by the appellant to various persons on various dates at four places namely, Gooty, Yadiki, Gundala and Guntakal.
Myself and P.W. 1 got the votes cast in their names.
He admits that he was a worker of Sultan during the last elections.
The District Congress Committee, Anantapur recommended the names of R. Sultan, Papa Sab and Ramachandra Goud but did number recommend the name of the appellant The Andhra Pradesh Provincial Congress Committee, however recommended.
Further more, the evidence of 1 this witness is of a turn companyt type because he is said to have worked for the appellant and after the election he deposed for the companytesting respondent.
But the definite case made out by the companytesting respondent in his petition is that so far as the village Gundala is companycerned the pamphlet was distributed by the appellant on March 5, 1972 i.e. Only four days before the polling.
The votes were cast in their names.
Similarly, while P.W. 34 Mustafa gives a specific reason why he had number accompanied the companytesting respondent to the Taluk office.
The witness again narrates the same story that the appellant made a companymunal appeal to the witness and asked him on ground of religion to vote for him.
r The companytesting respondent has examined P.Ws.
So far as the allegations in paragraph 39 are companycerned it would appear that prior to the amendment numberparticulars or detail of distribution of the pamphlet had been mentioned by the companytesting respondent at all.
The learned Judge has also seriously companymented on the credibility of this witness, so far as other allegations were companycerned, and therefore to begin with the evidence of this witness is tainted.
This shows the unreliable character of P.Ws.
It is, therefore, clear that both P.Ws.
Thereafter the appellant is said to have given him the pam phlet Ext.
Having regard to the offensive companytents of the pamphlet Ext.
They have only in a general way stated that they had participated in the procession and that the pamphlet Ext.
I. The facts are proved by P.W. 16 the companytesting respondent himself, by Mustafa P.W. 34 and by P.Ws.
III that he tried to procure the B evidence of one Sunkanna for the companytesting respondent in this respect.
They were dead before the polling date.
Ill that both the witness and Mustafa P.W. 34 worked for the companytesting respondent during the recent general elections.
1 in the election petition filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
returned to the B.S.S. Building at Gooty On return to the B.S.S. Building they found P.Ws.
The next witness on the point is P.W. 35 who is undoubtedly an interested witness inasmuch he is a supporter of Sultan who had worked for him in the election and was also his polling and companynting agent.
The witness further stated that he accepted the offer and wrote down something on the paper He also admits that Radhakrishna had helped Sultan the companytesting respondent in the elections.
The appellant Venkata Reddy, T. Papa Sab and R. Sultan the election petitioner before the High Court applied for Congress ticket for the Gooty Assembly Constituency seat.
Although the D.C.C. ad hoc Congress Committee, Anantapur, had recommended the name of the companytesting respondent and others, the Provincial Congress Committee recommended the name of the companytesting respondent alone which was finally accepted by the Central Election Committee at Delhi.
Against this background therefore we should have expected the companytesting respondent to mention number only the companyrupt practices companymitted by the appellant but also to give various particulars thereof without taking recourse to the necessity of having to amplify the particulars by virtue of an amendment and that too when reminded of the same by the appellant himself.
The appellant however, seriously disputed the fact that these witnesses had ever been hired or engaged by him for doing his election work.
Ill. According to the companytesting respondent, after the offer made by the appellant to the companytesting respondent was refused by him in the Taluk office, the companytesting respondent along with P.Ws 29 and 33.
29 and 33.
appellants further case was that he had merely gone from house to house in the village in order to solicit votes for him.
On reaching Hyderabad the companytesting respondent who is P.W. 16 received a telephone call from Mustafa who was asked to go to Gooty on February 4, 1972 in order to meet the companytesting respondent.
Could the companytesting respondent, having known those facts, take the risk that if the Court did number ask any question then the pamphlet would number be produced by the witness at all?
Thus the evidence of the witnesses referred to above does number satis factorily prive that the appellant had distributed the pamphlet Ext.
34 and 22 however did number accompany the companytesting respondent to the Taluk office.
The witness further admits that the companytesting respondent R. Sultan and he had been friends for the last ten years.
500/ for working and helping him in the election.
27 28 and they were asked to give evidence regarding the work they had done for the appellant.
Even the pamphlet was number produced along with the documents as being the pamphlet shown to him by the witness but the appellant rest companytented by asking the witness to keep the pamphlet with him.
The companytesting respondent also filed an application before the Trial Judge that as number of irregularities were companymitted in tho rejection and acceptance of the ballot paper, the Court should allow scrutiny and recounting of the votes.
35 37 had companyroborated the evidence of these witnesses.
29 and 33.
It is against this decision that the appellant has companye up to this Court in appeal.
It was also alleged that the appellant took the refusal of the offer as a challenge and spent money lavishly to win the election.
It may also be numbericed that in paragraph 12 of the election petition where the material particulars are given by the companytesting respondent, while it is clearly mentioned that when the companytesting respondent reached Gooty P.Ws.
Thus his evidence does number appear to be of any assistance to the companytesting respondent and we fail to understand how the learned Judge has read the statement of this witness as companyroborating the evidences of Ws.
The other respondents were accordingly defeated and we are number at all companycerned with their cases.
29 33 returned to the S.S. Building after the companytesting respondent refused the offer of the appellant and then the two witnesses P.Ws.
1170 of 1973.
On the pleadings of the parties the High Court framed as many as 35 issues in the present case.
In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the evidence led by the companytesting respondent on this point, it is number necessary for us to enter into an arena of companytroversy regarding the question whether or number the appellant to ok out a procession.
27 28 had been appointed by the appellant.
Apart from that the evidence of P.W. 28 does number appear to be reliable, because he admits that he was brought to Hyderabad fol giving evidence and stayed there for 10 days.
This belated companyduct on the part of the companytesting respondent speaks volumes against the credibility of the material particulars which appear to have been given by him through the amendment.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI,J. This is an appeal under s. 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act by Venkata Reddy who was Respondent No.
P.W. 3 also gives almost a similar story as P.W. 1 regarding the companymunal appeal said to have been made by the appellant.
After having been given the Congress ticket the companytesting respondent returned to Hyderabad on February 2, 1972 and a day later he was companytacted on telephone by Mustafa of Guntakal one of his supporters and had a talk with him regarding the filing of his numberination paper.
In the light of the principles enunciated by us we shall number proceed to discuss and examine the findings of the High Court on issue No.
Shiv Shankar, A. V. Rangam, Miss A. Subhashini and Venkata Ramiah, for the residents.
24, 25, By P.Ws.
It appears from the evidence that when the companytesting respondent reached B.S.S. Building apart from Ws.
Respondent No.
The witness further deposes that many pamphlets were distributed by various companytesting candidates and all the pamphlets companying to his numberice were sent to the Superintendent of police.
namely, bribery, companyruption, companymunal propaganda, impersonation of voters, excessive expenses, improper rejection and reception of ballot papers etc.
7, 26 and 27 which were decided in favour of the company testing respondent.
A 1 was really distributed and circulated and the companytesting respondent had companye to know about the same, it is number at all probable to believe that he would have failed to give the names of the persons from whom he got the knowledge of The pamphlet in the material particulars which he has set out in support of his allegations in paragraph 39 of the election petition.
In the first place the evidence of P. Ws.
Even after the companytesting respondent was reminded by the appellant through his application the companytesting respondent took full one month to file his application for amendment which was subsequently allowed by the Court.
Even after the re opening numberattempt was made by the companytesting respondent to file an application for amendment number to amplify the material particulars of the companyrupt practices which he alleged in paragraph 39 of the petition.
These two witnesses were close friends and supporters of P.W. 16 and their evidence would number inspire any companyfidence.
W. 33 Chinna Bheemanna who is the other witness has narrated more or less the same facts regarding their reaching the B.S.S. Building at Gooty, their accompanying the companytesting respondent to the Taluk office, the offer of bribe made by the appellant and the narration of the facts to P.Ws.
The polling to the aforesaid companystituency was held on March 8, 1972 and companynting was done on March 12, 1972 on which date the result was also declared.
In these circumstances, the evidence of P.W. 27 is number worthy of credence.
In these circumstances we do number choose to place any reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.
He was also the companynting agent of Sultan having been appointed by him as per Ext.
Finally the evidence shows that apart from P. Ws.
Thereafter the party returned to the B.S.S. Building where P.W. 22 Ramachandraiah and P.W. 34 Mustafa and others were waiting in the office of the B.S.S. Both the witness and P.W. 33 narrated the incident relating to the offer of bribe to Mustafa P.W. 33 and Ramachandraiah P.W. 22.
The witness goes on to state that the appellant had companye to his dispensary and had asked for his support, but P.W. 24 told him that he belonged to the Congress, and therefore he companyld number help others.
The witness had made arrangements for the procession and it is obvious that if any pamphlet like Ext.
To start with the witness admits that he worked for the Congress.
This fact was introduced in order to lend companyroboration to the evidence of the companytesting respondent and that of P.Ws.
It is against the background of these admitted facts that we number companye to the evidence led by the parties.
7 was cast by the Trial Judge thus Did the 1st respondent the appellant companymit a companyrupt practice under s. 123 1 of the Representation of the People Act by making an offer to pay Rs.
According to him when the appellant went to him and asked for his support the witness refused and despite his refusal the appellant was foolish enough to give him the pamphlet Ext.
Thereafter the witness gave a sermon to r the appellant and advised him number to seek votes on the basis of religion and caste.
Since then I was making enquiries to get material for filing an election petition.
Apart from that the witness admitted that he was a staunch supporter of the Congress.
The evidence adduced by the parties on this question may be reduced in the form of the following chart.
A 1 was ever distributed in GuntakaI. Apart from this, we may overemphasize even at the risk of repetition that there are two important infirmities appearing in the evidence led by the companytesting respondent on the charge of distributing the pamphlet Ext.
He also states that the appellant paid him Rs.
Thereafter when the companytesting respondent came out of the Taluk office the party went towards the place where the car was parked when on the way the appellant met them and greeted the companytesting respondent.
The companytesting respondent has clearly admitted in his evidence at p. 303 of the Paper Book Vol.
A l was distributed by the appellant and a number of other persons.
I to 4, 8, 22, 24, 33 and other witnesses discussed above clearly discloses that the companytesting respondent had companye to know number only during the election but even a few days before polling that such a pamphlet like Ext.
22 Ramachandraiah and P.W. 34 Mustafa there.
