Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.A.Vaidialingam : S.M.Sikri : V.Bhargava
Pratap Singh
Versus
Hardwari Lal
Case No. : 1192 of 1969
Date of Decision : 3/4/70
Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Sections 116, 123, 77 – Distribution of Handbills and Posters – Setting aside Election Results – Whether posters, handbills and publications complained of by respondent, contained matters relating to personal character or conduct of respondent – Whether documents under consideration had been printed, published and distributed with consent, knowledge and at instance of appellant – Whether statements contained in those documents were false or not believed by appellant to be true – Held, It is no doubt true that most of these witnesses were all polling agents of appellant and fact they are giving evidence against appellant is urged as a ground for their evidence being rejected in toto. – Court is aware that under those circumstances, their evidence will have to be treated with great caution – But, in this case there is evidence of P. W. 25 which clearly shows that these posters, handbills and copies of Vidrohi and Kalakar were very widely distributed in rural areas before date of the poll. – He was a Congressman and he fought the election against respondent in 1962,1967 as also in by-election in 1967 but lost in all these elections. – Even during mid-term election in question, he applied for a Congress ticket, but it was given to the appellant. – Being a Congressman, he was working on behalf of Congress candidate, viz, appellant. – He has stated that in his tour round various villages he came across Exhibits X-5 and X-6 and copies of Vidrohi and Kalakar which were very widely distributed on behalf of appellant. – He has also referred to fact that Sorajmal was an ardent supporter of appellant. – All these posters and other things were seen by him before date of poll. – P. W. 25 has spoken to fact that respondent, when he was a Minister, had suspended him while he was working as a Sarpanch and that clearly shows that he cannot be too friendly with respondent. – There is no suggestion to polling agents of appellant who have given evidence that they have been won over by respondent, nor is it established that their evidence is false, as their statements are well corroborated by other evidence on record. – Appellant himself has admitted, as R. W. 22, and their employee, were his counting agents – No doubt he has stated that he appointed counting agents because they happened to be near polling station along with certain other workers of appellant. – This is same explanation that appellant gave regarding Jagdish Grover and has not been accepted by court. – Only explanation that appellant gave for not examining Surajmal was that he was neutral. – In fact, in his evidence as R. W. 22, appellant had further stated that he was not prepared to join even in any joint request that may be made to be consent for examining Surajmal as a Court-witness. – So far as we can see, there is absolutely no suggestion to P. Ws. 10, 11 and 14 and that manuscripts produced by them are not in fact in handwriting of Surajmal. – Non-examintion of Surajmal, by the respondent, is of no consequence. – Appeal Dismissed
C.A.VAIDIALINGAM,J.
(1) THE appellant, Pratap Singh, was declared elected to the Haryana State Assembly from Bahadurgarh constituency in the first mid-term elections which took place on 14/05/1968. There were three contestants from this constituency the appellant Pratap Singh being the Congress Party candidate, the respondent Hardwari Lal being the Swatantra Party candidate and the independent candidate Ram Narain, being the third candidate. The appellant obtained 23,414 votes and the respondent obtained 19,279 votes and the appellant was declared duly elected to the Assembly. It is not necessary to refer to the third candidate Ram Narain, as he is not before us in these proceedings.
(2) ON an election petition filed by the respondent herein for setting aside the election of the appellant, the High court of Punjab and Haryana set aside the appellants election by its judgment dated 21/01/1969, and this appeal, under S. 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against the said decision.
(3) IN the election petition before the High court, the respondent had challenged the election of the appellant on various grounds. As the election of the appellant has been set aside by the High court only on the findings recorded under issue No. 3, it is not really necessary elaborately advert to the other grounds alleged by the respondent in his election petition. It is enough to state that the respondent alleged that the change of date of poll from 12/05/1968, to Ma 14/05/1968, was done with a view to give undue advantage to the Congress candidate (the appellant herein) and that it materially affected the result of the election and that the Police and Executive Officers of the District acted in a partial manner and helped the Congress candidate against the respondent and thus jeopardized his chances of winning the election and that huge amounts were spent by the appellant during the election days and such expenditure far exceeded the maximum limits laid down in S. 77 of the Act. The High court found that these allegations had not been substantiated and, as such, recorded findings against the respondent.
(4) A further allegation was made by the respondent that a somewhat systematic campaign was undertaken throughout the constituency by means of posters and handbills and by distribution of copies of two papers, viz., Vidrohi and Kalakar containing false allegations against the respondents personal character and that those posters and handbills were printed and published by the appellant and with his consent. In support of this allegation, the respondent relied upon the posters Exhibits X-1 to X-5 and the handbill Exhibit X-6 and three issues of Vidrohi, dated 22/04/19 6/05/1968, and M 13/05/1968, and one issue of Kalakar, dated 3/05/1968. According to the respondent the posters and handbills had been published and distributed by the appellant or at his instance and with his consent and that they contained false statements as to his personal character and conduct, thus constituting a corrupt practice under S. 123(4) of the Act. The allegations set out above were stoutly controverted by the appellant and he denied that any posters, handbills or issues of papers referred to by the respondent were either printed or published by him nor had they been printed or publised at his instance or with his consent or knowledge. The allegations referred to above formed the subject-matter of issue No. 3 which was as follows :
"3. (a) Were the posters X-1 to X-5 and the handbill X-6, or any one or more of them, published or distributed by the respondent or at his instance or with his consent, as mentioned in Para 5 ? (A) Were tlie three issues of Vidrohi, dated 22/04/1968, 6th of May, 1968, and 13th of May, 1968, and one issue of Kalakar, dated 3rd of May, 1968, published with .the consent, knowledge and at the instance of the respondent ? (c) If so, doc
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
