BAM DEV Vs. SARLA PRASHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the mid-term elections held in February, 1969, Bam Dev (appellant in this appeal) was declared elected to the Punjab Legislative Assembly from the Nangal Constituency. Saria Prashar a defeated candidate applied to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for an order setting aside the election of Bam Dev. She pleaded that Barn Dev and Munshi Ram another candidate at the election-had committed corrupt practice described in Section 123, sub-sections (1) , (6) and (7) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. On the plea raised by the petition four issues were raised by the High Court, but counsel for the first respondent did not press Issues Nos. 3 and 4 at the trial. Those issues need not be considered. The remaining two issues were- "1. Whether Respondents 1 and 2 (Bam Dev and Munshi Ram respectively) are guilty of a corrupt practice of bribery within the meaning of Section 123 (1) of the Representation of people Act, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the petition 2. Has respondent No. 1 (Bam Dev) incurred expenses more than the permissible limit for the purpose of his election and thereby has committed a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 (6) of the representation of People Act - the High Court recorded a finding on the first issue in the affirmative and the second in the negative.

(2.) In Paragraph 4 of the election petition it was alleged by the first respondent that Bam Dev had persuaded Munshi Ram to stand as a candidate at the "last mid-term elections" and had persuaded him not to withdraw from the contest and in consideration thereof he had offered to Munshi Ram an amount of Rs. 3,000. 00 and had undertaken to bear all the election expenses aggregating to Rs. 3,000. 00. The details of the amounts alleged to have been spent or paid by Bam Dev on behalf of Munshi Ram were as follows- (a) a sum of Rs. 150. 00 paid by Bam Dev to enable Munshi Ram to deposit security at the time of filing of the nomination paper; (b) a sum of Rs. 3,000. 00, paid by Bam Dev on January 12, 1969, in the house of Munshi Ram at Nangal; (c) a sum of Rs. 400. 00 paid by Bam Dev to a tonga owner on february 8, 1969, whose tonga was used for the purpose of carrying on election propaganda for Munshi Ram; (d) a sum of Rs. 1,100. 00 out of which only a part was paid to the owner of the loudspeaker for getting the same fitted to the tonga hired by Munshi Ram from January 20 to February 7, 1969; (e) a sum of Rs. 125. 00 paid by Bam Dev to Kapila Printing Press on January 31, 1969, for getting posters printed for Munshi ram. The High Court was of the view that the evidence led by the first respondent in respect of items (a) and (b) was "absolutely worthless" and counsel for the first respondent did not press that case before us. But in the view of the High Court it was proved that Bam Dev paid Rs. 400. 00 to Ram Sarup, owner of a tonga employed by Munshi Ram for his election campaign, and Rs. 700. 00 to Hazura Singh for fitting a loudspeaker to the tonga used by Munshi Ram. Payment, according to the High Court, was made through the Jan Sangh party which had sponsored the appellant Bam Dev as its candidate, and since the expenditure incurred by the Jan Sangh Party was incurred by Bam Dev by making payments to Ram Sarup and Hazura Singh he committed a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 (1) of the Act. The High court also held that it was established that a sum of Rs. 18. 00 was paid on january 31, 1969, by Bam Dev to the printer who printed a pamphlet in support of the election campaign of Munshi Ram and was included in bam Dev's account of election expenses. The High Court held that Bam Dev, in discharging this liability of Munshi Ram, was guilty of a corrupt practice described in Section 123 (4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

(3.) In our view the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. Ram Sarup deposed that his tonga was engaged by Munshi Ram for his election compaign; that he (Ram Sarup) used to "take the hire from the office of Barn Dev" ; that the money. was received from the President of Jan Sangh and "at that time Bam Dev was standing". This evidence does not support the case that the payment was made by Bam Dev "through the Jan Sangh". Munshi Ram was a candidate at the election. The testimony of witness ram Sarup only establishes that payment for the tonga engaged by Munshi ram was made by the President of the Jan Sangh Party. Mr. Hardev Singh on behalf of the first respondent contended that the Jan Sangh Party had no funds and Bam Dev alone was the financier of the Jan Sangh Party. On this part of the case our attention has not been invited to any evidence.