9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (10) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dents Nos. 2 to 4 were independent candidates. Though there were nominally five candidates, the real contest was between the petitioner and the first respondent. The polling took place on 5th March, 1971 and the result of the poll was declared on 11th March, 1971. The petitioner secured 55305 votes, while the first respondent polled 98108 votes. The first respondent thus won by a large majority and was declared elected. The petitioner thereupon filed an election petition challenging the validity of the election of the first respondent on various grounds. The election petition was contested by the first respondent and, as the voluminous mass of record shows, it was fought out to a bitter and with great industry and thoroughness on both sides. Mr. Justice Andley of the Delhi High Court, who heard the election petition, found in an elaborate judgment that none of the grounds on which the election was sought to be invalidated was established and he accordingly dismissed the election petition with costs. The present appeal preferred by the petitioner impugns this judgment of Mr. Justice Andley. The election petition was based on numerous grounds which were summarised in paragraphs and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We shall deal with the contents of these written statements a little later when we examine the specific charges leveled against 26 3 the first respondent. Suffice it to state for the present that on the basis of the preliminary objections raised in the written statements, the learned Trial Judge framed four preliminary issues and they were decided by an order dated 6th August, 1971. So far as the first preliminary issue is concerned, the learned Trial Judge held that paragraphs 9, 12, 18 to 21 and 24 to 26 did not suffer from lack of concise statement of material facts, but they did not give full particulars of the allegations and he accordingly directed the petitioner to furnish further particulars with respect to paragraphs 18 to 21, 24 and 25 as specified in the schedule to the order. The second and the fourth preliminary issues do not survive for consideration : they were decided against the petitioner and the petitioner does not challenge the decision in appeal. The third preliminary issue was decided in favour of the petitioner but it is now meaningless to discuss it because the petitioner is not pressing the ground set out in paragraphs 18 and 19 in support of the appeal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that issues 8, 9 and 10 were not established by the petitioner and there was also no satisfactory proof in regard to issue 14 and accordingly, by a judgment dated 19th May, 1972 he rejected the charges of corrupt practice against the first and fifth respondents and dismissed the election petition with costs. The petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Trial Judge preferred the present appeal under section 116 A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The petitioner assailed the correctness of the judgment of the learned Trial Judge only on issues 8, 9, 10 and 14. The judgment, in so far as it related to issues 1 to 7 and 11 to 13 was accepted by the petitioner and it is, therefore, not necessary to refer to the facts in so far as they bear on, those issues. We shall confine ourselves only to such of the facts as are relevant to issues 8, 9, 10 and 14 and instead of setting them out in a narrative form before commencing discussion of the arguments, what we propose to do is to refer to the relevant facts while discussing each particular issue. We shall.proceed in the order in which these issues were argued before us. We first take up issue 10. The charge a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s impliedly authorised by the candidate must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case as appearing from the evidence adduced before the Court. This question Would arise in a challenging form where expenditure in connection with the election is incurred, not by the candidate, but by the political party which has sponsored him or his friends and supporters. Can the limit on the expenditure be evaded by the candidate by not spending any moneys of his own but leaving it to the political party or his friends and supporters to spend an amount far in excess of tHe limit ? The object of the prevision limiting the expenditure is two- fold. In the first place, it should be open to individual or any political party, howsoever small, to be able to contest an election on a footing of equality with any other individual or political party, howsoever rich and well financed it may be, and no individual or political party should be able to secure an advantage over others by reason of its superior financial strength. It can hardly be disputed that the way elections are held in our country, money is bound to play an important part in the successful prosecution of an election campaign. Money ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oice in the election of the members of the legislatures. That is the basic requirement of the Constitution. This equal effective voice--equal opportunity of participation in the electoral process-would be denied if affluence and wealth are to tilt the scales in favour of one political party or individual as against another. The democratic process can function efficiently and effectively for the benefit of the common good and reach out the benefits of self-government to the common man only if it brings about a participatory democracy in which every man, howsoever lowly or humble he may be, should be able to participate on a footing of equality with others. Individuals with grievances, men and women with ideas and vision are the sources of any society's power to improve itself. Government by consent means that such individuals must eventually be able to find groups that will work with them and must be able to make their voices heard in these groups and no group should be insulated from competition and criticism. It is only by the maintenance of such conditions that democracy can thrive and prosper and this can be ensured only by limiting the expenditure which may be incurred in c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvesting in government bonds, but he cannot chance the conditioning that leads him to believe that what is good for his former company or present backers is good for the country." It is likely that some elected representatives would tend to share the views of the wealthy supporters of their political party, either because of shared background and associations, increased access or subtle influences which condition their thinking. In such event the result would be that though ostensibly the political Parties which receive such contributions may profess an ideology acceptable to the com- mon man, they would in effect and substance be representative of a certain economic class and their policies and decisions would be shaped by the interests of that economic class. It was over a hundred years ago that John Stuart Mill observed that persons of a particular class who have exclusive governmental power, even if they try to act objectively, will tend to overlook the interests of other classes, or view those interests differently. And to this natural tendency may be added the fact that office bearers and elected representatives may quite possibly be inclined, though unconsciously and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld never have intended that what the individual candidate cannot do, the political party sponsoring him or his friends and supporters should be free to do. That is why the legislature wisely interdicted not only the incurring but also the authorising of excessive expenditure by a candi- date. When the political party sponsoring a candidate incurs expenditure in connection with his election, as distinguished from expenditure on general party