Judgement

A. K. SARKAR, J. : This appeal arises out of an election petition filed by the respondent No. 1, Hira Singh Pal, whom we shall hereinafter refer to as the respondent. The other respondent to this appeal is the Election Commission, but it has not appeared presumably because it is not interested in the result of the appeal which involves no claim against it. The only question that it involves is whether the appellant was guilty of a corrupt practice, the details of which will be set out later, within the meaning of S. 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

2. In the 1957 General Elections, ten candidates filed their nomination papers to contest the election from the Mahasu double member constituency in Himachal Pradesh. One of the two seats for this constituency was reserved for a scheduled caste candidate. Two of the candidates withdrew from the contest and the remaining eight went to the poll. These eight included the appellant, the respondent and one Nek Ram. Nek Ram was declared elected to the reserved seat and the appellant to the general seat. The respondent polled the next largest number of votes to the appellant.

3. After the results had been declared the respondent filed the election petition on 3rd August 1957, challenging the validity of the election of the appellant on the ground that he had committed various corrupt practices. The Election Tribunal framed 18 issues in respect of the various corrupt practices alleged in the petition but answered all the issues excepting issues Nos. 8(i), 8(ii) and 11 against the respondent. Issue No. 8(i) raised the question whether one Amar Singh, said to be a member of the armed forces of the Union of India, worked and canvassed for the appellant. Issue No. 8(ii) was whether Amar Singh was appointed his polling agent by the appellant. Issue No. 11 was in the following term :

In case one or more of issues Nos. (3) to (10) is or are decided in the affirmative, whether the respondent No. 1 obtained, procured or abetted or attempted to obtain, procure by himself, by his agents and by his supporters the assistance of two Government servants as specified under the said issues for the furtherance of the prospects of his election?

The Tribunal found against the appellant on Issues Nos. 8(i), 8(ii) and 11 and thereupon declared his election void.

4. The appellant then went up in appeal to the Judicial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, who by his judgment dated 31st July 1958 set aside the finding of the Tribunal on Issue No. 8(i) but maintained its findings on the other two issues and confirm the declaration that the appellant s election was void. The appellant has come up to this Court by special leave in appeal against that judgment. As will have been seen from what has been earlier stated the only questions that survive are those raised by Issues Nos. 8(ii) and 11.

5. The facts are not now in dispute and may be stated as follows : The constituency was divided into 606 polling stations and for each polling station three polling agents could be appointed. The appellant was thus entitled to appoint 1818 polling agents. On 28th April 1957, he signed a very large number of the forms prescribed by the rules framed under the Act for appointing polling agents, in blank and without setting out therein the name of any polling agent, as he had not then been able to make up his mind in view of the large number of polling stations as to who would be his polling agents at the various polling stations. He made over these forms to Kalyan Singh, who passed on three of them to Kashmira Singh, having inserted therein the words "polling station No. 13, Sheopur". Kashmira Singh filled in the name of Amar Singh as the polling agent in one of these forms on 25th May 1957, the day of polling, and made it over to the latter to enable him to act as the appellant s polling agent at polling station No. 13, Sheopur. Amar Singh then duly signed the form as required by the rules and filed it with the p