# [1970] 1 S.C.R. 886

- **Citation:** [1970] 1 S.C.R. 886
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969-08-14
- **Case number:** CIVIL APPELLATE ]URISDICTJON : Civil Appeal No. 32 of 1969
- **Bench:** K. S. Hegde A~D A. N. Ray
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1970-1-s-c-r-886-4724
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Representation of the People Act, 1951, s. 123 ( 4 )--Corrupt practiceAllegations of snJugg/ing agttinst cc.-ndidate in
poster-Candidate
al~o
called an abnoxious person-Allegations are in relation
to the personal
character and conduct of ca11didate within 1necning of section-Evidence
Act s. 45-Experts seldom agree--Courts must form its own conclusinfls.
The first respondent was the winniag candidate from an
assembly
constitueocy in Hissar District of Haryana State at the mid-term election
held in May, 1968. The appellant who was one of the losing candidates
filed an election petition urging the following grounds in its support : (I)
that the poster Exhibit PWI/ 1 was against the personal character of the
appellant and therefore constituted a corrupt practice v•ithin the meaning
of s. 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; (2) '!bat the
religious head of the Namdhari sect issued an appeal and a farman and
therefore the provisions contained ins. 123(2) were attracted; (3) Tha;
the first respondent was guilty of corrupt practice of bribery by having
given Rs. 20,000 in cash to one of the candidates for contesting the elec·
tion. 'Ille petition was dismissed by the High Court. In appeal this Court
found that the allegations in grounds Nos. (2) and (3) aforesaid were
not proved by the evidence on record.
Allowing the petition on ground
No. (I),
HELD: (i) ·rhe evidence in the present case established-first that
Exhibit PWl/l wa< published,
second!)' that respondent No. I got the
same printCd and published. thirdly that the statement therein-to the
etfect that the appellant was indulging in smuggling and was an obno:tious
pen;on-was in relation to the pcr!ional character and conduct df the
appellant, fourthly that the statement was false, and fifthly that the same
was calculated to prejudice the prospects of the appellant's election. The
appeal therefore had to be accepted on the ground that respondent NJ. I
was guilty of corrupt practice under sl!l:tion 123(4) of the Act. [892 H893 BJ
(ii)
It is rare for two experts to agree in cases of disputed signature.
The Court has to arrive at the conclusion in the light of the entire evidence. The signature of respondent No. 1 on the manuscript of Exhibit
PWl/l wa. sufficiently proved by the evideoce of witnesses. [891 G-H]
CIVIL APPELLATE ]URISDICTJON :
Civil Appeal No. 32 of
1969.
Appeal under s. 11 ~-A of the Representation of the People
Act, 1951 from the judgment and order dated November 19, 1968
of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Election Petition No.
14 of 1968.
H. L. Sibal, Ram Sarup, S. C. Mahanta, K. C. Sharma and
J. C. Ta/war, fot the appellant.
Naunit Lal, for respondent No. 1.
A
B
c
D
'
E
F
..
G
H
I
•I
i
A
OM PRAKASH V. LALCHAND (Ray, J.)
887

## Text

886
OM PRAKASH
V,
LALCHAND AND ANOTHER
August 14, 1969
[K. S. HEGDE A~D A. N. RAY, JJ.]
Representation of the People Act, 1951, s. 123 ( 4 )--Corrupt practiceAllegations of snJugg/ing agttinst cc.-ndidate in
poster-Candidate
al~o
called an abnoxious person-Allegations are in relation
to the personal
character and conduct of ca11didate within 1necning of section-Evidence
Act s. 45-Experts seldom agree--Courts must form its own conclusinfls.
The first respondent was the winniag candidate from an
assembly
constitueocy in Hissar District of Haryana State at the mid-term election
held in May, 1968. The appellant who was one of the losing candidates
filed an election petition urging the following grounds in its support : (I)
that the poster Exhibit PWI/ 1 was against the personal character of the
appellant and therefore constituted a corrupt practice v•ithin the meaning
of s. 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; (2) '!bat the
religious head of the Namdhari sect issued an appeal and a farman and
therefore the provisions contained ins. 123(2) were attracted; (3) Tha;
the first respondent was guilty of corrupt practice of bribery by having
given Rs. 20,000 in cash to one of the candidates for contesting the elec·
tion. 'Ille petition was dismissed by the High Court. In appeal this Court
found that the allegations in grounds Nos. (2) and (3) aforesaid were
not proved by the evidence on record.