propaganda, and the candidate knowingly takes advantage of it or participates in the programme or activity or fails to dis- avow the expenditure or consents to it or acquiesces in. it, would be reasonable to infer, save, in special circumstances, that he impliedly authorised the political party to incur such expenditure and he cannot escape the rigour of the ceiling by saying that he has not incurred the expenditure, but his political party has done so. A party candidate does not stand apart from his political party and if the political party does not want the candidate to incur the disqualification, it must exercise control over the expenditure which may be incurred by it directly to promote the poll prospects of the candidate. The same propos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... influence the decision of the electors if the selection and election of candidates becomes people's decision by discussion and not a Hobson's choice offered by Political parties. Limiting election expenses must be part of the political process. This view, which we are taking, does not run counter to any earlier decisions of this Court. The first decision to which we must refer in this connection is Rananjaya Singh v. Baijnath Singh & Ors.(1). There the corrupt practice charged against the elected candidate was that certain persons who were in employment of his father worked for him in connection with the election and their number exceeded the maximum number of persons who could be employed in connection with the election as specified in Sch. VI read with section 77. This charge was negatived by a Bench of five judges of this Court. The Bench held that in order to attract the inhibition of the relevant sections it was necessary that the employment of persons other than or in addition to those specified in Sch. VI should be by a candidate or his agent and since in that case, the persons who worked in connection with the election were neither employed nor paid by the elected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at under s. 77(1) only the expenditure incurred or authorised by the candidate himself or by his election agent is required to be included in the account or return of election expenses and thus expenses incurred by any other agent or person without any thing more need not be included in the account or return; as such incurring of expenditure would be purely voluntary." (Emphasis supplied) These observations would show that mere incurring or expenditure by any other person in connection with the election of a candidate, without something more, would not make it an expenditure authorised by the candidate. But if there is something more which can reasonably lend itself to the inference of implied authorisation, particularly having regard to the object and intendment of the provision limiting expenditure, the Court would readily draw such an inference because the paramount object of this provision is to bring about, as far as possible, equality in availability of resources and eliminate the corrupting influence of big money. If- is significant to note that in this case the Court proceeded to examine whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that Brijraj Singh traveled with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs. One was an amount of ₹ 188/- paid to Tandon Tent & Furniture House for furnishings supplied for twelve public meetings held between 20th February, 1971 and 2nd March,, 1971. This expenditure was supported by the bill of Tandon Tent & Furniture House, R-25 which showed that for each of the twelve public meetings, Tandon Tent & Furniture House had supplied twenty durris, six takhats and two chaddars at an aggregate charge of ₹ 15/- per meeting. The other was an amount of ₹ 180/-, which according to the first respondent, was paid to Saini Electric Works for microphone, loudspeakers and lighting arrangements made at the same twelve public meetings. The payment of this amount was sought to be supported by the receipt of Saini Electric Works,. R-27 which showed a consolidated charge of ₹ 180/- "on account of loudspeaker and lighting arrangements for the period from 20th February, 1971 to 2nd March, 1971". The third was an amount of ₹ 440/- paid to Aggarwal Tent House for furnishings and electric equipment supplied at eleven public meetings and the bill of Aggarwal, Tent House R-26 for this amount showed that Aggarwal Tent House had supplied fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... places of the public meetings where the allegations contained in the poster annexure 'A' were orally repeated by the first and fifth respondents and these particulars included reference to several public meetings which did not form part of the twenty three public meetings ultimately admitted by the first respondent, and yet the first respondent did not in his reply to the particulars deny that any of these public meetings were hold by the respondent, but merely contented himself by stating vaguely and evasively that "the correctness of the statements made against paragraph 20(2)(ii)" was denied. It is apparent that though more than twenty three public meetings were held by the first respondent the first respondent had not yet made up his mind as to which twenty three out of these public meetings he should admit. If in fact only twenty three public meetings were held and the particulars furnished by the petitioner included other public meetings, the first respondent would have promptly come out with an assertion that such and such public meetings alleged by the petitioner were not held. But he could not and did not particularise any such public meetings and deny t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an exit in case the petitioner was able to show that more than twenty three public meetings were held and he, therefore, deftly and subtly threw out a veiled suggestion implying that the public meetings were held by the Delhi Sadar District Congress Committee. This attitude of the first respondent betrays an anxiety to hold back the true facts in regard to the public meetings. It may also be noted that even in the cross-examination of the petitioner and his witnesses, the first respondent did not put forward his case as to which were the specific public meetings held by him in connection with his election and which were not. It was only after the evidence on behalf of the petitioner was closed and the first respondent knew what exactly was the case of the petitioner, that he for the first time in his evidence particularised twenty three specific public meetings admitted by him. This strategy was adopted obviously with the object that the twenty three public meetings named by the first respondent should fit in with the unimpeachable documentary evidence which might be produced by the petitioner and his witnesses and should not be falsified by such evidence. With these broad genera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nine public meetings referred to by the learned Trial Judge and the learned Trial Judge was obviously under some misapprehension when he made observation to that effect in the judgment. Out of these nine public meetings, there were six which were included in the twenty three public meetings admitted by the first respondent and if that be so, it is difficult to imagine how the petitioner could have claimed them as being in addition to these twenty three public meetings. The petitioner could not possibly have confined his claim to these nine public meetings, when out of them, six were those which were admitted by the first respondent, and could not, therefore, be "in addition to the admitted public meetings". In fact,as the subsequent discussion in the judgment shows, the learned Trial Judge actually proceeded to consider the evidence of the police officers and the officers belonging to the CID which was led on behalf of the petitioner for the purpose of proving various other public meetings in addition to the nine referred to by the learned Trial