# VIRENDRA KUMAR SAKLECHA v. JAGJIWAN AND ORS - **Citation:** [1972] 3 S.C.R. 955 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1972-03-22 - **Case number:** C.A. No. 2509 of 1969 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/virendra-kumar-saklecha-v-jagjiwan-and-ors-5639 - **Pages:** 18 ## Headnote A B c ID E 955 VIRENDRA KUMAR SAKLECHA v. JAGJIWAN AND ORS. March 22, 1972 !A. N. GROVER AND A. N. RAY, JJ.J E/ection'Peti.don~orrupt practices under s, 123 (2), <3) and (4) alle1?ed-Proof_.:._Atfidavit i.'1 suvvort of petition alle1?in1? a fact on in}orn1ation must give .source of i11for1nation. (-) There is. no inconSistency between form 25 of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and Rule 7 of Madhya Pradesh HiRh Court Rules. The appellant and the three respondents were candidates for election to the Madhya Pradesh Assembly at the general election held in. 1967. The appellant was succe¥ful at the· eleotion. Respondent no. I challenged .bis election in an election pet:tion charging him with corrupt practices. It was alleaed by the election petitioner that in speeche. made to the voters on the basis of religion w.thin the meaning of s. 123 (3) of the Representation of the People Act 195 J; the voters were threatened with divine displeasure within the meaning of s. 123 (2), a•d also &tale· meots were made about the election petitioner within the meaning of s. 123 ( 4). The affidavit in support of the petition did not disclote the source \Of information whereby respoident no. 1 learnt the speeches ton· stituting corrupt practice. The High Court however believed the ma! ev:dence produced on behalf of the respondent, disbel eved that produced on behal'f of the appella"t and allowed the election petition. ·Appeal to this Court was fi:ed under s. 116-A of the Representatio~ of the People Act, 1951. Allowing the appeal, HELD: (i) The affidavit filed by the respoodent aloog with the election petition ~·'d not disclose the source of information in respect of the speeches alleged to have beei made by Jhe appellant. Although the res· F p. an(fent c. !aim. ed in his evidence that he ~am. e to know. of the speeohes tJireating what the previous witnesses said about the Athana meeting. This will be apparent in view of the fact that when D Chand Mohammad was examined for the second time like some other witnesses he said that he heard the speech of th ap~llant for a minute or two but he left th~ meeting before tlie appellant's speech was over. When Chand Mohammad was confronted with his previous statement his explanation was that on the earlier occasion he was thinking about the meeting of Kajod Dhakad, yet the High E Court accepted the evidence of Chand Mohammad to be impartial and impressive. F Bansi Dhar Bairagi P. W. 4 was found by the High Court to be angry with the appellant's party. But the High Court accepted . the evidence of Bansi Dhar Bairagi on the ground that his evidence was corroborated by the statements of Laxmi Lal, Ghisa Dhakad and Chand Mohammad. Bansi Dhar Bairagi proposed the name of Ram Kumar Aggarwal who was supposed to have taken notes of the Athana meeting and who never came to the witness box. Bansi Dhar Bairagi was also associated with Kajod Dhakad. Bansi Dhar Bairagi's evidence was that he went to propose the name of Kajod Dliakad but when he was going to propose the name his G hand began' to shake. That is indeed a very shaky explanation. A curious part of ·the evidence of Bansi Dhar Bairagi is that the appellant spake of cow killing at the Athana meeting. That was not the case even of the respondent. Bansi Dhar Bairagi's evi· dence in respect of his presence at Sarwania Masania was not · accepted by the Court on the ground that he was a casual witness. H Banst Dhar Bairagi was the election agent of Kajod Dhakad. The nomination paper ()f Kajod Dhakad was proposed by Ram Chand Nagla brother of Badri Nath Nagla the President of Jawad Mand ~ Congress. ·Badri Nath Nagla was the proposer and the counting ~64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1972] 3 S.C.R. agent of the respondent. These features point to the inescapable A conclusion that the witness was not only interested but also partisan. The witnesses on behalf of the respondent appeared to be present only at the Athana meeting. They did not attend any other meeting. They spoke entirely from memory. Their version of B the speeches was in the same words and language. One of the witnesses was unknown to the respondent and the respondent also did not know anything about him until he gave evidence in court. The witnesses on behalf of the respondent seemed to have phenomenal memory. Each witness spoke in the same sequence. Each . witness spoke in the same language. Each witness mentioned the C names oi the speakers in the same order. The entire evidence on behalf of the respondent is tutored and prompted to support the respondent. The High Court was wrong in relying on the oral evidence of the respondent and his witnesses. I.n the ~ckground of the entire oral evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent it is apparent as to why the respondent did not mention the grounds or sources of information in the affidavit. There were no real sources. Sources were fabricated. There is not a single piece of D documentary evidence to support.the ca8e of the respondent. The alleged notes of the meeting at Athana wh\ch were admitted by the respondent to be in existence never saw the light oi the day. The withholding of that document gives a J,ie to the respondent's case. It is obvious that if there were in exislence any notes the respoO:- E. dent would have exhibited them at the