Om Prakash v. Lalchand and Another

Ray, J. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 19 November, 1968 of the High Court of Punjab & Har­ yana at Chandigarh dismissing the election petition of the appel- lant. · · · B The appellant contested the Assembly seat from Ellenabad Constituency in tbil District of Hissar in the mid-term election held in May, 1968. The appellant challenged the election of Lalchand, the first respondent. The other defeated candidate in the election was the. second respondent Prithvi Raj. The appel­ lant obtained 15.485 votes. The successful candidate Lalchand c secured 20,816 votl)S and Prithvi Raj obtained 5,726 votes. The polling was on 14 May, 1968. The results were announced on 16 May, 1968. At the hearing Qf the appeal counsel on behalf of the appel­ lant canvassed thre~ii grounds. First, that the poster being Exhi­ bit P.W. 1/1 was against the personal character of the appellant and therefore constituted a corrupt practice within the meaning of sub-section (4) of section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Secondly, the religious head Sat Guru Jagjit Singh of the Namdhari sect i11Sued an ap~ and a farman and thereby the provisions con­ tained in sub-section, (2) of section 123 of the Act are attracted. Thirdly, the resp~ndent Lalchand is guilty of corrupt practice of bribery by having given Rs. 20,000/- in cash to Prithvi Raj to contest the election.·· I shall at the llUtset deal with the secbnd and the third grounds. Counsel qn behalf. of the appellant pressed allegations contained in sub~paragraphs (b) and ( d) of paragraph 10 of the petition which were to the effect that Sat Guru Jagjit Singh issued a farman on or about 20 April, 1968 to the effect that it was the Guru's desire that all followers should oppose the appellant who was the son of <Choudhury Devi Lal an enemy of Namdhari Guru. Further, if any of the followers did not obey the farman they would stand el(·Cominunicated and their 'Prasad' would not be accepted in the Gurdwaras and that they would be spiritually censured by natning·them as traitors of Dharma and befallen per­ sons in Sabha's 'of Nmndharis. In sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph 10 of the petition' it 'was alleged th'at on 21 April, 1968 the fol­ lowers of Namdhiri sect were called to Sant Nagar where a big Dewan of Namdhari~ was convened and Sat Guru Jagjit Singh made a speech !her. e that he had taken a vow to defeat the appel­ lant because he was the son of Choudhury Devi Lal whose family was an avowed enemy of N amdhari sect and that it .should be treated as a vow by every Namdhari. · 888 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [l 970] I S.C.R. The respondent Lalchand denied that there was any meeting and further denied that there was any farman. The appellant, it may be stated, did not adduce any docu­ mentary evidence in support of the allegations. The appellant's entire case was based on oral evidence. The appellant relied on the oral testimony of P.W. 29 and P.W. 30. P.W. 29 Ram Dayal was formerly a member of the Punjab Legislative Assembly. Ram Dayal was formerly a member of the Congress Committee. He resigned from the Congress and contested the seat as an in· dependent candidate against Chondhury Devi Lal and won the election in the year 1957. An election petition was filed by Choudhury Devi Lal against the witness Ram Dayal. Ram Dayal was eventually unseated as a result of the decision of this Court. The witness Ram Dayal helped the respondent Lalchand in the election of 1967 and also in the mid-term election in the month of May, 1968. The witness Ram Dayal spoke of the Sat Guru Maharaj having exhorted the Namdharis to vote for Lalchand and warned them about the consequences if they failed to do so. The witness also spoke of the meeting at Rania village on 28 April, 1968. It is indeed strange and significant that Ram Dayal who supported respondent Lalchand and also attended meetings on his behalf came and gave evidence in favour of the appellant about the utterances of Sat Guru Jagjit Singh of the Namdhari sect. It is extremely unsafe and hazardous to rely on the un­ corroborated and isolated oral testimony of such a person. P.W. 30 Parma Nand Sharma spoke of the meeting at Sant !\agar on 21 April, 1968 and said that Guru Jagjit Singh spoke at the meeting and proclaimed that it was tlie duty of every Nam· dhJri to vote for respondent Lakhand and any one who violated the said Guru's direction would be ex-communicated from the Panth. In cross-examination the witness P<irma Nand Sharma· said that he came to give evidenc~ in favour of the Congress be· cause he was summoned to appear as a witness and therefore he spoke the truth. It is obvious that when one speaks truth one docs not proclaim it. It is obvious that the witness in view of his antece­ dents wanted to sound truthful because he came forward to give evidence in favour of the appellant. On behalf of the appellant reliance was placed on Exihibit P.W. 24;2 to show that there was a meeting on 21 April, 1968. The appellant relied on the dairy entry of Gurbhajan Singh being Exhibit P.W. 24/2 bearing the date 21 April l 968 in support of the contention that there was intrinsic evidence in the dairy entry, that there was a meeting on 21 April, 1968 \\her~ Sat Guru Jagjit Singh spoke, and the said entry is in the following terms :- "Asa Di war was recited at Sh. Jiwan Nagar. He (Sant Sahiba Singh) remained there for the whole day. ~ ~. ~ ... OM PJLUASH V. LALCHAND (Ray, J.) He listened for some time difficulties of the Singhs who had collected there from outside, at 7 p.m. he appeared before the Sadh Sangat assembled at Muharanwali Dharamsala Santnagar and made an appeal to the au­ dience to cast !heir votes in favour of Ch. Lalchand in­ dependent candidate of Ellenabad Constituency and return him as successful candidate. Then he came back to Jiwannagar". 