LACHHMAN SINGH GILL Vs. BIBI HARPARKASH KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the defeated candidate Lachhman Singh Gill under S. 116A of the Representation of the People Act from the order of the Election Tribunal, Ludhiana, dated the 31st July 1959, dismissing the appellant's election petition.

(2.) In the general elections held in 1957 to the Punjab Legislative Assembly Bibi Harparkash Kaur respondent was returned from the Jagraon Constituency. Her election was challenged by Shri Lachhman Singh Gill, a defeated candidate by means of a petition, dated 9-4-1957, on a number of grounds. Some of the allegation contained in the petition were considered by the Tribunal to be vague and therefore liable to be struck off; on the remaining allegations on which an inquiry was held the findings of the Tribunal went against the petitioner with the result that the election petition was dismissed on 29-7-1958. An appeal was thereupon preferred against that order and a Division Bench of this Court (consisting of Falshaw J. and myself) while affirming the conclusions of the Tribunal on the merits, so far as issues actually tried were concerned, set aside, in part, the interlocutory order of the Tribunal, dated 20-8-1957, striking off certain allegations of corrupt practices, and directed that inquiry be held into the allegations of corrupt practices contained in clause (a) of paragraph 12 and items (o) and (q) of paragraph 14 of the petition. After remand Shri Gurdev Singh, District Judge Ludhiana, who was entrusted with the trial of the petition, framed the following issues:

(3.) Under issue No. II the finding went against the petitioner as the evidence adduced on his behalf regarding the conduct of Shri Malkiat Singh Quanungo did not, in the opinion of the Tribunal, inspire confidence and did not come up to the standard of proof required in a criminal trial. Decision on issue No. III also went against the petitioner. Although the Tribunal though that the findings on these two issues were sufficient to dispose of issue No. I as well against the petitioner, nevertheless evidence led on behalf of the petitioner were to be accepted, the mere passive conduct of respondent No. 1 and her election agent in sitting by and not objecting to the canvassing by Malkiat Singh Qanungo did not amount to her obtaining or procuring assistance within the contemplation of S. 123(7) of the Representation for the People Act (Act No 43 of 1951), as this provision of law does not go to the extent of preventing a Government servant from expressing his views with regard to a candidate; nor does it impose upon the candidate concerned a duty to stop a Government servant from canvassing in his favour. Under issue No. IV also the finding went against the petitioner, it having been held that the allegation of incurring expenditure to the extent of Rs. 3,000/-in connection with the employment of the two jathas of musicians for the election propaganda of respondent No. 1 was not substantiated. In so far as Karnail Singh Ramuwalia is concerned, it has been expressly observed that there is no reliable evidence about the remuneration paid to him and in the absence of such evidence and without knowing for how many days he worked, it was not possible to determine the precise amount paid to him. With respect to the jatha of Ram Singh Jhabewalia, however, a sum of Rs. 315/-for seven days at the rate of Rs. 45/- per day was found to have been paid to him by Bibi Harparkash Kaur for doing propaganda work on her behalf. The Tribunal, however, believing the evidence led by the petitioner on the point that Karnail Singh Ramuwalia had also worked for Bibi Harparkash Kaur considered that sum of Rs. 315/-might reasonably be added as expenditure incurred on this count; and adding another sum of Rs. 350/- on account of likely expenses in organizing meetings and in arranging transport, etc., the total amount of expenses incurred by Bibi Harparkash Kaur on her election, in the Tribunal's view, did not exceed the statutory limit of Rs. 7,000/-. It may here be mentioned that in her return of election expenses the respondent had given the total expenses to be Rs. 5,426/7/6, and adding Rs. 980/- to this figure, the total expenses incurred, according to the findings of the Tribunal, came to Rs. 6,406/7/6. Under issue No. VI the Tribunal has held that mere submission of a false return of expenses in material particulars, being no longer a corrupt practice after the recent amendment of the Representation of the People Act 43 of 1951 by Act 27 of 1956, the election could not be set aside by the Tribunal on this ground. On the above findings, as already observed, the election petition has been dismissed and Shri Lachhman Singh Gill feeling aggrieved has approached this Court no appeal.