Judgement

A. ALAGIAISWAMI, J.:- This appeal arises out of an election petition filed by the appellant, a voter, questioning the election of the 1st respondent to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly from the Lanji constituency in Balaghat District held on the 8th of March, 1972.

2. The 1st respondent had applied for a Congress ticket and on being refused a Congress ticket he contested the election as an independent candidate and won the election having obtained 20051 votes. The 2nd respondent was the Congress candidate who got the next highest votes of 19166. The other respondents were also unsuccessful candidates.

3. The appellant made a number of allegations against the successful candidate the purport of which would appear from issues 1 to 4 set out below :

1. Has the Respondent No. 1 incurred or authorised expenditure beyond the prescribed limit as detailed in paragraph 5-B. B-i, B-ii, B-iii, B-iv and B-v and what is its effect ?

2. Whether the Respondent No. 1 made a gift of expenses for election including the deposit of Rs. 250/- at the time of filing the nomination papers of the Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 with a view to divide the votes to support his candidature as detailed in paragraph 5(c) of the petition and does this amount to a corrupt practice under Section 123 (1) (A) and (B) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?

3. Whether the Respondent No. 1 obtained the services of Shri Raizada as alleged in paragraph 5 (E) and the Schedule concerned for the furtherance of the prospects of his election and is he guilty of a corrupt practice under S. 123 (7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?

4. Whether the respondent No. 1 got printed and widely distributed in the constituency the leaflet with a heading with his symbol with a threat that Goddess Durga rides on his symbol and in case he is not voted they will suffer from the wrath of Goddess Durga? Does this amount to an appeal on the ground of religion or religious symbol within the mischief of Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951? All the issues were found against the appellant and as we agree with the learned Judge completely we do not consider it necessary to discuss the evidence at length. We shall indicate our reasons within a short compass.

Issue No. 1

4. The first item of expenditure was a sum of Rs. 1,500/- representing the amount alleged to have been spent by the 1st respondent for putting up sheds at each of the hundred polling booths in the constituency and for having boards at each of those polling booths. The second item was a sum of Rs. 2,340/- alleged to have been spent for two lorries for nine days at the rate of Rs. 1001/- a day and for a jeep for nine days at the rate of Rs. 60 /- per day. The third item was a sum of Rs. 400/- consisting of Rs. 100/- alleged to have been given to one Bhivram for repairing the roof of Ram Mandir in village Mohara and another sum of Rs. .300/- alleged to have been paid to one Alambeg of village Rusewada for constructing a well in the village.

5. As regards the expenses for the sheds and boards it was admitted by the 1st respondent that he did not spend any amount for putting up sheds. On the other hand there was no evidence on the appellant s side as to the number of sheds which were put up or on the amount spent on putting up the sheds. The only evidence which had any relevance to this question was that of P. W. 13 that he made the mandap at the request of Brijlal Mishra. Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Bhanegaon and that the 1st respondent had made the request to Brijlal Mishra to make arrangements for the construction of the mandap and paid him Rs. 20/- which in turn was given to him by Brijlal Mishra. The evidence of this witness has been rightly disbelieved by the High Court as he also said that one Manmohan paid the money to Brijlal Mishra, that he is unable to recognize Manmohan and he himself had not told about it to anybody till he was examined in the Court. In addition, both Brijl