RAM CHANDER RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is appeal under S. 116-A of the Representation of the People Act (1951) (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) from the judgment and order of the Delhi High Court dated the 29/03/1968 in Election Petition No. 2 of 1967 on its file. The petition was brought by two electors. It was dismissed by the High Court. As against that order only one of the petitioners has come up in appeal.

(2.) THE election petition arose from the election held for a seat to the Delhi Metropolitan Council from the Kalan Masjid constituency. THE polling for the said constituency was held on 19/02/1967 and the result of the election was declared on 22/02/1967. In that constituency three persons contested; one Rajesh Sharma was the Congress nominee, the respondent Ram Babu Maheshwari was the Jan Sangh candidate and Z. P. Abbas was the Republican candidate. THE respondent secured 7490 votes, Rajesh Sharma 5277 votes and Abbas 3203.

(3.) THE questions arising for decision in this case are essentially questions of fact. THEir proof depends on oral evidence. Voluminous evidence has been adduced by the parties in this case in support of their respective contentions. THE trial court after carefully examining their evidence has come to the conclusion that the petitioners have failed to establish the corrupt practices pleaded by them. This is essentially a finding of fact. This Court ordinarily does not interfere with the findings of fact reached by the High Court in an election petition particularly when the High Court comes to the conclusion that the corrupt practices pleaded are not established. A charge of commission of corrupt practice is akin to a charge of commission of an offence. No satisfactory ground is made out to persuade us to reopen the findings of fact reached by the High Court. THE learned trial Judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses examined before him. That circumstance must have aided him in the appreciation of the evidence adduced. It is not said that he had ignored any material piece of evidence or his conclusions are unsupported by evidence. All that is said on behalf of the appellants is that the conclusions reached by the trial Judge on the basis of the evidence on record are not correct and that a different view of the evidence is reasonable. That is not a sufficient ground to interfere with the findings reached by the trial Court.