TIRLOCHAN SINGH Vs. KARNAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the above mentioned election petition filed by the defeated candidate tarlochan Singh for setting aside the election of Karnail Singh from Pakka Kalan constituency of the Punjab Legislative Assembly, one of the allegations was that the respondent entered into an agreement with the Harijan voters of village jodhpur Ramana through their leaders Sunder Singh and Munsha Singh to place at the disposal of the Harijan community Rs. 1,500 for the construction of their dharamsala for a consideration of the Harijan villagers voting for him. Sunder singh and Munsha Singh above-mentioned were examined by the petitioner and they admitted that the Harijans had all decided to vote for a candidate who would assist them in getting their dharamsala erected and these two persons met Karnail singh, respondent, at the house of Ganda Singh, the evening before the date of polling and demanded Rs. 2,000 for the dharamsala. Bargain was settled for Rs. 1,500, which amount was paid by Karnail Singh. In the petition it was alleged that the aforesaid amount was left in deposit with one Manohar Lal, brick-kiln owner for supply of bricks, but in the trial the evidence led was to the effect that the money was left in deposit with Ganda Singh, who subsequently supplied the bricks, iron girders as well as paid for the labour of the masons. Apart from the question of this discrepancy between the two versions, with which we are not concerned the question arose as to whether these two witnesses were accomplices, and, if so, whether the rule, which is well settled so far as the criminal cases are concerned, that the evidence oi an accomplice requires independent corroboration in material particulars, is applicable to the trial of an election petition, to which Civil Procedure code applies.

(2.) ONE Ajaib Singh, a relation of Ganda Singh, also appeared as a witness and said that he was present at the time of the aforesaid bargain between the Harijan leaders and the respondent. He admitted that he did not raise am objection at that time, not did he inform the petitioner subsequently. Qua him also a question was raised on behalf of the respondent that he also was no better than an accomplice, whose evidence could not be treated as an independent corroboration.

(3.) LASTLY, an argument was raised on behalf of the respondent, that in any case even according to the allegations of the petitioner, which were stoutly denied by the respondent, the gift of Rs. 1,500 was made for the benefit of the entire Harijan community and no! in am individual or individuals and that consequently such a gift could not fall within the definition of "bribery" as given in Clause (A) of Subsection (1) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as an 'act" ). As 1 considered these matters to be of considerable importance, the following three questions were referred by me for an authoritative decision by a larger Bench and that is how the matter is before us:--