ELVIN SANGMA Vs. PROJENGTON MOMIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the election held to the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly from Songsak Constituency on 9th March, 1972 the appellant was declared elected having received 819 votes as against 176 received by the 1st respondent and 98 votes received by the 2nd respondent. The appellant was a candidate set up by the All Party Hills Leaders Conference and the 1st respondent was supported by the Hill State People's Democratic Party (H. S. P. D. P.), though that party was not a recognised party. The symbol allotted to the 1st respondent by the Election Commission was "two leaves". The 1st respondent filed an election petition questioning the election of the upheld lent on the ground that he was guilty of a corrupt practice falling under S. 123 (4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. That election petition having been allowed and appellant's election set aside by the High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur and Tripura this appeal has been filed against the decision of the High Court.

(2.) The allegations in support of the petition were that on 3 days before the election, that is on the; 25th of February, 1972, the 5th of March, 1972 and the 7th of March, l972, the appellant distributed dummy ballot papers in three places, Bollonggiri, Daggal Bazar and Songsak respectively. The dummy ballot papers marked as Ext. 4 in this case contained a "boat" as the election symbol of the 1st respondent instead of the "two leaves" allotted to him as the election symbol. The case of the respondent was that this was a false statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of his election. The appellant's case (supra) was that the dummy ballot papers were got printed by A. M. Sangma, the Secretary of the A. P. H. L. C., that he took the bundle of dummy ballot papers from Tura, the head quarters of the A. P. H. L C. and when he was staying at the rest house in Bollonggiri he found out the mistake that had crept in the dummy ballot papers, that after consultation with the Chief Minister of Meghalaya, W. A. Sangma, who has been examined as R. W. 12, he issued a correction statement marked as Ext. E. that the dummy ballot papers were not distributed, that there was therefore no publication and that it was not calculated to prejudice the prospects of the 1st respondents election.. The High Court after a very close, careful and restrained appreciation of the evidence in this case has come to the conclusion that the dummy ballot papers were distributed by the appellant at Bollonggiri and Daggal Bazar and we have also come to the same conclusion.

(3.) As we agree with the learned Judge we do not think it necessary to refer in elaborate detail to the evidence. We shall refer to the evidence in broad outline and show that his conclusion is fully justified. With regard to the distribution of ballot papers like Ext. 4 in Bollonggiri on the 25th of February, the two witnesses who gave evidence are Willingson Sangma, P. W. 8 and Jangnal Marak, P. W. 4. According to them the appellant distributed the dummy ballot papers and they produced two ballot papers as having-been handed over to them. They further stated that on enquiry as to how the dummy papers did not contain the "two leaves" symbol allotted to the 1st respondent the appellant stated that they were Government papers and the symbol allotted to the 1st respondent had been cancelled. The High Court has held, and rightly so, that the alleged statement of the appellant that they were Government papers cannot be admitted in evidence on the ground that it was not so pleaded in the election petition. We cannot also help feeling that in deposing that the appellant told them that they were Government papers and the symbol allotted to the 1st respondent had been cancelled P. Ws. 8 and 4 are embellishing the story to make their evidence stronger. In the election petition itself it is stated that at Bollonggiri and Daggal Bazar the appellant had stated that the "two leaves" election symbol allotted to the 1st respondent was withdrawn by the Government and he was nowhere whereas in the evidence given there is no mention about the appellant having said that the petitioner was nowhere. While the election petition does not state that the dummy ballot papers were Government papers P. Ws. 4 and 8 say that the appellant stated that they were Government papers. We therefore conclude that it would be safe and reasonable to hold that the evidence of P. Ws. 8 and 4 cannot be accepted m so far as they add anything more than that the appellant distributed the dummy ballot papers. We shall presently mention why we think that the dummy ballot papers like Ext. 4 should have been distributed by the appellant.