earlier opportunity. The High Court not only disbelieved the witnesses produced on behalf of the appellant with regard to the meeting at Athana but also made certain observations about the first information report lodged by Sunder Lal Petlia R.W. 35. with regard to an incident F at Athana at the day of the meeting .. A criminal case is pending as a result of that report lodged by Petlfa. The High Court held that the first information report is a forgery. It is true that the High Court in one part of the judgment stated that whateve( was stated by the High Court abput the first information report should not affect the judgment of the Magistrate. The High Court was wrong in pronouncing observations on the report lodged by Petlia. G We are unable to accept the views o4' the High Court on the report lodged by Petlia inasmuch as the criminal case is pending. The respondent's allegations with regard to the meeting at Jhatla on 12 February, 1967 are under two heads. First, that the apoellant is guilty of corrupt practice as defirned in section 123 ( 4) H pf the Act inasmuch the appellant published falsely that the respondent had set up somebody armed with a knife to attack the ·appellant. The second head was that the appellant was guilty of cOITUpt ,. ) A B c D E V. K. SAKLECHA v. JAGJIWAN. (Ray, T.J 965 practice as defined in sections 123(2) and 123(3) of the Act by appeali·ng to voters on the ground of religion and threatening them with divine displeasure if they voted for the Congress candidate. The speech alleged to be made by the appellant at Jhatla on 12 February, 1967 was that 20 February, 1967 was the sacred day bemg a Monday gyaras and to give a vote to the cow killing Congress on that day was equivalent to cutting doWill one cow and it would be on the voters to bear the responsibility for the sin. The High Court accepted the oral evidence of the respondent and his witnesses. The respondent said that Mohan Lal Ramji Lal took notes of the meeting at Jhatla. Mohan Lal Ramji Lal was not examined by the respondent. The alleged notes were also not produced. These features indicate that there were no such notes for if the notes were in existence the relipondent would have produced the same in proof of the allegatfons. The respondent is a lawyer. The respondent not only understands but also appreciates the importance of documents if they happen to be contemporaneous documentary evidence. The witnesses on behalf of the respondent with regard to the speech at JJratla were Daulat Ram Sharma P.W. 12, Kastur Chand Jain P.W. 13, Ratan Lal Jain P.W. 14 and Prabhu Lal P.W. 15. The common features of all these witnesses are that each witne>< spoke in identical words and in the same sequence about the speeches of the appellamt. Daulat Ram Sharma admitted that he had no occasion to repeat the speech to anybody except when he came to depose\in court. Daulat Ram Sharma went in search of his cattle to the pond at Jhatla. He could not find his cow. He went to purchase tobacco. When he reached the shop he saw a meeting oi Jan Sangh going F on. He heard the speech of the appellant. He does not belong to Jhatla but lives at Jhabarka Rajpura at a distance of 3 furlongs . from Jhatla. It is indeed remarkable that a person who by chance walked to the meeting would not only remember the entire speech ascrited to the appellant in the election petition but also depose to it in court without ever !raving mentioned the speech to anybody G . and in particular the respondent. Daulat Ram Sharma stated that this was th~ only meeting attended by him in his life. Such a witness cannot inspire any confidence. ' H Kastur Chand Jain was the polling agent of the respondent. He discussed with the respondent the latter's defeat about two months after the election. He told the respondent that he would give evidence in court without any summons. He attended the Congress Session and is associated with the organisation. As an instance of his power of memory he said tlrat he could repeat the· speech of 9<)6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {1972] 3 S.C.R. the Congress Parliamentary candidate delivered on 24 February, 1967. This witness appears to be partisan. . Ratan Lal Jain was also associated with the Congress organisat10n. He went to the extent of saying that he did not know that voting for Congress meant voting for the respondent who was a Congress candidate. ' Prabhu Lal came to give evidence ·along with Ratan Lal Jain P.W. 14 and Kastur Chand Jain P.W. 13. They all stayed together at Mahalaxmi Lodge. 'They also met the respondent though they denied that they h_ad any talk with the respondent about the evidence. It is incomprehensible as to how the respondent would cite such persons as witnesses unless the respondent knew what they were going to spe,ak about. A witness is not called by a party unless the party knows that the person can testify to the facts in the <:ase. Witnesses on behalf of the respondent gave the impression that they never mentioned to anyone about what they knew. If that be the position it would not be possible for the respondent to cite them as witnesses. These features indicate that the witnesses appeared to give a semblance of disinterestedness whereas in fact they were all tutored to support the case of the respondent. . The impression produced by the witnesses is that their version of the speeches was similar to reading cyclostyled copies of the speech. We are uinable to accept the conclusion reached by the High Court about the speeches ot the appellant ·at Jhatla. The respondent alleged that the appellant delivered a speech .