Allowing the petition on ground
No. (I),
HELD: (i) ·rhe evidence in the present case established-first that
Exhibit PWl/l wa< published,
second!)' that respondent No. I got the
same printCd and published. thirdly that the statement therein-to the
etfect that the appellant was indulging in smuggling and was an obno:tious
pen;on-was in relation to the pcr!ional character and conduct df the
appellant, fourthly that the statement was false, and fifthly that the same
was calculated to prejudice the prospects of the appellant's election. The
appeal therefore had to be accepted on the ground that respondent NJ. I
was guilty of corrupt practice under sl!l:tion 123(4) of the Act. [892 H893 BJ
(ii)
It is rare for two experts to agree in cases of disputed signature.
The Court has to arrive at the conclusion in the light of the entire evidence. The signature of respondent No. 1 on the manuscript of Exhibit
PWl/l wa. sufficiently proved by the evideoce of witnesses. [891 G-H]
CIVIL APPELLATE ]URISDICTJON :
Civil Appeal No. 32 of
1969.
Appeal under s. 11 ~-A of the Representation of the People
Act, 1951 from the judgment and order dated November 19, 1968
of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Election Petition No.
14 of 1968.
H. L. Sibal, Ram Sarup, S. C. Mahanta, K. C. Sharma and
J. C. Ta/war, fot the appellant.
Naunit Lal, for respondent No. 1.
A
B
c
D
'
E
F
..
G
H
I
•I
i
A
OM PRAKASH V. LALCHAND (Ray, J.)
887
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ray, J. This is an appeal against the judgment and order
dated 19 November, 1968 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh dismissing the election petition of the appellant.
· ·
·
B
The appellant contested the Assembly seat from Ellenabad
Constituency in tbil District of Hissar in the mid-term election
held in May, 1968. The appellant challenged the election of
Lalchand, the first respondent.
The other defeated candidate in
the election was the. second respondent Prithvi Raj.
The appellant obtained 15.485 votes.
The successful candidate Lalchand
c
secured 20,816 votl)S and Prithvi Raj obtained 5,726 votes.
The
polling was on 14 May, 1968. The results were announced on
16 May, 1968.
D
E
F
G
H
At the hearing Qf the appeal counsel on behalf of the appellant canvassed thre~ii grounds.
First, that the poster being Exhibit P.W. 1/1 was against the personal character of the appellant
and therefore constituted a corrupt practice within the meaning
of sub-section (4) of section 123 of the Representation of the
People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Secondly,
the religious head Sat Guru Jagjit Singh of the Namdhari sect
i11Sued an ap~ and a farman and thereby the provisions contained in sub-section, (2) of section 123 of the Act are attracted.
Thirdly, the resp~ndent Lalchand is guilty of corrupt practice of
bribery by having given Rs. 20,000/- in cash to Prithvi Raj to
contest the election.··
I shall at the llUtset deal with the secbnd and the third
grounds. Counsel qn behalf. of the appellant pressed allegations
contained in sub~paragraphs (b) and ( d) of paragraph 10 of the
petition which were to the effect that Sat Guru Jagjit Singh issued
a farman on or about 20 April,
1968 to the effect that it was
the Guru's desire that all followers should oppose the appellant
who was the son of <Choudhury Devi Lal an enemy of Namdhari
Guru. Further, if any of the followers did not obey the farman
they would stand el(·Cominunicated and their 'Prasad' would not
be accepted in the Gurdwaras and that they would be spiritually
censured by natning·them as traitors of Dharma and befallen persons in Sabha's 'of Nmndharis. In sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph
10 of the petition' it 'was alleged th'at on 21 April, 1968 the followers of Namdhiri sect were called to Sant Nagar where a big
Dewan of Namdhari~ was convened and Sat Guru Jagjit Singh
made a speech !her. e that he had taken a vow to defeat the appellant because he was the son of Choudhury Devi Lal whose family
was an avowed enemy of N amdhari sect and that it .should be
treated as a vow by every Namdhari.
·
888
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[l 970] I S.C.R.
The respondent Lalchand denied that there was any meeting
and further denied that there was any farman.
The appellant, it may be stated, did not adduce any documentary evidence in support of the allegations.
The appellant's
entire case was based on oral evidence.
The appellant relied on
the oral testimony of P.W. 29 and P.W. 30.
P.W. 29 Ram
Dayal was formerly a member of the Punjab Legislative Assembly.