Judge and held, on a consideration of this evidence, that none of 'these public meetings claimed by the petitioner was estab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... di and Sadar Bazar. The Station House Officers pasted at these four police stations were summoned by the petitioner to give evidence as regards the public meetings held within their respective jurisdictions. Khemraj Dutt (P.W. 1) was the first witness called on behalf of the petitioner. He was the Station House Officer at Roshanara Road police station and he deposed from the records in his possession and filed a list PW 1/1 showing that two public meetings were held by the first respondent within the jurisdiction of his police station, one at Nagia Park on 23rd February, 1971 and the other near Birla Mills compounds on 24th February, 1971. Both these public meetings are included in the twenty three public meetings admitted by the first respondent and we need not, therefore, dwell on the evidence of this witness. The next witness who gave evidence on behalf of the petitioner was Ramesh Chand, Station House Officer from Sadar Bazar Police Station (P.W. 6). He prepared from the records in his possession a list showing the public meetings held with in the jurisdiction of his police station and filed it in court as Ex. PW 615. The entries in this list have been the subject matter of con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... obviously referring to the public meetings set out in the third part, that "the name of the party is not mentioned against Some of the meetings". These public meetings may have been held by the Conggress or the Jan Sangh or any other individual or political party. The records from which the list was prepared did not show which were the political parties which held these public meetings and they were, therefore, classified under the heading "Others". Ramesh Chand did not say that these public meetings were held by some individuals or political parties other than the Congress and the' Jan Sangh and that is why they were included under the heading "Others" nor was any such suggestion made to him in cross-examination. The explanation given by Ramesh Chand that the names of the political parties which held these public meetings were not known and hence not mentioned in the list was not challenged on behalf of the first respondent in cross-examination and if this explanation is to be accepted, as it must be, it is apparent that these public meetings were subsumed under the heading "Others" because the records did not show which were the politi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld affirmatively that this public meeting was a meeting of T. Sohan Lal. The first respondent could have easily summoned T. Sohan Lal who belonged to the same political party as he and established through his evidence that this was public meeting of T. Sohan Lal, but the first respondent failed to do so. That, however, does not help the petitioner, because the burden is on the petitioner to show that this public meeting was a meeting of the first respondent and the petitioner must discharge that burden on the evidence on record. How one fact which stands out from the evidence of Om Prakash Makkan (RI/WI) is that a part of Multani Dhandha (within the jurisdiction of Pahargunj police Station) fell within the area of the Karol Bagh Parliamentary constituency and this fact could not be controverted on behalf of the petitioner. If a part of Multani Dhandha fell within the area of the Karol Bagh Parliamentary constituency, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the public meeting of 18th February, 1971 might have been held by T. Sohan Lal in his part of Multani Dhandha in connection with his election. That in fact was the suggestion made by Om Parkash Makkan (RI/WI) in his evidence and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... place, out of seven public meetings for which permissions were granted under Ex. PW 7/3, six were admittedly public meetings in connection with the election of the first respondent, and therefore, if would be reasonable to infer that the seventh public meeting at Multani Dhandha on 22nd February, 1971 must also be a public meeting of the first respondent. Secondly, it is difficult to believe that within four days of the first public meeting at Multani Dhandha on 18th February, 1971, T. Sohan Lal should have held another public meeting at the same place. It is more probable that this public meeting should have been held by the first respondent for whom this was the first and the only meeting in this area. Lastly, Madan Lal Khorana (PW 10) deposed to a public meeting of the first respondent at Multani Dhandha and this evidence was not challenged at all in cross-examination and it was not even suggested to this witness that no meeting was held by the first respondent in Multani Dhandha. We, therefore, hold, on the strength of the list PW 7/1 and the permission PW 7/3 supported by the evidence of Madan Lal Khorana (PW 10), that a public meeting was held at Multani Dhandha on 22nd Febru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly held pursuant to the permission granted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. We may then refer to the evidence of the CID officers summoned by the petitioner to prove the holding of various public meetings by the first respondent. The first witness belonging to this group was Mahender Pal Singh (PW 20) who was an Inspector, CID Special Branch at Tees Hazari. He stated in his evidence that during the election period his staff used to cover election meetings held by various political parties and they included public meetings held by the first respondent. He further stated that the officers who were sent to cover the public meetings used to attend them and then submit, either on the basis of the shorthand notes taken down by them or from memory, reports of the speeches made at these public meetings. He was then asked to state from his records as to what were the public meetings held in the Sadar Parliamentary constituency which were covered by his staff. He, however, claimed privilege in respect of the records brought by him and produced an affidavit of the Inspector General of Police in support of his claim of privilege. The affidavit was plainly inadequate as it merely repeated th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prised inter alia the mental notes made by them,were shut out from the petitioner and a very valuable piece of evidence which would have established beyond doubtwhat were the public meetings held by the first respondent was denied to the petitioner. There can be no doubt that these reports were made by public servants in discharge of their official duty and they were relevant under the first part of section 35 of the Evidence Act since they contained statements showing what were the public meetings held by the first respondent. Vide P. C. P. Reddiar v. S. Perumal. (1) But by reason of the order made by the learned Trial Judge upholding the claim of privilege, these reports were removed from the ken of the petitioner as well as the learned Trial Judge. The petitioner contended before us that the learned Trial Judge was in error in upholding the claim of privilege and that the reports should have been made available to the petitioner. There is great force in this contention of the petitioner because it is difficult to see-how, barring any observations or nothings made by the officers by way of comment or opinion, the rest of the reports containing factual data could possibly be regar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Inspector General of Police and handed over to the counsel for the petitioner. This chart was obviously to be prepared from the official records in the possession of the Inspector General of Police which would be relevant under the first part of section 35 of the Evidence Act. When this direction was given by the learned Trial Judge, the first respondent did not raise any