KARAN SINGH Vs. JAMUNA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The polling for the election of a member to the U. P. Legislative Assembly from Gunnaur constituency in district Budaun in the last general election took place on the 28th of February, 1957. The counting took place on the 2nd of March, 1957, and, on the same date, the result was declared. Jamuna Singh respondent whose candidature was sponsored by the Praia Socialist Party, received 14361 votes and was declared elected. Karan Singh appellant received the next highest number of votes. He was a candidate on behalf of the Congress and he received 11007 votes. A third candidate, Kamal Prasad, was an independant candidate and he received 7227 votes. Karan Singh then presented an election petition to the Election Commission on the 15th of April 1957, which was referred for trial to the Election Tribunal, Budaun. The Tribunal dismissed this petition with costs on the 6th of December, 1957 and the present appeal has been filed against that dismissal of the petition.

(2.) In the election petition presented by the appellant, a number of grounds were put forward for the prayer that the edection of the respondent be declared void. On the basis of these grounds and in view of other points arising the Tribunal framed 19 issues. It is not at all necessary to mention all those issues because, when learned counsel for the appellant began his argument in this appeal, he made a statement that he would confine his arguments to only a few issues, viz., issues nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10(a) to 10(d) and 13. He gave up the case of the appellant on the remaining issues so that we need not deal with them at all.

(3.) Issue No. 1 was framed on the basis of the allegation that the corrupt practice of bribery was committed by the respondent on the 6th January, 1.957 at Babrala by making an offer or promise to Sri Komal Prasad, a partner in his firm, by relinquishing the profit of his share with the object of inducing him to stand at the election, as the respondent knew that he could not succeed in a direct contest and, for this reason, Komal Prasad fought the election. The Issue was "Whether Komal Prasad was made to stand in the election as a candidate because of the offer or promise of the respondent to forego his share of profits in the partnership business. If so, its effect." The respondent, of course, denied that he had, made any offer or promise to Komal Prasad in order to induce him to stand as a candidate at this election. The fact that Komal Prasad and the respondent are partners of a firm is admitted as also the fact that both of them stood as candidates from, the same constituency in addition to the appellant who was the third candidate. It is also admitted on behalf of the respondent that he and Komal Prasad were on good terms before the election and continued to be on good terms even after the election. The burden, however, lay on the appellant to establish that Komal Prasad had been induced to stand as a candidate by the offer of a bribe by the respondent. To establish this allegation the appellant examined five witnesses. He could produce no documentary evidence at all. (After discussion of evidence His Lordship proceeded:) In view of this state of evidence, we consider that the learned Judge of the Election Tribunal arrived at the correct finding that the appellant had failed to prove that any offer of a bribe was made to Komal Prasad to stand as a candidate or that any such offer was accepted by Komal Prasad.