Ram Dayal was formerly a member of the Congress Committee.
He resigned from the Congress and contested the seat as an in·
dependent candidate against Chondhury Devi Lal and won the
election in the year 1957. An election petition was filed by
Choudhury Devi Lal against the witness Ram Dayal.
Ram Dayal
was eventually unseated as a result of the decision of this Court.
The witness Ram Dayal helped the respondent Lalchand in the
election of 1967 and also in the mid-term election in the month
of May, 1968.
The witness Ram Dayal spoke of the Sat Guru
Maharaj having exhorted the Namdharis to vote for Lalchand
and warned them about the consequences if they failed to do so.
The witness also spoke of the meeting at Rania village on 28
April, 1968.
It is indeed strange and significant that Ram Dayal
who supported respondent Lalchand and also attended meetings
on his behalf came and gave evidence in favour of the appellant
about the utterances of Sat Guru Jagjit Singh of the Namdhari
sect.
It is extremely unsafe and hazardous to rely on the uncorroborated and isolated oral testimony of such a person.
P.W. 30 Parma Nand Sharma spoke of the meeting at Sant
!\agar on 21 April, 1968 and said that Guru Jagjit Singh spoke
at the meeting and proclaimed that it was tlie duty of every Nam·
dhJri to vote for respondent Lakhand and any one who violated
the said Guru's direction would be ex-communicated from
the
Panth. In cross-examination the witness P<irma Nand Sharma·
said that he came to give evidenc~ in favour of the Congress be·
cause he was summoned to appear as a witness and therefore he
spoke the truth. It is obvious that when one speaks truth one docs
not proclaim it. It is obvious that the witness in view of his antecedents wanted to sound truthful because he came forward to give
evidence in favour of the appellant.
On behalf of the appellant reliance was placed on Exihibit
P.W. 24;2 to show that there was a meeting on 21 April, 1968.
The appellant relied on the dairy entry of Gurbhajan Singh being
Exhibit P.W. 24/2 bearing the date 21 April l 968 in support of
the contention that there was intrinsic evidence in the dairy entry,
that there was a meeting on 21 April, 1968 \\her~ Sat Guru Jagjit
Singh spoke, and the said entry is in the following terms :-
"Asa Di war was recited at Sh. Jiwan Nagar.
He
(Sant Sahiba Singh) remained there for the whole day.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
~
~.
H
~ ...
OM PJLUASH V. LALCHAND (Ray, J.)
He listened for some time difficulties of the Singhs who
had collected there from outside, at 7 p.m. he appeared
before the Sadh Sangat assembled at Muharanwali
Dharamsala Santnagar and made an appeal to the audience to cast !heir votes in favour of Ch. Lalchand independent candidate of Ellenabad Constituency and
return him as successful
candidate.
Then he came
back to Jiwannagar".
88&
The diary e11try is to the effect that the S.·• Guru Jagjit Singh
appeared before the Sant Nagar Assembly.
1 .. .: diary entry does
not mention about any alleged utterance by Sat Guru J agjit Singh
at the said meeting.
Exhibits P.W. 24/1 and P.W. 24/2 arc two pamphlets containing articles.
Counsel for the appellant relied on the pamph·
lets to prove that the meeting was held where Sat Guru Jagjit
Singh spoke.
Both the articles were published after the election
had been held on 16 May, 1968.
These articles suffer from the
vice of coming into existence under deliberate motive.
We are
unable to accept the oral evidence that there was any meeting on
21 April, 1968 as alleged by the appellant and that Sat Gnru
Jagjit Singh spoke at the meeting, to cast votes in favour of res.
pondent Lalchand under threat of divine displeasure and spiritual
censure.
Counsel on behalf of the appellant contended that respondent
Lalchand was guilty of offences under section 123(1) of the Act
by having given Rs. 20,000/- in cash to respondent Prithvi Raj
to contest the election.
There is no documentary evidence in
support of the allegation.
The oral evidence is that of P.W. 11,
P.W. 12 and P.W. 13. Kanshi Ram, P.W. 11 said that he was
Kumhar and there was a meeting of the Kumhars on 30 March,
1968. It was decided that a Kumhar silould be made a member
of the Legislative Assembly.
He also said that the Kumhars decided at the said meetliig to put up respondent Prithvi Raj as a
candidate.
Kanshi Ram's further evidence was that Bawa Bir
Singh paid Rs. 20,000/- to Prithvi Raj for election expenses.
