Judgment

SARKARIA, J : - Election to the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly from 6-Kumarsain Assembly Constituency was held according to the under-mentioned calendar :

1. Notification calling the election --- 1-2-1972.

2. Last date for filing nomination papers --- 8-2-1972.

3. Date of poll --- 5-3-1972.

4. Counting of votes and declaration of result --- 12-3-1972.

2. Jai Beharilal Khachi, Beliram Bhalaik and Kishori Lal as rival candidates contested the election from the aforesaid Constituency. The result of the poll was as below:

Total votes polled --- 15050

Invalid votes --- 372

Jai Behari Lal Khachi --- 7336

Beli Ram Bhalaik --- 7218

Kishori Lal --- 124

3. Khachi was declared elected defeating Bhalaik by a margin of 118 votes.

4. Bhalaik filed a petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) calling in question the election of Khachi on the ground that the latter had committed several corrupt practices pleaded in the petition. The petitioner also alleged the commission of some irregularities and illegalities in the counting of votes and on that basis prayed that a recount be ordered. In the event of election of Khachi being set aside, the petitioner prayed for a further declaration that he had been duly elected.

5. The learned Judge of the High Court found all the issues against the petitioner and dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal.

6. Allegations, more or less of a general character, of a multitude of corrupt practices were made in the petition. We will notice only those, which were canvassed before us by Mrs. Shyamala Pappu, learned Counsel for the appellant. Since we agree with the reasoning and the conclusions arrived at by the High Court, we will not re-appraise the evidence in detail. We will discuss only the broad salient features of the evidence adduced in the case.

7. The first act of corrupt practice, in the chronological order, alleged in the petition is that on 7-2-1972, A. C. Gupta S. D. O., a Gazetted Officer in the Public Works Department of the State, at the instance of the returned candidate, brought Kishori Lal in his jeep from Kingal to Simla to enable him to file his nomination papers for contesting the election from this Constituency.

8. To substantiate this allegation, the petitioner examined P. W. 18 Tara Chand Sirkek, who stated that on 7-2-72, he and the petitioner were both coming in a jeep between Oddi and Kumarsain. They saw Kishori Lal along with Gupta in the latter s jeep proceeding to Simla. Bhalaik also deposed to the same effect.

9. Both Gupta and Kishori Lal were examined in rebuttal as D. Ws. 16 and 17. They categorically discounted the story of the petitioner. Gupta s statement was supported by the entries in his Official diary according to which on 7-2-1972, he was travelling between Kamarsain and Jarol in a truck. On that day he never went anywhere in a jeep. Kishori Lal stated that he did not even know who Gupta was and never travelled with him. Sirkek was, admittedly, related to Bhalaik and was his principal worker in the election campaign. Both were highly interested witnesses and there was absolutely no corroboration of their statements from an independent source. As against them, there was no ground to disbelieve the version of D. W. 16 which had been confirmed by the official records and the authenticity of which had not been challenged. It was thus rightly held that the appellant had utterly failed to substantiate these allegations.

10. It was further alleged that on 8-2-1972 and 9-2-1972, Sirkek and Bhalaik met Kishori Lal at the Coffee House, Simla and had a talk with him. During that talk Kishori Lal confessed that all his election expenses were being borne by Khachi.

11. Again on this point, the only evidence adduced consisted of the oral statements of Sirkek and Bhalaik. Admittedly, Kishori Lal was a nominee of the Communist Party of India. This circumstance itself goes a long way to falsify the assertion of the appellant that Kishori