Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, J.:- In the general elections to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly held in March 1972 from the Ganganagar Constituency, the respondent who was sponsored by the Sanyukt Socialist Party defeated the appellant, a Congress (R) candidate, by over 22000 votes. The appellant filed Election Petition No. 5 of 1972 in the Rajasthan High Court challenging the election of the respondent on the ground of corrupt practices committed by him and his election agent Bhagirath Singh. The petition having been dismissed the election petitioner has filed this appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

2. We are concerned in this appeal with two corrupt practices said to have been committed by the respondent. It is alleged, firstly, that a pamphlet (Ex. 1) was distributed by the respondent and his election agent in a meeting held on February 23, 1972 at Nehru Park, Ganganagar. The second corrupt practice alleged against the respondent is that several copies of a 2 weekly newspaper called "Patal Shakti" dated February 27, 1972 containing a scurrilous editorial were distributed by the respondent and his election agent at a meeting of the Socialist Party held at Public Park, Ganganagar on the 27th. The editorial is also said to have been read out in the meeting by one Vijay Kumar Talwar. The allegations contained in the editorial and in the pamphlet (Exhibit 1 to which the editorial refers are indisputably defamatory of the appellant. The editorial (Ex. 2) contained in the Patal Shakti is alleged to have been written at the instance of the respondent and in a manner, paid for by him.

3. This appeal had come up for hearing on August 6, 1975 when by consent of parties two additional issues were returned by this Court to the High Court, with liberty to the parties to lead evidence on those issues. The first issue was whether the pamphlet (Ex. 1) was printed at the instance and with the consent of respondent and whether the payment for that pamphlet was made by his election agent Bhagirath Singh. The second issue remitted to the High Court was whether the editorial (Ex. 2) in Patal Shakti was read over in the meeting of February 27, 1972 by Vijay Kumar Talwar in the presence of the respondent. By its judgment dated April 8, 1976 the High Court after considering the fresh evidence led by the parties held in favour of the respondent on both the issues. Those findings are challenged by the appellant in this appeal.

4. The appeal is devoid of substance and this we feel constrained to say in spite of a careful argument advanced on behalf of the appellant by Shri M. B. L. Bhargava. In view of some of the fundamental circumstances to which we will presently refer, it is unnecessary to discuss fully the evidence of each one of the witnesses examined by the parties on the two corrupt practices attributed to the respondent. It is a matter of common occurrence in election petitions that parties manage to collect a large volume of oral evidence in support of the allegations of corrupt practice. Very often, the allegations are concocted and are attempted to be established with the evidence of partisan witnesses. On rare occasions when the allegations are true, untrue evidence is led to strengthen the charges.

5. Several witnesses were examined by the appellant for proving that in a meeting held on February 23, 1972 the pamphlet (Ex. 1) was distributed by the respondent and his election agent. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the High Court should not have brushed aside the evidence of those witnesses on the mere ground that they belong to the same party as the appellant or were otherwise interested in his success in the election. Interested witnesses are not necessarily false witnesses though the fact that the witness has a personal interest or stake in the matter must put the Court on its guard. The evidence of such witnesses must be subjected to a closer scrutiny and indeed the Court may in a gi