objection, though the furnishing of the chart would be clearly tantamount to production of the relevant parts of the official records containing particulars in regard to the dates and places of the public meetings and the names of the speakers. The chart furnished by the Inspector General of Police in compliance with this direction of the learned Trial Judge was, therefore, clearly admissible in evidence. The Inspector General of Police, in fact, affirmed this chart in his affidavit claiming the privilege and said in paragraph 3 of that affidavit that the chart had been supplied to the counsel of the petitioner "through the witness Inspector Mohinder Pal Singh." It was suggested on behalf of the first respondent that there was nothing to show that this chart produced by the petitioner along with his appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese lists and the absence of mention of it in these lists clearly indicated that it must not have taken place,. This approach of the learned Trial Judge is in our opinion erroneous. It is obvious that the lists Ex. PW 6/5, PW 7/1 and PW 8/3 are not exhaustive of all the public meetings held within the jurisdiction of the respective police stations. They refer only to those public meetings where the police station staff was sent for maintenance of law and order. It is quite possible that there might have been other public meetings of which the police station officers had no notice and which might not have been covered by the police station staff and hence not entered in the registers maintained by the Police stations. In fact, Umesh Chandra stated in his.evidence that in February 1971, twenty four election mectingsa were held within the jurisdiction of his police station on behalf of various parties and yet the list Ex. PW 6/5 shows only eighteen public meetings. The absence of mention of a public meeting in the lists Ex. PW 6/5, PW 7/1 and PW 8/3 cannot, therefore, be a ground for disbelieving the testi- mony of an independent and disinterested witness like a CID officer. Moreover, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Ghar on 16th February, 1971 and the third at Tel Mandi on 19th February, 1971 were amongst the twenty three public meetings admitted by the first respondent. So far as the public meeting near Imperial Cinema on 22nd February, 1971 is concerned, that was also, according to the first respondent included in the admitted twenty three public meetings. The contention of the first respondent was that this public meeting was the same as the one at Chuna Mandi on 22nd February, 1971 admitted by him and was not an additional meeting. This contention appears to be well founded. It is clear from the report of permissions Ex. PW 7/3 that Imperial Cinema is in Chuna Mandi and in fact a permission was granted under Ex. PW 7/3 for holding a public meeting in Chuna Mandi in front of imperial Cinema on 17th February, 1971, though it was subsequently cancelled as appearing from the list Ex. PW 7/1. The first respondent also stated in his evidence that there was a meeting in Chuna Mandi in front of Imperial Cinema on 22nd February, 1971. The public meeting near imperial Cinema on 22nd February, 1971 deposed to by Umesh Chandra was, therefore, the same as the public meeting at Chuna Mandi admitted by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ace, the list Ex. PW 6/5 does not refer to any public meeting at Amarpuri Colony on 25th February, 1971 or Chowk Azad Market on 26th February, 1971 under the heading 'Others', and none of these two public meetings deposed to by Umesh Chandra (PW 39) finds a place in list Ex. PW 6/5. Secondly, as already pointed out above, the heading 'Others' does not indicate that a public meeting under that heading was a meeting of arty individual or political party other than the Congress or the Jan Sangh. We must, therefore, hold, on the strength of the evidence of Umesh Chandra (PW 39), supported by the chart furnished by the Inspector General of Police, that in addition to the twenty three public meetings admitted by the first respondent, two further public meetings were held in connection with the election of the first respondent, namely one at Amarpuri Colony on 25th February, 1971 and the other at Chowk Azad Market on 26th February, 1971. The next witness whose evidence we must consider is Ranbir Singh. (PW 49), who was at the material time a Sub-Inspector in CID Special Branch. He has stated that he covered three or four election meetings of the first respondent, and thoug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent at Pahari Dhiraj on 27th February, 1971 at which, amongst others, respondents Nos. 1 and 5 were the speakers. Thirdly, there is no reason why an- independent witness like Ranbir Singh (PW 49), who has absolutely no interest in the result of the litigation one way or the other should be disbelieved. It is true that the places of the four public meetings deposed to by him were mentioned in the summons served upon him and it was for that reason that he could give the names of these places in his evidence, but that does not detract from the value of his evidence, because unless these places mentioned in the summons were correct, he would not have subscribed to them in his evidence. He would have said "'I do not remember". But he gave evidence in regard to these public meetings because he remembered though his memory was prodded by what was stated in the summons. He even gave the names of some of the speakers and deposed broadly to the arrangements made at these public meetings. Not even a suggestion was made to him that the public meeting at Phari Dhiraj was a meeting of some other political party or individual. It may also be noted that apart from Ranbir Singh ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bruary, 1971 is concerned, it was admitted by the first respondent, but the public meeting at Bahadurgarh Read on 26th February, 1971 was disputed and the first respondent denied that any such public meeting was held by him. The evidence of Daulat Ram (PW 42) in regard to this public meeting is, however. very clear and there is no reason why it should not be accepted, merely because he has deposed to this public meeting from memory. In fact the memory of this witness was severely tested in cross-examination by the first respondent but he stood the test firmly and was unshaken. There is nothing suggested as to why the testimony of this witness should be rejected. This witness not only deposed to the holding of the public meeting at Bahadurgarh Road but actually gave the names of the speakers at this public meeting, namely, the first respondent, the fifth respondent, Mir Mushtaq Ahmed and Sardar Wazir Singh. These names tally completely with the names of the speakers given in the chart furnished by the Inspector General of Police. We also find that the list Ex. 6/5 shows that a public meeting at Bahadurgarh was held on 26th February, 1971. It is undoubtedly mentioned under the headin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Trial Judge rejected the evidence of Sukhbir Singh (PW.46) in regard to this public meeting on the ground that this public meeting was shown in the list Ex. PW 6/5 as a meeting organised by other political parties and not by the Congress. But this ground is, with the greatest respect to the learned Trial Judge, wholly mis- conceived because we do not find any reference to this public meeting in the list Ex. 6/5 even under the heading 'Others'. Not only is the evidence of this witness uncontradicted by any documentary evidence but it actually finds support from the entry at Serial No. 16 in the chart furnished by the Inspector General of Police where it is shown as a meeting held in support of the first respondent. The names of the speakers given by this witness also tally with the names set out against the entry at Serial No. 16 in the chart furnished by the Inspector General of Police. We must, therefore, accept the case of the petitioner that a public