RAMPAL SINGH Vs. SATYAVIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court arises out of an election petition filed by the defeated candidate Satyavir challenging the election of Rampal Singh to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly from the Bijnor constituency. The High Court has set aside the election of Rampa1 Singh on the ground that the total expenditure incurred by him on his election exceeded the maximum limit of Rs. 9,000/- Prescribed under Rule 90 (2) of the Conduct of Election Rules and he-had committed a corrupt practice as defined in Section 123 (6) read with Section 77 (3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, hereinafter called the 'Act'.

(2.) The appellant, who belongs to the Bhartiya Karanti Dal party, contested the seat to the legislative assembly from No. 22 Bijnor General constituency. Respondent No. 1 also contested the election from the same constituency as a candidate of the Congress Party. Respondent No. 2 was put up by the Muslim Majlis. Five others contested the same seat. The poll was held on February 9, 1969 and the counting of votes took place on the following day. The appellant secured 28,766 votes, respondent No. 1 20,569 and respondent No. 2 15,896 votes. The remaining candidates secured a negligible number of votes. The appellant was declared duly elected.

(3.) Although in the election petition corrupt practices of bribery and intimidation of voters had also been alleged, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 abandoned any attempt to press them. He confined his case to the ground of excessive and unauthorised expenditure. The only item which was pressed before the High Court related to the expenditure on motor fuel purchased by the appellant for his election campaign from the Vijay Engineering Corporation of Bijnor. The allegation in para 9A (i) of the petition was that the appellant had shown an expenditure for the period from January 1, 1969 to January 22, 1969 under the head "fuel for vehicles-petrol, diesel, of a sum of Rs. 1760 only". (The High Court found that the correct amount was Rs. 1700.60) , the payment having been made to Vijay Engineering Corporation. But in fact the amount of fuel purchased by the appellant between the said date from the said Corporation was worth Rs. 8,233,91. Vouchers and entries in the credit sale register in respect of these purchases were entered into the account of the aforesaid Corporation in the name of the appellant but later on purchases for a sum of Rs. 4,000/- out of the total amount mentioned above, were shown in conspiracy with the said Corporation and by tampering with the credit vouchers and credit sale register entries - in the name of Mahipal Singh who was an agent, worker and friend of the appellant. This had been done by scoring out the name of the appellant from the said documents and substituting the name of Mahipal Singh by his name. In this way the appellant had concealed an expenditure to the tune of Rs. 6473.91. Adding this amount to the election expenses included in the return filed by the appellant they exceeded the prescribed limit by Rs. 4157.67. In paragraphs 13 to 20 of the written statement all the allegations made in paragraph 9-A (i) of the petition were specifically denied by reference to each allegation.