R DESHPANDE Vs. MUTTAM REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the Election Tribunal, Secunderabad, dismissing the petition filed by the appellant under Sections 30 and 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as amended by Act XXVII of 1956 (hereinafter called the Act). The appellant is the defeated Congress candidate who obtained 8,700 votes in the elections for the Legislative Assembly from the Adilabad Constituency, the polling tor which took place on the 4th of March 1957.The 1st respondent is the successful Socialist candidate who polled 9,423 votes. The 2nd respondent was an independent candidate who obtained 4,897 votes, while respondents 3, 4 and 5, though candidates at the election had withdrawn from the contest and so remained ex parte before the Election Tribunal. The appellant alleged five grounds for setting aside the election of the 1st respondent, namely: (1) On the morning of the polling day at the village Scan, the 1st respondent through Gajapathi Rao and Saya Gowd of the same village, induced the Bhois, Washermen and the Harijan voters of the village to cast their votes for him by providing them with free liquor. (2) He bribed the women voters of the said village to secure votes for him by the payment of Rs. 0-4-0 to Rs. 0-6-0 each. (3) On the same day his agent, one Krishna Rao, induced the voters of the village of Gularnadugu to vote for him by providing them free liquor. (4) He, through his brother Chenna Reddy, the Patwari of that village, induced the voters to vote for him on pain that if they did not vote in the manner suggested by hint, the Government revenues will be doubled..It is further alleged that the said Chenna Reddy distributed polling chits filled in his own hand and secured votes for the 1st respondent about which a complaint was lodged by the appellant with the Returning Officer on 3-3-1957. (5) The 1st respondent was a beedi-leaf contractor of theGovernment for the villages of Kamalkot and herelli in 1956 which contract was subsisting at the time the nomination papers were filed.

(2.) The Election Tribunal framed four issues with respect to these allegations, the first issue comprising the first two allegations and the other three covering the rest of the allegations. The Tribunal held all the issues against the appellant both on facts and on the question of law and dismissed the petition.

(3.) In this appeal the learned advocate to the appellant submitted that he does not wish to press allegations 1 to 3, the subject-matter of issues 1 and 2, as he would not be justified on the evidence to contest the findings of the Tribunal. Wife respect to the allegation covered by issue 3, the 1st respondents case was that though Chenow Reddy is his brother, he is not the Patwari of the village, nor did he distribute the chits written in his hand, nor did he threaten the villagers.The Tribunal held, firstly, that the appellant did not prove that the chits alleged to have been distributed by Chenna Reddy were in big hand-writing and secondly that the appellant did not prove that Chenna Reddy threatened the villagers that if they did not vote for the 1st respondent the Government revenues would be doubled. In this view the Tribunal did not express any view on the further question raised before it, whether the corrupt practice alleged fell within the mischief of Section 123(7) of the Act.Learned advocate raised similar contentimes before us. Section 123 of the Act enumerates cer-tain corrupt practices for the purposes of the Act and Sub-section (7) specifies as a corrupt practice the obtaining or procuring or abetting or attempting to obtain or procure by a candidate or his agent or, by any other person, any assistance (other than the giving of vote) for the furtherance of the prospects of that candidates election, from any persor in the service of the Government and belonging to any of the following classes enumerated therein, in which the revenue officers including village accountants, such as patwaris, karnams, etc., are also listed.It is true that the appellant submitted & petition on 3-3-1957 (Ex. 12) to the Returning Officer, Nirmal Constituency, in which he stated that Chenna Reddy, the Patwari is propagating for his brother, which is highly objectionable and requested that necessary action may be taken against Ac Patwari. It appears from the report of the Tahisid-dar, Ex. P-13, dated 17-4-1957 that the appellant had made an oral representation to him at 8 p.m, on 3-3-1957 and that he consulted the Deputy Col-lector, Adilabad, who was also there and then PMK ceeded to Koratkal to see if this was so.On reaching the place, when he found that Narayana Reddy, the patwari of the village was not there and the election staff were finding it difficult to make their arrangements, he immediately placed him under suspension for absenting himself from duty, that one R. V. Ramarao who was in the village informed him that the patwari had issued some parly poll chits, as such he asked some to be produced, so that necessary action could be taken. It is in evidence and now admitted thatChenna Reddy was not the patwari of Koratkal, but of the village Tandra and that his younger brother, Narayana Reddy is in fact the patwari af Koratkal.Before the question, whether the polling chits given by the patwari of another village can be deemed as a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123(7), it would be necessary to consider whether Chenna Reddy had given any polling chits asking the voters to vote for the symbol TREE which was assigned to the Socialist party, or that he threatened the voters as alleged. On a perusal of the evidence adduced in this behalf, we think that the Tribunal was fully justified in holding that this allegation is not proved. (His Lordship then discussed the evidence and proceeded):