BIR CHANDRA BARMAN Vs. ANIL SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the general election held in 1972 the appellant contested unsuccessfully the Assembly Seat in 39 Teliamura Scheduled Caste Constituency, Khowai Sub-Division, in Tripura. Poll was taken on March 11, 1972, the counting took place on March 14 and the result was announced the same day. The first respondent who secured 5458 votes was declared elected; the appellant polled 3847 votes. There were two other contestants, but it is not necessary to refer to them for the purpose of this appeal. On April 28, 1972 the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur and Tripura, Agartala Bench, calling in question the election of the first respondent on three grounds, two of which relate to corrupt practices referred to in sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and the other alleges contravention of Sec. 58 of the Act. It was stated that the first respondent and his agents with his consent offered bribes to the voters to induce them to vote for him at the election which is a corrupt practice under Section 123 (1). It was also alleged that to prejudice the prospects of the appellant's election, the first respondent, or some other persons with his consent, published certain posters containing statements about the appellant's personal character which were false and which the first respondent did not believe to be true. This is a corrupt practice under Section 123 (4). It was further alleged in the election petition that the ballot boxes in polling stations Nos. 3 and 14 had been tampered with after the closing of the voting and before the commencement of the counting of the votes, but the returning officer failed to report the matter to the Election Commission which he was required to do under Section 58 of the Act.

(2.) The allegation that the first respondent himself had offered bribe to the voters was not pressed before the High Court, and the High Court disbelieved P.W. 9 Mani Ram Biswas and P. W. 11 Brajabashi Sarkar who sought to prove that Kulak Haldar, who worked at the election for the party of which the first respondent was a candidate, had paid Rs. 30/- each to three voters including these witnesses. Having gone through the evidence of P.W. 9 and P.W. 11 we share the view with the High Court that they are entirely unreliable. Kulak Haldar deposing as R.W. 6 denied the allegation against him and the High Court from the "manner of his deposition" found him a truthful witness.

(3.) Two letters, Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4, stated to have been written by one Arabinda Lahiri, were produced in support of the allegation that some voters were bribed. Admittedly Arbinda Lahiri was one of the counting agents of the first respondent. Kulak Haldar also stated in his evidence that Arabinda Lahiri had occasionally worked for the party to which both Kulak Haldar and the first respondent belonged. The first letter, Exhibit 3 written on March 7, 1972 was addressed to one Dinabandhu Sarkar (P.W. 2). The letter is as follows: