LAXMAN PRASAD VAIDYA Vs. GANGADHAR YADEORAO TAMASKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissing a petition for declaring void the election of the first respondent to the Vidhan Sabha seat from the Bemetra constituency in the general election of 1967.

(2.) The petitioner, the appellant before us, is an unsuccessful candidate who bad succeeded in the elections of 1957 and 1962 on a Congress ticket. The persons who contested the seat in the 1967 election, besides the appellant, are the five respondents. The successful candidate was not sponsored by any party. His symbol in the election was a bicycle. The symbols of the second and third respondents were respectively Rising Sun and Flower. In the election of 1962 the official symbol of the Ramrajya Parishad was the "Rising San but in the 1967 election recognition of that party was withdrawn and the Rising Sun became a free symbol. The symbol Rising Sun was allotted to the second respondent in the 1967 election. The total number of valid votes polled at the election was 35, 468; the number of invalid votes 3,663 and tendered votes 11. The petitioner secured 12,024 votes as against 12, 319 cast in favour of the first respondent.

(3.) In the petition filed for declaring the election void the first respondent was charged with a number of corrupt practices. The trial Judge held that none of these were proved with the result that he dismissed the election petition. Before this Court the learned counsel for the appellant was more selective and pressed only a few out of those raised in the petition and we shall deal with them in the order in which they were canvassed, me first charge was one of bribery forming the subject matter of paragraph 10(1) of the petition. In substance, the allegation was that the first respondent had prevailed upon respondent No. 3, Yuvarajsingh, not to withdraw from the election by promising him the use of a jeep for his campaign free of cost. The third respondent, it was pleaded, had lost heart because of the Rising Sun being declared a free symbol which he was hoping to be able to secure as a candidate for the Ramrajya Parishad and was minded to withdraw his nomination. The promise of a jeep was denied by the first respondent. In his oral evidence the petitioner claimed to have learnt of this Corrupt practice from Rameshwar Singh alias Jhullu and one Dhruvkumar from whom he also came to learn that the first respondent had gone to the house of the third respondent in the evening of January 21, 1967 for prevailing upon him not to withdraw. He did not however know whether the first respondent had a jeep to offer. Rameshwar Singh who was examined as P.W. 2 stated that the first respondent had gone to the office of Ramarajya Parishad in the evening of January 21, 1967 and enquired of Yuvarajsingh as to whether he was going to contest the election or not, and on being told by Yuvarajsingh that he had no arrangements for his election work the first respondent proposed that Yuvarajasingh should contest the election and carry on his propaganda in the jeep which the first respondent was going to place at this disposal. According to this witness, the other persons present at the office of Ramarajaya Parishad at the relevant time were Dhruvkumar and Dauram. Witness admitted however that the third respondent did not use any jeep after the 21st January but he was using a tax. Brijraj Singh, P.W.3, gave evidence to the effect that during the course of a conversation he had with the third respondent., the latter had told him that the first respondent had promised. As against this, the first respondent stated that he never had any talk with respondent No. 3 on January 21, 1967 as suggested by Rameshwar Singh and he had never offered any jeep to him. His positive case was that he did not own either a jeep or a car to enable him to make such a promise or offer. The evidence of B-B. Bajpai D.W.6, was that the first respondent had a car 5 or 6 years before 1967 but he never had any jeep. Our attention was also drawn ta the oral testimony of Sajjan Singh, D. W. 4 who had stated that he had seen the first respondent using a jeep but he had no idea as to whether it belonged to him or to his elder brother. On this evidence, the learned trial Judge found the evidence adduced by the election petitioner to be unreliable and we fully agree with him.