meeting at Chhoti Masjid; Bara Hindu Rao was held by the first respondent on 26th February, 1971. That takes us to the evidence of Shyam Singh (PW 45), who Was at the material time posted in the CID Special Branch. He said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refreshing his memory and required to give evidence only on the basis of what he recalled, he omitted these two public meetings in the evidence given by him. There was also no other evidence in support of these two public meetings. The case of the petitioner, therefore, rested only on the entries at Serial Nos. 4 and 21 in the chart supplied by the Inspector General of Police. But as pointed out above, this chart is definitely weak piece of evidence and it would not be correct to rely upon it as substantive evidence for the purpose of holding, on the strength of its evidentiary value alone without anything more, that these two public meetings, namely one at Chowk Singhara on 18th February, 1971 and the other at Tonga Stand, Pahar Gunj on 2nd March,1971 were held in support of the election of the first respondent. Then there were three other public meetings claimed by the petitioner to havebeen held by the first respondent, namely one at Katra Karim on 17th February, 1971, the other at Chuna Mandi near Imperial Cinema on 17th February, 1971 and the third at Tel Mandi on 19th February, 1971. There is no evidence at all to show that these three public meetings were held. The only pi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce does not militate against this public meeting being a meeting of the Congress Then there is the positive evidence of Inder Mohan Bharadwaj (PW 30) that there was a public meeting of the,, first respondent at Pul Bangash on 26th February, 1971 and when he was passing along, he saw pamphlets, like annexure 'A', being distributed at this public meeting. It appears that the statement of this witness in regard to the factum of this public meeting was not challenged in cross-examination on behalf of the first respondent. The only challenge was to the accuracy of what he saw at this public meeting. When we turn to the evidence led on behalf of the first respondent in regard to this public meeting, we find a very interesting feature which is eloquent of the truth. Om Prakash Makkan (RIW 1) admitted in his cross-examination on 4th February, 1972 that he went to another meeting of the first respondent and the place whore this meeting was hold was Pul Bangash. But his cross-examination was not completed on 4th February, 1972. It was continued on 7th February, 1972 and in the course of the further cross-examination on that day, he seized the opportunity to go back on his previous ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence that a public meeting was undoubtedly scheduled to be hold at Sadar Nala Road on 15th February, 1971, but it had to be cancelled because no arrangement could be made in regard to speakers. This statement of Subhash Arya (RIW 35) stands 1255 Sup. CI/75 uncontroverted by any positive evidence on behalf of the petitioner in regard to the holding of this public meeting, unlike the case in regard to the public meeting at Pul Bangash on 26th February, 1971. We, therefore, reject the claim of the petitioner that any such public meeting was hold at Sadar Nala Road on 15th February, 1971. We have discussed the evidence in regard to the number of public meetings held in connection with the election of the first respondent in great detail because we are taking a view different from the one taken by the learned Trial Judge and, in all fairness to the learned Trial Judge as well as to the first respondent, we think it necessary that we should articulate our reasons fully. The above discussion shows that in addition to the twenty three public meetings admitted by the first respondent, nine further public meetings were held at the following places and on the following dates, namely 1. Amar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. What should be the approach of the Court when the Court finds that certain items of expenses are suppressed by a candidate is a matter which we shall presently discuss. But before we do that, we must examine the question whether the expenditure shown by the first respondent in connection with twenty three public meetings admitted by him is genuine. Did the first respondent spend only three amounts of ₹ 180/-, ₹ 180/- and ₹ 440/- in connection with these public meetings or these amounts represent a very much lower figure than what was actually spent by the first respondent. The expenditure of these amounts was sought to be supported by the bill of Tandon Tent & Furniture House, the receipt of Saini Electric Works and the bill of Agarwal Tent House. The case of the first respondent was that furnishings in connection with twelve public meetings were supplied by Tandon Tent & Fur- niture House and electric equipment by Saini Electric Works and furnishings and electric equipment in connection with the remaining eleven public meetings were supplied by Agarwal Tent House. However, strangely enough, when the first respondent was asked in cross-examination, he could not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue and evasive as not to give even the particulars of the specific public meetings at which furnishings and electric equipment were supplied by the different firms. It may also be pointed out that so far as Saini Electric Works is concerned, not even the bill of this firm was attempted to be produced by the first respondent. The receipt of this firm which was produced from the records of the Chief Electoral Officer- merely showed a sum of ₹ 180/- as having been received from the first respondent "on account of loudspeaker and light arrangements for the period from 20th February, 1971 to 2nd March,1971". It did not show where"loudspeaker and light arrangements" were supplied, what was the number of public meetings at which the supply was made, how many loudspeakers were supplied and what was the nature and extent of the lighting arrangements made at each public meeting. The rate at which "loudspeaker and light arrangements" were supplied was also not mentioned in the receipt. The receipt also did not refer to supply of microphones and, therefore, presumably, microphones were not supplied by Saini Electric Works and the amount of ₹ 180/- did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame infirmity. Agarwal Tent House, according to Subhash Arya (RIW 35), supplied furnishings and electrical equipment at smaller public meetings. The public meeting at 'P' Block, Andha Mughal on 1st March, 1971 was admittedly a small public meeting and, therefore, if the case of the first respondent were true, furnishings and electrical equipment at this public meetings should have been supplied by Agarwal Tent House. But the bill of Agarwal Tent House showed that furnishings and electrical equipment were supplied by that firm only at eleven public meetings held in the month of February, 1971. It is, therefore, obvious that, according to this bill, furnishings and electric equipment could not have been supplied by Agarwal Tent House at this public meeting held on 1st March, 1971. The bill of Agarwal Tent House thus does not fit in with the evidence and it is difficult to accept it as genuine. The only way in which the first respondent tried to get out of this rather difficult situation was by saying that the distinction made by Subhash Arya (RIW 35) between big meetings and small meetings was a distinction without a difference made under some misapprehension and this explana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon it. There are also certain other infirmities which stare us in the face if we examine the matter a little more closely. The bill of Agarwal Tent House showed a lump sum of ₹ 100/-for carnage charges and a lump sum of ₹ 40/- for labour charges in respect of furnishings and electrical equipment supplied at eleven public meetings held by the first