S MEHAR SINGH Vs. UMRAO SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the election of a Member of the Punjab Legislative Assembly from the Faridkot constituency at the time of the general elections in 1957. Polling took place on the 10th of March 1957 and the present appellant, who had polled 18,579 votes, was declared elected. His nearest rival, who had 37,455 votes, was His Highness Raja Sir Harinder Singh, the erstwhile Ruler of the State of Faridkot. The election was challenged in a petition filed under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, by two voters of the constituency, Umrao Singh and Lall Singh, who had admitted in the course of evidence to be employed by His Highness the Baja and to have received financial support from him in connection with the petition.

(2.) In the petition a large number of detailed allegations of all kinds of electoral offences were made and the issues framed on the basis of these allegations cover almost two pages of the printed report of the judgment of the Tribunal published in the Punjab Gazette. I do not consider that it is accessary to reproduce them in full here and it will be sufficient for the purposes of the appeal if those issues are mentioned on which the Tribunal decided against the successful candidate and on account of which his election was declared to be void, and also those issues on which the findings of the Tribunal in favour of the successful candidate have been attacked by the learned counsel for the respondents in the appeal for the purpose of upholding the decision of the Tribunal on other grounds. The election of the successful candidate was declared to be void on the basis of findings against him on three parts of the second issue framed, which were held to be instances of undue influence, and the finding on the sixth issue to the effect that he had incurred or authorised expenditure in contravention of law or, in other words, in excess of the permitted maximum of Rs. 7,000/-.

(3.) The first matters to be dealt with are the alleged instances of undue influence which have been found against the appellant. They are covered by the following parts of the second issue: