SHEOPATSINGH Vs. NARISHCHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 116a of the Representation of the People Act No. 43 of 1951 (hereinafter called the 'act') by Shri Sheopatsingh against the decision of the Election Tribunal at Ganganagar declaring his election to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly to be void on a petition under Section 81 of the Act by Shri Harish Chandra.

(2.) THE election for the membership of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from Hanumangarh Constituency was held in the month of February and March 1957. Shri Sheopatsingh and Shri Ramchandra contested the election. Shri Sheopatsingh polled 18,530 votes and Shri Ramchandra got 17,136 votes. Shri Sheopatsingh was accordingly declared elected by the Returning Officer on 18-3-1957. Polling took place on alternate days commencing from 25-2-57 and ending on 11-3-57. 4th February, 1957 was last date for withdrawing the nomination papers.

(3.) IN connection with the entry of 240 gallons, the learned Counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to certain circumstances. One is that Ramrikh was not examined to prove the return of 240 gallons of petrol. The burden lies on the petitioner to prove that the petrol was not returned for according to the entiles in the Kachchi and Pakki Rokars, it was returned. Another circumstance pointed out is that according to the return of expenses, jeep No. 835 was in service from 5-2-1957 to 11-3-1957 and jeep No. 849 from 2-9-1957 to 2-11-1957, but that the account book of the firm shows that these jeeps took supplies only on two dates each from the firm and that they must have been fed from the stock of 240 gallons stored at the shop of Ramrikh. One witness Rampratap, P. W. 36 was examined on behalf of the petitioner. He stated that petrol etc. , belonging to Sheopatsingh was kept at Ramrikh's shop and he used to take diesel oil sometimes from Ramrikh's shop and sometimes from Parasram's shop. He said that petrol, diesel oil etc. , belonging to Sheopatsingh were kept at Ramrikh's shop. He claimed to be the driver of tractor No. 1318 (Ferguson) of one Surajaram which he alleged had been borrowed by the appellant for the election. When he came to give evidence, he was not in the service of Surajaram. There is no evidence to corroborate the fact that he was ever in the service of Surajaram. There is no mention of Surajaram's tractor or of this witness in the account books of the firm Parasram Subhkaran. He also stated that he took voters in the tractor from different villages to the polling stations during the election. Such witnesses can easily be hired. We are not impressed by the evidence of this witness and are unable to rely on it. We, therefore, find that it has not been proved that any vehicle employed by the appellant for election purposes drew any supply of petrol or petroleum products from the shop of Ramrikh. From the circumstance that jeeps Nos. 835 and 849 drew supplies from the firm only on two dates, we are unable to infer that they must have drawn supplies from the shop of Ramrikh. Having fully considered all the evidence and circumstances on record, we are unable to hold that 240 gallons of petrol was purchased by Sheopatsingh from the firm on 21-2-1957 and was utilised by him for election purposes without showing it in his accounts.