88& The diary e11try is to the effect that the S.·• Guru Jagjit Singh appeared before the Sant Nagar Assembly. 1 .. .: diary entry does not mention about any alleged utterance by Sat Guru J agjit Singh at the said meeting. Exhibits P.W. 24/1 and P.W. 24/2 arc two pamphlets con­ taining articles. Counsel for the appellant relied on the pamph· lets to prove that the meeting was held where Sat Guru Jagjit Singh spoke. Both the articles were published after the election had been held on 16 May, 1968. These articles suffer from the vice of coming into existence under deliberate motive. We are unable to accept the oral evidence that there was any meeting on 21 April, 1968 as alleged by the appellant and that Sat Gnru Jagjit Singh spoke at the meeting, to cast votes in favour of res. pondent Lalchand under threat of divine displeasure and spiritual censure. Counsel on behalf of the appellant contended that respondent Lalchand was guilty of offences under section 123(1) of the Act by having given Rs. 20,000/- in cash to respondent Prithvi Raj to contest the election. There is no documentary evidence in support of the allegation. The oral evidence is that of P.W. 11, P.W. 12 and P.W. 13. Kanshi Ram, P.W. 11 said that he was Kumhar and there was a meeting of the Kumhars on 30 March, 1968. It was decided that a Kumhar silould be made a member of the Legislative Assembly. He also said that the Kumhars de­ cided at the said meetliig to put up respondent Prithvi Raj as a candidate. Kanshi Ram's further evidence was that Bawa Bir Singh paid Rs. 20,000/- to Prithvi Raj for election expenses. Kanshi Ram said that the payment was in the presence of res­ pondent Lalchand. Jot Ram, P.W. 12 said that he was a Kum­ har and his evidence was also that Bava Bir Singh paid Rs. 20,000 to Prithvi Raj in the presence of Lalchand. Rawat, P.W. 13 who was also a Kumhar said t)lat Bawa Bir Singh paid Rs. 20,000/- to Prithvi Raj in the presence of Lalchand. The gist of the offence under sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Act is that there has to be n gift by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent of any gratification, to any person with the object of induc­ ing a person to stand or n·at to stand as a candidate at the election. svo SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1970] l S.C.R. T.he clements required to constitute an offence arc first, that the gift has to be by a candidate or his agent or by any other person. Secondly, the gift is to be with the consent of the candidate or his election agent and the third important element is that the gratification is to be made with the object, directly or indifectly, of inducing a person to stand or not to stand in the election. In the present case, ther~ is no evidence to hold that any gift was rnade by the candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of the candidate, namely, the respondent Lalchand. Secondly, there is no evidence that gratification was made with the object of inducing the respondent Prithvi Raj to stand or not to stand as a candidate. Counsel on behalf of the appellant contended that respondent Lalchaml was guilty of corrupt practices as mentioned in sub­ section (4) of section 123 of the Act. The four elements in sub­ 'ection (4) arc, first, that there has to be a publication by the candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of the candidate of any statement o[ fact. The second elemcm is that the statement of fact is false and a candidate or his agent or any other person either believes it to be false or docs not believe to be true. Thirdly, the publications is in relation to the pcrsom1l character and conduct of any candidate. Fourthly, the statement is reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's election. P.W. 35, Lachhman Das was the Manager, Kwality Art Printers. Ile spoke of a poster which was printed in his Press. He identified the Exhibit P. W. I/ 1 as a copy of the poster which was printed in his Press. He said that Exhibit P.W. 34/2 was a manuscript of Exhibit P.W. 1/1. He further said that the pam­ phlet was printed on the asking of Lalchand who was identified b'y the witnesses Muni LalAzad and Jai Gopal Vcnna. Lachh­ man Das said that Muni Lal Azad and Jai Gopal Verma signed the manuscript Exhibit P.W. 34/2 in his presence. The further evidence was that 10,000 copies of the poster were printed in the said Press. lt was suggested in cross-examination that the poster was printed ~.ftcr 14 May, 1968. P.W. 36 Jai Ciopal Verma identified Exhibit P.W. 34/2 as a manuscript of the poster and further said that the witnesses identified Lalchand. Jai Gopal Verma proved his ;ignaturc on Exhibit P.W. 34/2. Jai Gopal Verma said that Lakhand accompanied him to the Kwality Art Printers. Jai Gopal Verma further identified the signature of \1uni Lal Azad. It was also suggested to Jai Gopal Verma ;hat the poster was printed after 14 May, 1968. Muni Lal Azad. P.W. 37 said that he accompanied Jai Gopal Verma to Kwality Art Printers along with respondent Lalchand. He ad­ mitted his signature on Exhibit P.W. 34/2. ll OM PRAICASH v. LALCRAND (Ray, J.) 89! Counsel on behalf of the respondent Lalchand contended that Lachhman Das was neither the Printer nor the Publisher and that Lachhman Das joined the Press in the month of April, 1968. Lachhman Das was a disinterested person. He sent a copy of the poster to the Chief Electroal Ofticer. The letter to the Chief Electoral Officer Exhibit P.W. 34/ l was in a sealed cover. It was opened in this Court. It was proved by Mtmi Lal Jain, Accountant in the office of the Chief Electoral Officer. He proved that Exhibit P.W. 34/1 was the letter received from Kwality Art Printers on 2 May, 1968. The witness Muni Lal Jain further proved the receipt of said letter in the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, on 2 May, 1968.' Mtmi Lal Jain iden­ tiucd the signatures of the clerks .Tagm01Jan Saran Verma and D. N. Arora on Exhibit P.W. 34/l. Muni Lal Jain proved Exhibit P.W. 34/2 and Exhibit P.W. 340 which were the en­ closures received 11long with Exhibit P.W. 34/1. Counsel on behalf of the respondent Lalchand Contended that the ruboer stamp of the Chief Electoral Office bore the date 22 May, 1968 and there was intrinsic evidence to sbow that the first digit 2 was smudged with carbon ink. This argument can­ not be accepted because of the dominant reason that no such suggestion was made to the witness from the Electoral Office or any other witness on behalf of the appellant. If such a case had been made, the appellant would have had an opportunity of dealing with it. Counsel on behalf of the respondent Lalcl1:ind contended that the receipt book and the bill register book of the Press were not produced. Lachhman Das, the Accountant of K wality Art Printers was not asked to oroducc either the receipt book or the bill book. There was' s01i1e dispute as to whet1'er the signature of Lalchand on the mar.uscrigt poster Exhibit P.W. 34/2 was genuine or not. Ratan Lal Aggarwal, P.W. 58 said that the signature of the respondent Lalchand on Exhibit P. W. 34/2 was a genuine signature. The respondent's witness No. 2, A. S. Kapoor said that the signature of Lalchand of Exhibit P. W. 34; 2 was not the same as the admitted signature of Lal­ chund and in the opinion of the witness the signature on Exhi­ bit P.W. 34/2 was "the work of a person who was well skilled in the art of traced forgery". It is rare for two experts to agree in cases of disputed signature. The Court has to arrive at the conclusion in the light of the entire evidence. Jai Gopal Verma said that Lalchand a~nded his signature in his presence. That portion of the evidence of Jai Gopal Verma was not impeached in cross-examination. , Lachhman Das, the Accountant of the Kwality Art Printers said that the pamphlet was printed at the request of Lalchand wlto was identified by Muni Lal Azad and 892 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1970] 1 S C.R. J ai Gopal Verma. This portion of the evidence of Lachhman A Das was also not challenged in cross-examination. The poster on which the appellant relied is Exhibit P.W. 1/1. Exhibit P.W. I/I is as follows: "Appeal to the Voters of the Ellc'.labad Vidhan Sabha Constituency. Election Brothers: (Rising Sun) Symbol Just after one year election is being held. I hope I will get more support from public !ban before. Be- C cause you have seen the 'Adlu Badlu' policy of Ch. Partap Singh son of Ch. Devi Dayal, Ch. Devi Lal has put up the second son as a candidate because of this fear. The deeds of Om Prakash arc well known to the public. Under the auspices of his father Cb. Devi Lal, he had been indulging in smuggling and today he is asking for votes in the name of his father. I hope the D people will show the face of defeat to such an obnoxi- ous person. My election symbol is rising sun, put stamp only on that. Yours LAL CHAND KHOO, E Ellenabad Constituency". Ganga Dhar Shanna, P.W. 31, said that a memorandum of appeal in favour of respondent Lalchand was printed. He spoke of Exhibit. P.W. 34/ I. The appeal which was published and distributed is Exhibit P.W. 34/2 which is the same as Exhibit P.W. 1/1. This appeal leaves no room for doubt that there were allegations against the personal character and conduct of the appellant Om Prakash who was described as "having been indulging in smuggling". In the said appeal, it was further said that the appellant was an obnoxious person. Various witnesses, P.Ws. 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 29, 30 and 31 gave evidence of the distribution and publication of the ap­ peal. They identified Exhibit P.W. 24/ I which is the same as Exhibit P.W. 34/2 and the evidence of distribution and publi­ cation is overwhelming. The evidence in the present case established beyond any measure of doubt first that Exl1ibit P.W. 1/1 which is the same as Exhil.Iit P.W. 34/2 was pubLished, secondly, that Lalchand got the same printed and published, thirdly, that the statement OM ~H v. LALCHAND (Ray, J.) 893 was in relation to die personal character 1t11d conduct of the appellant, fourthly, the, statement is false and fifthly, the same was calculated to prejudice the prospects of the appellant's election. For these reasons we are of opinion that the appeal is to be ac­ cepted on the ground that respondent Lalchand is guilty of cor­ rupt practice under' •ection 123(4) of the Act. The appeal is 'allowed with costs throughout and the election of the respondent Lalchand is declared void. G.C. Appeal allowed.