LAKHI PRASAD AGARWAL Vs. NATHMAL DOKANIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by an unsuccessful candidate at an election held in February 1967 for the Bihar State Legislative Assembly from the Single Member Rajmahal Constituency No. 139. Originally there were eight candidates:we are concerned only with two of them, namely, the election petitioner and respondent, Nathmal Dokania, the returned candidate as a result of the election. The election petitioner lost before the High Court. The main ground on which he presses this appeal are based on paras 4(c) and 4 (e) of the petition. The relevant issue framed by the learned trial Judge with regard to paragraph 4 (c) is issue No. 5 reading:-

(2.) Mr. Latifi appearing for the appellant submitted that Annexure 2 (A) does not further his client's cause. His grievance is based on Annexure 2. The translation of this Annexure of which the original was in Hindi shows that it was a call to the Muslim voters of Rajmahal to "hear the message and prepare the graveyard for the Congress.' Reference was made therein to the appeal of the day by Maulana Syed Usman Ghani Saheb of Phulwari Sharif Khankah" "that nobody should be in illusion that Muslims have to vote for the Congress this time also". It was also suggested that on account of high-handedness of the Congress group Muslims should not support it. There was also a reference to the appeal of Pir Saheb of the Dargah of Phulwari Sharif that Muslims should not vote for any Congress candidate. The appeal ends with the sentence, "when you have lifelong connection with Sri Nathmal Dokania, the candidate of the Swatantra Party and when the Head of your religion, your Islam also opposes the Congress, then it becomes your duty to come out victorious by affixing stamps on the 'Star' symbol."

(3.) Mr. Latifi tried to argue that by the publication of the pamphlet an attempt was made to induce Muslim electors not to vote for a Congress candidate in opposition to the mandates of the two name religious heads. In other words, his contention was that undue influence within the meaning of Section 123 (2) of the Act was sought to be exercised on the Muslim voters in the name of the religious heads mentioned in the pamphlet under the threat of divine displeasure or spiritual censure. He also sought to argue that the reference to the mandate of Islam in the pamphlet amounted to the use of a religious symbol and as such the appeal by the pamphlet came within the mischief of Section 123 (3) of the Act.