respondent. That would mean that an aggregate sum of ₹ 300/was charged by Agarwal Tent House to the first respondent by way of hire for furnishings and electrical equipment and the rate of hire thus came to about ₹ 27/- per public meeting. So far as the bill of Tandon Tent & Furniture House is concerned, it did not make any separate mention of cartage or labour charges in respect of furnishings supplied at twelve public meetings of the first respondent. The explanation of the first respondent as well as Bhagmal Tandon (RIW 14), the sole proprietor of this firm, was that the rate of ₹ 15/- per public meeting mentioned in this bill was inclusive of cartage and labour charges and that is why these charges were not separately shown as in the bill of Agarwal Tent House. obviously, some such explanation had to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which we place much reliance but it cannot be said to be wholly without significance. Then again it may be noted that the rate of about ₹ 27/per public meeting by way of hire for furnishings and electric equip- ment supplied by Agarwal Tent House as also the rate of ₹ 15/per public meeting for furnishings supplied by Tandon Tent & Furniture House and the rate of ₹ 15/- per public meeting for electrical equipment supplied by Saini Electric Works-both the latter rates being inclusive of labour and cartage charges-are absurdly low and can hardly be regarded as genuine. It was not the case of the first respondent that the rates charged by these three firms were confessional rates. In fact, Bhagnial Tandon (RIW 14), who is the proprietor of Tandon Tent & Furniture House, stated in his evidence that the rates charged by him from the first respondent were the usual market rates. If we look at the bills Exs. PW 15/1-A, PW 15/1-B and PW 15/1-C produced by Permod Kumar (PW 15), it is clear that the market rates particularly for the supply of electrical equipment were very much higher than those shown to have been charged by these three firms. We may then examine the eviden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er is only a subsidiary book which is always prepared from the cash book at periodic intervals. We must, therefore, first examine whether the entry of ₹ 189 .75 in the cash book can be regarded as genuine. This entry in the cash book shows that the amount of ₹ 189 .75 was received in cash on 4th March, 1971 in respect of bills Nos. 8167 to 8170. That would mean that the amount of ₹ 180/- in respect of bill No. 8170 was received by Tandon Tent & Furniture House from the first respondent in cash on 4th March, 1971. But, if we look at the original bill No. 8170, we find an endorsement at the foot of that bill showing that the amount of that bill, namely, ₹ 180/-, was paid to Tandon Tent & Furniture House on 7th April, 1971. That is also borne out by the receipt R-8 dated 7th April, 1971 said to have been passed by Bhagmal Tandon (RIW 14) on behalf of Tandon Tent & Furniture House in favour of the first respondent. But, if the amount of the bill was paid by the first respondent to Tandon Tent & Furniture House on 7th April, 1971, it is difficult to see how it could be shown in the cash book as having been received on 4th March, 1971. In fact, if we look at the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied and it had already been agreed as to what he was supposed to supply at each public meeting. When asked to produce these chits, he stated that they had not been retained by him and were destroyed as soon as the final account was made up on 4th March, 1971. It may be noted that the version of Om Prakash Makkan (RIW 1) in this connection was a little different. He did not support the story of chits, but stated that "our volunteers used to go and specify the requirement for each meeting". Then Bhagmal Tandon (RIW 14) was questioned whether any receipts Were obtained evidencing delivery of the furnishings to the representatives of the first respondent. He first blundered into the statement that he maintained copies but immediately resiled from it by saying that he maintained a bound book of printed forms and every time that a thelewala went to deliver furnishings at a public meeting, he would tear off a printed form from this bound book and give it to the thelewala to obtain the signature of the person who received the furnishings and the thelewala would bring back that printed form duly signed by such person. No copies of these printed forms of receipt were, however, main ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were actually incurred would be a matter within the special knowledge of the first respondent. But that does not moan that on the material on record, the Court cannot arrive at a reasonable estimate of the expenses incurred by the first respondent. It is now well settled by the decision of this Court in Megraj Patodia v. B. K. Birla, (1) that "if the court comes to the conclusion that an item of expenditure has been suppressed in the return of election expenses, the more fact that there is no sufficient evidence about the amount that must have been spent is not ground foreign ignoring the matter. It is the duty of the court to assess all expenses as best it can and though the court should not enter into the region of speculation or merely try to guess the amount that must have been spent, it would generally be possible to arrive at an amount of expenditure oil a conservative basis and, where it is possible to arrive at any such estimate, such estimated amount should be hold as not shown by the candidate in his election account". See also P. C. P. Raddiar v. S. Perumal (2). The Court cannot fold its hands and surrender in helplessness because the respondent refuses to coo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 270 dated 24th February, 1971 for ₹ 414.50 and the third was bill No. 271 dated 24th February, 1971 for ₹ 360/- He said that one or two days before the date of the first bill, the first respondent had come to him accompanied by Sat Prakash Makkan and one other person whose name he did not remember and placed an order with him "with respect to all the three bills" and the furnishings and electric equipment mentioned in these three bills were supplied by him according to the order placed by the first respondent and the payment of the amounts of these three bills was made to him personally by the first respondent. The copies of these three bills were marked Exs. 15/1-A, PW 15/1-B and PW 15/1-C. The first respondent challenged the genuineness of these three bills and the learned Trial Judge felt serious doubt about the authenticity of these three bills and declined to act upon them. We do not think the learned Trial Judge was right in casting doubt on the genuineness of these three bills. There is absolutely no reason why these three bills should be regarded as unworthy of credibility. Permod Kumar (PW 15) who produced and proved these three bills is a completely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from carbon copy of bill No. 251 and ends with carbon copy of bill No. 300. The carbon copies of the bills in both these bill-books appear to be quite natural and regular and no valid reason has been suggested as to why we should regard them with suspicion. It is no doubt true that it was elicited in the cross- examination of this witness that he did not maintain any cash-book or ledger or any other account book but that is not such an unusual circumstance as to lead us to believe that the carbon copies of the bills produced by him were not genuine. It is not at all improbable that the only record which the witness maintained was the bill-book, because by the very nature of his business, the bill-book would contain a complete record of the amount of hire received by him. The carbon copies of the bills not only show the names of the parties to whom materials are given on hire but also the dates and the particulars of the items and the hire charges in respect of the same. The witness also admitted in cross- examination that he did not maintain any receipt books but that is also not at all unusual. One does not need to have a regular receipt book. A receipt can always be given on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e bill book PW 15/1. They are bills Nos. 253, 269 and 296. It will be seen that none of these three bills is blank. Each one of them has been made out in the name of some party or the other and then it has been cancelled. The same position obtains in regard to bills Nos. 207, 208 and 229 in bill book PW 15/2. It is apparent in the case of some of these bil's that they were cancelled because of' some mistake and then new bills were made out in the names of the same parties. Compare, for example, cancelled bill No. 229 with bill No. 231, cancelled bill No. 208 with bill No. 209 and cancelled bill' No. 253 with bill No. 254. There is no reason why any blank unuti- lised bills should have been allowed to remain in the bill books. That is not done by people who maintain their accounts in the regular course of business. Permod Kumar (PW 16) could not have anticipated on 20th February, 1971 that some blank bills might come in handy at a future point of time and he should, therefore, leave some blank bills in the bill books. It is also difficult to believe that there should have been a blank bill No. 263 and again three continuous blank bills at Nos. 269, 270 and 271. We find i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quite natural because it is in evidence that announcements of public 'meetings were made from scooters and battery operated loudspeakers must have been utilised for the purpose. It is significant that the first respondent has not shown hiring of battery operated loudspeakers from any other party. We are, therefore, satisfied beyond doubt that the three bills Exs. PW 16/1-A, PW 15/1-B and PW 15/1-C are genuine and they correctly show the expenses incurred by the first respondent. Now the bills Exs. PW 15/1-A and PW 16/1-B serve two purposes. They not only show the actual expenses incurred by the first respondent in connection with the public meetings at Tel Mandi on 19th February, 1971 and Chuna Mandi on 22nd February, 1971, but also provide reliable material for making a reasonable estimate of the expenses which must have been incurred by the first respondent in connection with other public meetings. The actual expense in connection with the public meeting at Tel Mandi on 19th February, 1971 was ₹ 350/according to Ex. PW 1611 A and in connection with the public meeting at Chuna Mandi on 22nd February, 1971 it was ₹ 400/- as appearing from Ex.PW15/1-B. We may err on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Jan Sangh meetings had also the same furnishings and electrical equipment but stated that "the Jan Sangh meetings were not so shandar" as the Congress meetings. 'He then deposed to a public meeting held by him in Bara Hindu Rao. He stated that this public meeting held by him was very small but even then, it cost him between ₹ 150/- and ₹ 200/-. We are inclined to accept this evidence as it appears to us to have a ring of truth. Now, there can be no doubt that if a small public meeting held by Chunni Lal (PW 32) cost him ₹ 150/- to ₹ 200/-, a much more 'shandar' public meeting held by the Congress would certainly cost anything more than ₹ 200/-. The estimate of ₹ 150/- per public meeting can, therefore, safely be regarded as a reasonable estimate. We may also refer to the evidence of Dharamvir (PW 66). This witness was also an independent witness having no interest either in Jan Sangh or in Congress. When questioned in regard to his association with Jan Sangh he stated emphatically and in clear terms that he was neither a worker nor a member of the Jan Sangh. It was suggested to him that his brother Jagdish was a Secreta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t may, however, be remembered in this connection that the evidence of Bhagmal Tandon (RIW 14) was that the rates charged by him were normal market rates. There can, therefore, be no doubt that the charges shown in the bill of Tandon Tent & Furniture House were not genuine charges but were deliberately deflated to suit the convenience of the first respondent. It may also be noted that the charge of ₹ 60-/ or ₹ 70-/ for the microphones deposed to by this witness was not at all challenged on behalf of the first respondent in cross-examination nor was the charge of Re. 1 .50 or ₹ 2-/ for each flood light. It is, therefore, apparent from the evidence of this witness that the expenditure in connection with the public meeting at Bara Tooti Chowk on 22nd February, 1971 could not have been less than ₹ 250/- and that justifies the reasonable estimate of ₹ 150/- per public meeting. We may also refer to the evidence of O.P. Bharti (RIW 23) in this connection. This witness was summoned on behalf of the first respondent and his evidence, therefore assumes some importance. He was questioned in cross-examination in regard to what he saw at the public meeting of the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nk that on a very conservative estimate, the first respondent must be held to have incurred expenditure of ₹ 150/- per public meeting and that would make a total expenditure of ₹ 4,500/- in connection with these thirty public meetings. The aggregate expenditure incurred or authorised by the first respondent in connection with the total number of thirty two public meetings must, therefore, add up to ₹ 5,600/-. But the first respondent showed only an aggregate expenditure of ₹ 800/- in the return of expenses filed by him and that would mean that, over and above the expenditure of ₹ 800/- shown by him, he incurred or authorised further expenditure of ₹ 4,800/- on these thirty-two public meetings held in connection with his election. That takes us to a consideration of the public meeting at Idgah Road which was addressed by the Prime Minister. So far as this public meeting is concerned, the evidence on record is not sufficient to establish that the expenses in connection with it were incurred or authorised by the first respondent. There is no reliable evidence "on behalf of the petitioner to show that this public meeting was held by 5- 5--M255S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard with the case that the Delhi Pradesh Congress Committee was responsible for this public meeting. The petitioner contended that this equivocation and uncertainty on the part of the first respondent in regard to a matter on which he, as the then Secretary of the Delhi Pradesh Congress Com- mittee, was bound to have definite information and knowledge, cast a grave doubt on the truthfulness and veracity of the first respondent when he denied his responsibility for this public meeting. There is considerable force in this criticism levelled on behalf of the petitioner. It is difficult to understand how the first respondent found himself unable to assert definitely whether this public meeting was arranged by the District Congress Committee, Karol Bagh or the Delhi Pradesh Congress Committee. He was the secretary of the Delhi Pradesh Congress Committee and he must surely have known as to who arranged this public meeting. whether it was the District Congress Committee, Karol Bagh or the Delhi Pradesh Congress Committee. Then why did the first respondent not come out with a positive case right from the begining? This does give rise to suspicion that perhaps the 30 9 first respondent had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iture representing printing charges of hand-bills and posters paid to Sood Litho Press and the cost of paper required for the purpose of printing these hand-bills and posters. The first respondent admitted that an expenditure of ₹ 100/- was incurred by him in connection with printing of 5000 hand- bills containing appeal of the Prime Minister, by Sood Litho Press and this expenditure was shown by him in his return of expenses. The controversy, however, was whether this amount of, ₹ 100/- paid