Judgment

UNTWALIA, J.:- This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter called the Act-from the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissing the appellant s Election Petition filed to challenge the election of respondent no. 1. The said respondent was elected to the Legislative Assembly of Madhya Pradesh from the Churhat Assembly Constituency defeating many other candidates including one Shri Shyamlal his nearest rival candidate by a majority of 5,890 votes. The poll was held on 11-3-1972. The election of respondent no. 1 was challenged in the High Court on many grounds which were controverted by the said respondent. Several issues were framed at the trial of the Election Petition and decided against the appellant. At the time of the hearing of this appeal only some of the issues were pressed and not all. We shall therefore, very briefly state the relevant facts in relation to those issues only. Since we find that this appeal is without any substance, we shall mention the relevant issues pressed for our consideration in this appeal, the decision of the High Court on them and briefly discuss the points urged on behalf of the appellant to assail the decision.

2. Many charges of corrupt practices such as bribery, undue influence, threats etc. were levelled against respondent no. 1, his agents or workers within the meaning of sub- section (1) (A) and sub-section (2) of Section 123 of the Act. The case of the appellant in the Election Petition is this. Respondent no. 1 paid on 5-3- l972 a sum of Rs. 500/- to one Manbodhi Kurmi who was said to be his worker at village Barigama and a polling agent. Manbodhi distributed Rs. 500/- with the consent of respondent no. 1 on the same date to many voters with the object of inducing them to vote for respondent no. 1. Manbodhi wrote a letter on 6-3- l972 asking respondent No. 1 to send him Rs. 600/- more for payment to certain other electors. It is further said that one Indramani Prasad of Dhanaha who was the agent and worker of respondent no. 1 distributed money to the electors on 9-3- l972 with the object of inducing them to vote for respondent no. 1. Similarly one Kedarnath resident of Dhumma who also was an agent and worker of respondent no. 1 with his consent distributed Rs. 1,000/- to the electors of village Dhumma. He also demanded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- by writing a letter dated 8-3-1972. Fourteen persons were named in the election petition to whom money was paid by Kedarnath between 5-3-1972 and 8-3-1972.

3. The appellant further averred that respondent no. 1 was guilty of having indulged in corrupt practice under Section 123 (2) of the Act in as much as he, his agents and workers with his consent threatened the electors and interfered with the free exercise of their electoral rights to cast votes in favour of the candidates of their choice. The threat specially to them was to refrain from voting in favour of Shri Shyamlal. Particularly in this regard the allegation was that one Rao Saheb of Rampur Nalkin who was an agent and worker of respondent No. 1 with his consent published a pamphlet with the caption "Churhat Kshetra Ke Matadataon se appeal", The pamphlet was widely circulated by Shankereshwar Pratap Singh son of Rao Saheb of Rampur in many villages of his influence.

4. Respondent no, 1 denied the various allegations of corrupt practices made against him his agents or workers.

5. The decision of the High Court was assailed in this appeal in respect of four sets of issues only. We shall proceed to state and discuss such set of issues seriatim in this judgment.

6. The first set of issues in relation to the commission of corrupt practice through Manbodhi Kurmi is as follows

"1. (a) Whether on 5-3-1972 the respondent No, 1 paid Rs. 500/- to Manbodhi Kurmi for being, distributed to the electors of village Barigama to induce them to vote for respondent No, 1?

(b) Whether on the same date the said sum of Rs. 500/- was actually