1958 (5) TMI 59 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Bribery to Moti Ram Sethi candidate
2. Incurring or authorizing expenditure in contravention of Section 77
3. Obtaining assistance from Government servants
4. Transport of voters by mechanically propelled vehicles
5. Publication of false and defamatory statements

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Bribery to Moti Ram Sethi candidate:
The allegation was that the appellant secured the withdrawal of Shri Motiram Sethi by paying a bribe of Rs. 3,000/-. The Tribunal found this allegation unproven, and this finding was not challenged. The Tribunal held that the taking of a bribe by a candidate does not amount to a corrupt practice under Section 123 of the Act, as only the giving of a bribe is considered a corrupt practice. This view aligns with previous judgments, including those cited from the Rajasthan High Court and Madras High Court. Consequently, Shri Motiram Sethi was not deemed a necessary party under Section 82(b) of the Act, and the petition was not liable to be dismissed under Section 90(3).

2. Incurring or authorizing expenditure in contravention of Section 77:
The Tribunal framed Issue No. 8 to determine if the appellant spent more than the prescribed limit of Rs. 6,000/- and submitted a false return of expenses. The Tribunal found that the appellant did not exceed the expenditure limit. The maximum allowed election expenses were Rs. 6,000/-. The Tribunal reviewed various alleged expenditures, including petrol and vehicle hire, and concluded that the total proven expenditure was Rs. 4190/6/6, which is below the prescribed limit. The Tribunal also found that the appellant did not maintain a separate and correct account of expenditure as required by Section 77(1), but this was not considered a corrupt practice under Section 123(6).

3. Obtaining assistance from Government servants:
The Tribunal considered whether the appellant obtained assistance from Government servants, specifically Ghanshyamdas and Ramchander, who were deemed to be Revenue Officers under Section 123(7). The Tribunal found that these officers did not render any assistance to the appellant in the election. The Tribunal's conclusion was based on the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence presented, which did not support the allegations of assistance.

4. Transport of voters by mechanically propelled vehicles:
The Tribunal found that the appellant used mechanically propelled vehicles to transport voters, which is a corrupt practice under Section 123(5). The Tribunal reviewed several instances where vehicles were used to transport voters and concluded that these actions were done with the implied consent of the appellant. The Tribunal inferred this from the numerous instances and the involvement of the appellant's agents. Consequently, the election was declared void under Section 100(1)(b).

5. Publication of false and defamatory statements:
The Tribunal examined whether the appellant published and distributed a pamphlet containing false and defamatory statements about the defeated candidate. The Tribunal found that the pamphlet contained false statements that were reasonably calculated to prejudice the defeated candidate's prospects. However, it was not proven that the appellant got the pamphlet printed or distributed it himself. The Tribunal concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the appellant distributed the pamphlet or that it materially affected the election result.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal declared the election of the appellant void based on the proven corrupt practice of transporting voters by mechanically propelled vehicles with the appellant's implied consent. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Tribunal was confirmed. The parties were directed to bear their own costs of the appeal.