1974 (8) TMI 112 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of corrupt practices by the appellant, including bribery and hiring vehicles for free conveyance of voters.
2. Whether the payment of Rs. 1,000 to Chatru constituted bribery.
3. Whether the hiring of vehicles for free conveyance of voters constituted a corrupt practice.
4. Whether the assistance of a member of the Armed Forces for canvassing support constituted a corrupt practice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegations of Corrupt Practices:
The appellant, Umed Singh, was accused of several corrupt practices in the election to the Haryana Legislative Assembly from the Meham Assembly Constituency. The High Court found some of these allegations to be true, leading to the setting aside of the appellant's election. The corrupt practices included bribery and hiring vehicles for free conveyance of voters.

2. Payment of Rs. 1,000 to Chatru:
The allegation was that the appellant committed bribery by paying Rs. 1,000 to Chatru, a candidate, to induce him not to withdraw from the election. The evidence was primarily based on the testimony of Chatru and a piece of paper (Exhibit PW 5/1) allegedly written by Subedar Bharat Singh, the appellant's election agent. The Supreme Court found the evidence suspect and noted inconsistencies in the testimonies. The Court held that the evidence did not satisfactorily prove that the payment was made with the object of inducing Chatru not to withdraw from the contest. The Court emphasized that the expression "withdraw from being a candidate" refers to the formal withdrawal process under Section 37 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which was not applicable in this case.

3. Hiring of Vehicles for Free Conveyance of Voters:
The appellant was accused of hiring and procuring vehicles for the free conveyance of voters to and from polling stations. The evidence included testimonies of drivers and entries in a register (Exhibit PW 19/1). The Supreme Court found the evidence unreliable, noting inconsistencies and the suspect nature of the entries in the register. However, the Court confirmed the finding of the High Court regarding Truck No. HRR 7101, which was used for conveying voters between Bedwa and Seman free of charge. The evidence of an elector, Mani Ram (PW 30), was found credible and supported the allegation.

4. Assistance of a Member of the Armed Forces:
The allegation was that the appellant obtained the assistance of Dhir Singh, a member of the Armed Forces, for canvassing support. The evidence included testimonies of witnesses and the examination of Dhir Singh as a court witness. The Supreme Court found the evidence insufficient to prove the allegation. The Court noted that Dhir Singh's testimony was inconsistent and did not conclusively establish that he canvassed for the appellant with the appellant's knowledge or consent.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to set aside the appellant's election based on the finding of corrupt practice related to the hiring of Truck No. HRR 7101 for free conveyance of voters. The Court rejected the other allegations of corrupt practices, finding the evidence unreliable. The Court directed that each party bear its own costs in the appeal. Additionally, the Court overruled its previous decision in Mohd. Yunus Saleem v. Shivkumar Shastri, clarifying that the expression "withdraw from being a candidate" refers to the formal withdrawal process under Section 37 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.