Kanshi Ram said that the payment was in the presence of respondent Lalchand.
Jot Ram, P.W. 12 said that he was a Kumhar and his evidence was also that Bava Bir Singh paid Rs. 20,000
to Prithvi Raj in the presence of Lalchand.
Rawat, P.W. 13
who was also a Kumhar said t)lat Bawa Bir Singh paid
Rs. 20,000/- to Prithvi Raj in the presence of Lalchand.
The
gist of the offence under sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Act
is that there has to be n gift by a candidate or his agent or by
any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election
agent of any gratification, to any person with the object of inducing a person to stand or n·at to stand as a candidate at the election.
svo
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1970] l S.C.R.
T.he clements required to constitute an offence arc first, that the
gift has to be by a candidate or his agent or by any other person.
Secondly, the gift is to be with the consent of the candidate or
his election agent and the third important element is that the
gratification is to be made with the object, directly or indifectly,
of inducing a person to stand or not to stand in the election.
In
the present case, ther~ is no evidence to hold that any gift was
rnade by the candidate or his agent or by any other person with
the consent of the candidate, namely, the respondent Lalchand.
Secondly, there is no evidence that gratification was made with
the object of inducing the respondent Prithvi Raj to stand or not
to stand as a candidate.
Counsel on behalf of the appellant contended that respondent
Lalchaml was guilty of corrupt practices as mentioned in subsection (4) of section 123 of the Act.
The four elements in sub-
'ection (4) arc, first, that there has to be a publication by the
candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent
of the candidate of any statement o[ fact.
The second elemcm
is that the statement of fact is false and a candidate or his agent
or any other person either believes
it to be false or docs not
believe to be true.
Thirdly, the publications is in relation to the
pcrsom1l character and conduct of any candidate.
Fourthly, the
statement is reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of
that candidate's election.
P.W. 35, Lachhman Das was the Manager, Kwality
Art
Printers.
Ile spoke of a poster which was printed in his Press.
He identified the Exhibit P. W. I/ 1 as a copy of the poster which
was printed in his Press.
He said that Exhibit P.W. 34/2 was a
manuscript of Exhibit P.W. 1/1.
He further said that the pamphlet was printed on the asking of Lalchand who was identified
b'y the witnesses Muni LalAzad and Jai Gopal Vcnna.
Lachhman Das said that Muni Lal Azad and Jai Gopal Verma signed
the manuscript Exhibit P.W. 34/2 in his presence.
The further
evidence was that 10,000 copies of the poster were printed in the
said Press. lt was suggested in cross-examination that the poster
was
printed ~.ftcr 14 May, 1968.
P.W. 36 Jai Ciopal Verma
identified Exhibit P.W. 34/2 as a manuscript of the poster and
further said that the witnesses identified Lalchand.
Jai
Gopal
Verma proved his ;ignaturc on Exhibit P.W. 34/2. Jai Gopal
Verma said that Lakhand accompanied him to the Kwality Art
Printers.
Jai Gopal Verma further identified the signature of
\1uni Lal Azad.
It was also suggested to Jai Gopal
Verma
;hat the poster was printed after
14 May, 1968.
Muni
Lal
Azad. P.W. 37 said that he accompanied Jai Gopal Verma to
Kwality Art Printers along with respondent Lalchand.
He admitted his signature on Exhibit P.W. 34/2.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
ll
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
OM PRAICASH v. LALCRAND (Ray, J.)
89!
Counsel on behalf of the respondent Lalchand
contended
that Lachhman Das was neither the Printer nor the Publisher
and that Lachhman Das joined the Press in the month of April,
1968.
Lachhman Das was a disinterested person.
He sent a
copy of the poster to the Chief Electroal Ofticer.
The letter to
the Chief Electoral Officer Exhibit P.W. 34/ l was in a sealed
cover.
It was opened in this Court. It was proved by Mtmi
Lal Jain, Accountant in the office of the Chief Electoral Officer.
He proved that Exhibit P.W. 34/1 was the letter received from
Kwality Art Printers on 2 May, 1968. The witness Muni Lal
Jain further proved the receipt of said letter in the office of the
Chief Electoral Officer, on 2 May, 1968.' Mtmi Lal Jain identiucd the signatures of the clerks .Tagm01Jan Saran Verma and
D. N. Arora on Exhibit P.W. 34/l. Muni Lal Jain proved
Exhibit P.W. 34/2 and Exhibit P.W. 340 which were the enclosures received 11long with Exhibit P.W. 34/1.