to Sood Litho Press related only to the charges for printing the handbills or it covered also the cost of paper required for the purpose. There was a 'Bill of Sood Litho Press bearing No. 798 dated 27th February, 1971 in respect of this amount of ₹ 100/- and that was filed by the first respondent with the Returning Officer along with his return of expenses. This bill was produced in Court by D. B. Bhardwaj, (PW 5) from the office of the Returning Officer in obedience to a summons obtained by the petitioner. When this bill was produced, it bore an endorsement "complete Prtg. etc." and immediately below that, another endorsement "Printing charges only", ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed this bill, he should have cancelled the second endorsement Printing charges only" on the original of this bill, but left it unscarred off in the carbon copy. In fact no such suggestion was made to Taufiq Farooqi. It was not so stated even by a single witness of the first respondent. No explanation was offered in the evidence led on behalf of the first respondent unrevealing the mystery surrounding the scoring off of the second endorsement "Printing charges only". On this state of the evidence, the conclusion is irresistible that when this bill was issued by Sood Litho Press; it bore the second endorsement "Printing charges only" as did the carbon COPY produced by Taufiq Farooqi and this second endorsement was scored off at some subsequent stage. This conclusion is strengthened and fortified by the fact-that the link of the line scoring the second endorsement "Printing charges only" is of a different shade than the ink of the words in the second endorsement. Then again, there is a very important circumstance which shows beyond doubt that the second endorsement "Printing charges only" was scored off at some subsequent stage after the is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... requiring him to explain what he meant by the word ,etc' and suggesting that this word was intended to include the cost of paper. There is also another circumstance which strongly militates against the contention of the first respondent. If the cost of paper were included in the bill, it would have been shown as a separate item and sales tax would have been charged on it as in the case of the bill of Kapur Printing Press R18 and the estimate given by Premchand Grover R6. The absence of sales tax in the bill is a clear indication that the cost of paper was not included in the amount of the bill. We are, therefore, of the view that the amount of ₹ 100/- shown in the bill represented only printing charges and did not include the cost of paper. The cost of paper utilised in printing 5000 hand-bills containing the appeal of the Prime Minister would, therefore, have to be added to the election expenses of the first respondent. Now this item of cost of paper was suppressed by the first respondent and we would, therefore, have to make a reasonable estimate of the expenditure incurred on it on the basis of the material on record. There is, fortunately for the petitioner, evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... support the first respondent, he started by saying, almost at the commencement of his examination-in- chief, that he did not know the first respondent, though there was no provocation to him to do so. We are not prepared to accept his statement that he did not know the first respondent. It is apparent from his evidence that he was out to favour the first respondent. The petitioner in fact apprehended this situation and he, therefore, obtained from this witness an affidavit dated 17th August, 1971 and in this affidavit the witness stated on oath that "the originals of Annexures 'A' and 'B' mentioned in the election petition and attached to the same were printed through us with our print line Shri Amar Nath Chawla accompanied by Shri J. P. Goel had given me the orders for printing the said annexures and the manuscript/subject-matter was handed over to me by the said Amar Nath Chawla". When confronted with this affidavit,. he had to% admit that it bore his signatures on both pages but came out with art explanation that his affidavit had been brought to him by some Aryasamaji boys headed by Mahinder Kumar Shastri and they forced him to sign this affidavit and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with-suspicion, but was, on the contrary, more credible. It may be noted-and this is almost a conclusive, circumstances -that there was no cross-examination of Taufiq Farooqi in regard to the copy of the Bill Ex. PW 2/1. His evidence on this point was not at all challenged in cross-examination on behalf of the first respondent. It was not even suggested to him that the first respondent did not got printing work done by Sood Litho Press as shown in the copy of the bill Ex. PW 2/1 or that the copy of the bill Ex. PW 2/1 was false and fabricated. The only question put to Taufiq Parooqi was whether any declaration was taken by him from any one in connection with the printing of the hand-bills and posters forming the. subject-matter of the copy of the bill Ex. PW 2/1 and his answer was in the negative. But that is far from a challenge to the printing work shown in the copy of the bill Ex PW 2/1. Merely because no declaration was taken by good Litho Press from any one in connection with this printing work, it does not necessarily follow that no printing work was done by them. It is riot uncommon to find that during elections posters and hand bills are printed without complying with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his evidence that for printing posters of the size of Annexure B' to the petition, two reams of paper 1000 would be required and the price of paper utilised in the poster Annexure 'B' to the petition was ₹ 50/- per ream at the relevant time. To the same effect was also the evidence of Chater Sain (PW 55). There was no cross-examination of either of these two witnesses on this point as regards quantity and price of paper. We must, therefore, (1) C. A. No. 816 of 1973-dec. on August 8, 1974. accept this evidence and on the basis of this evidence, we can safely conclude that the total cost of paper utilised in printing 3700 Posters was ₹ 375/- The hand bills shown to have been printed in the copy of the bill Ex. PW 2/1 were 2000 and again, for the same reasons, we do not think we would be wrong in taking the view that they were the same as the hand bill Annexure 'A' to the petition, because Annexure 'A' to the petition bears the print-line of Sood Litho Press and the first respondent suppressed from the Court information as to what were the hand bills printed by Sood Litho Press for him. Babu Ram Sharma (PW 11) stated that half ream would be re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the petitioner. There can be no doubt that the allegations contained in Annexure 'A' and 'B' to the De- tition related to the personal character of the petitioner and they were reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of his election, but it is a highly controversial question whether they were published by the first respondent or his election agent by bringing out Annexure A' and 'B' to the petition or orally at the public meetings and we do not propose to express any opinion on it. It may be noted that the learned Trial Judge found, on a consideration of the evidence, that the allegations contained in Annexure 'A'and 'B'to the petition were true but this finding was seriously attacked on behalf of the petitioner and it was contended that there was no evidence at all on the basis of which the learned Trial Judge could arrive at such a finding. There is prima facie considerable force in this contention of the petitioner, because the finding of the learned Trial Judge that these allegations were true appears to be based primarily on the reports of the proceedings in the Parliament which are no proof of the contents of the alleg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