Counsel on behalf of the respondent Lalchand Contended
that the ruboer stamp of the Chief Electoral Office bore the date
22 May, 1968 and there was intrinsic evidence to sbow that the
first digit 2 was smudged with carbon ink.
This argument cannot be accepted because of the dominant reason
that no such
suggestion was made to the witness from the Electoral Office or
any other witness on behalf of the appellant. If such a case
had been made, the appellant would have had an opportunity
of dealing with it.
Counsel on behalf of the respondent Lalcl1:ind contended
that the receipt book and the bill register book of the Press were
not produced.
Lachhman Das, the Accountant of K wality Art
Printers was not asked to oroducc either the receipt book or the
bill book.
There was' s01i1e dispute as to whet1'er the signature
of Lalchand on the mar.uscrigt poster Exhibit P.W. 34/2 was
genuine or not. Ratan Lal Aggarwal, P.W. 58 said that the
signature of the respondent Lalchand on Exhibit P. W.
34/2
was a genuine
signature.
The
respondent's
witness No. 2,
A. S. Kapoor said that the signature of Lalchand of Exhibit
P. W. 34; 2 was not the same as the admitted signature of Lalchund and in the opinion of the witness the signature on Exhibit P.W. 34/2 was "the work of a person who was well skilled
in the art of traced forgery".
It is rare for two experts to agree
in cases of disputed signature.
The Court has to arrive at the
conclusion in the light of the entire evidence. Jai Gopal Verma
said that Lalchand a~nded his signature in his presence. That
portion of the evidence of Jai Gopal Verma was not impeached
in cross-examination. , Lachhman Das, the Accountant of the
Kwality Art Printers said that the pamphlet was printed at the
request of Lalchand wlto was identified by Muni Lal Azad and
892
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1970] 1 S C.R.
J ai Gopal Verma.
This portion of the evidence of Lachhman
A
Das was also not challenged in cross-examination.
The poster on which the appellant relied is Exhibit P.W. 1/1.
Exhibit P.W. I/I is as follows:
"Appeal to the Voters of the Ellc'.labad
Vidhan
Sabha Constituency.
Election
Brothers:
(Rising Sun)
Symbol
Just after one year election is being held.
I hope
B
I will get more support from public !ban before.
BeC
cause you have seen the 'Adlu Badlu' policy of Ch.
Partap Singh son of Ch. Devi Dayal, Ch. Devi Lal has
put up the second son as a candidate because of this
fear.
The deeds of Om Prakash arc well known to the
public.
Under the auspices of his father Cb. Devi Lal,
he had been indulging in smuggling and today he is
asking for votes in the name of his father.
I hope the
D
people will show the face of defeat to such an obnoxious person.
My election symbol is
rising sun, put
stamp only on that.
Yours
LAL CHAND KHOO,
E
Ellenabad Constituency".
Ganga Dhar Shanna, P.W. 31, said that a memorandum of
appeal in favour of respondent Lalchand was printed.
He spoke
of Exhibit. P.W. 34/ I. The appeal which was published and
distributed is Exhibit P.W. 34/2 which is the same as Exhibit
P.W. 1/1.
This appeal leaves no room
for doubt that there
were allegations against the personal character and conduct of
the appellant Om Prakash who was described as "having been
indulging in smuggling".
In the said
appeal, it was
further
said that the appellant was an obnoxious person.
Various witnesses, P.Ws. 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 29, 30 and
31 gave evidence of the distribution and publication of the appeal.
They identified Exhibit P.W. 24/ I which is the same as
Exhibit P.W. 34/2 and the evidence of distribution and publication is overwhelming.
The evidence in the present case established beyond
any
measure of doubt first that Exl1ibit P.W. 1/1 which is the same
as Exhil.Iit P.W. 34/2 was pubLished, secondly, that Lalchand
got the same printed and published, thirdly, that the statement
F
G
H
A
B
OM ~H
v. LALCHAND (Ray, J.)
893
was in relation to die personal character
1t11d conduct of the
appellant, fourthly, the, statement is false and fifthly, the same was
calculated to prejudice the prospects of the appellant's election.
For these reasons we are of opinion that the appeal is to be accepted on the ground that respondent Lalchand is guilty of corrupt practice under' •ection 123(4) of the Act.
The appeal is 'allowed with costs throughout and the election
of the respondent Lalchand is declared void.
G.C.
Appeal allowed.