· at Singoli on 29 January, 1967. The allegations are that the appellant committed the corrupt practice within the definition of section 123 ( 4) of the Act by publishilll.g the false allegations that the respondent had paid Rs. 5000 to Kajod Dhakad to set him up as a candidate. The respondent also alleged that besides the appellant one Swami Brahmananda of Himach!l] Pradesh and Khuman Singh of Nimech also spoke at the meeting at Singoli on the same day. The High Court accepted .the oral evidence of P.W. 16 Paras Ram, P.W. 17 Bhanwar Lal, P.W. 18 Ram Chandra Sharma, P.W. 19 Nathu Lal and P.W. 22 Mange Lal Pancholi. P.W. 18 Ram Chandra Sharma admitted his signatures on Exhibits R-1/5 and R-1/6. These two documents are minutes of meeting of the Congress party of Singoli helg in the months of August and· October, 1966. Ram Chandra Sharma's _name appears in the notices of the meetings of the Congress Party m the months of August and October, 1966' at Silll.goli which are J?-xhibiits R-1/7 and R-1/8. Ram Chandra Sharma appears as a signatory to. the minutes. After having admitted the signatures Ram Chandra B c D .E F G ' H ~) .J V. K, SAKLECHA v. JAGJIWAN (Ray, J.) 967 A Sharma made attempts to disown his signatures. Exhibits R-1/9, R-1/10, R-1/11, R-1/12, R-1/13 and R-1/14 are receipts signed by the witness Ram Cham.dra Sharma. These receipts relate to expenses for meals and refreshments arranged for the workers near about th~ time of the election. Ram Chandra Sharma denied his signatures but he admitted that the Congress workers and other B customers paid him for the meals. He denied that he gave the ' respondent any receipt. R:am Chandra Sharma obviously wanted to extricate himself from the receipts which nullified his oral evidence. Ram Chandra Sharma was a very interested ,witness and he was directly associated with the respondent. Ram Chandra Slrarma said that the only meeting he attended in his life was the c one at Singoli on 29 January, 1967. Such singular attendance is not only suspicious but also mendacious. Ram Chandra Sharma not only gave from! his memory the speech of the appellant at Singoli but also added a gloss to it by stating that the appellant spoke about tax on sugar. It was not even the case of the respol)- dent that the appellant spoke about tax on sugar. D P.W. 22 Mange Lal also suppbrted the case of the respondent about the appellant's speech at Singoli on 29 January, 1967. •Like Ram Chamdra Sharma he also said that the appellant talked about tax on sugar. This shows how this pair of witnesses played the parrot in giving evidence. Mange Lal was confronted with Exhibit R-1/19 and Exhibit R-1/19A. These two receipts are in respect E of rent of the building owned by Mange Lal. The receipts are on account of rent from the respondent. · Mange Lal said that he gave the receipts at the instance of Radha Kishan. The further explanation given by the witness was tliat the house was mortgaged with Radha Kishan. No document was produced to prove the F mortgage. Radha Kishan is Mange Lal wife's uncle. Mange Lal's attempt to explain away the receipts for rent was futile. Mange Lal also appears to be one of the conveners of the Congress meeting as' will appear from Exhibits R-117 and R-118. He is also signatory to the minutes Exhibits R-1/6. Mange I.:al said that the only meeting he ever attended was at Singoli on 29 February, 1967. He had never any talk with the respondent about the G speech at Singoli. These wilinesses establish wjthout any doubt that they were not truthful witnesses but came prepared to support the respondent's case. The other witnesses P.W. 17 Bhanwar Lal and P.W. 19 Nathu H Lal. also spoke about the appellant's alleged speech at Singoli on 29 January, 1967. These two witnesses also gave evidence about the speech of Swamiji of Bhanpura at Singoli on 15 February, 1967. The High Conti accepted the evidence of these witnesses. 968 ~UPREME COURT REPORTS (1972] 3 S.C.R. We are unable to accept the evidence of Bhanwar Lal and Nathu A Lal for the reasons to be given while discussing their evidence in connection with the meeting at Singoli on 15 February, 1967. The respondent alleged that the appellant was guilty of corrupt practice within the meaning of sections 123(2) and 123(3) of the Act by reason of the three speeches delivered by the Swamiji of B Bhanpura on 15 February, 1967 at Morwan, Diken and Singoli. The respondent alleged that the speeches were at the insta/lce of audie;nce. With regard to the speech at Morwan apart from the respondent there were three witnesses on his behalf. They were P.W. 7 Manek Lal, P.W. 8 Ratan Lal Gaur Banjara and P.W. 9 Gulzari Lal Mahajam. Manek Lal gave evidence twice. The second time he gave evidence was in accordance with the understanding given by the respondent before this Court to produce some of the witnesses at his own cost. That undertaking was giv(Jll at the hearing of an application by the appellant in this Court for transfer of the case to another court. When Manek Lal gave evidence on the first occasion he did not mention that Swamiji of Bhanpura said at the meeting at Morwan on 15 February, 1967 that 20 February was a sacred day and to vote for CQtlgress on such a sacred day would be to commit the sin of cow killing. Manek Lal said that he attended the meeting· of the Congress and of the Jan Sangh and he voted. Gulzari Lal said that the Morwan meeting was the o.nly meeting he ever attended. Both Manek Lal and Gulzari Lal like other witnesses gave evidence about the speecb. of Swamiji of Bhanpura in identical language and in the same sequence. The hollowness of the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent is revealed by the testimony of Ratan Lal Banjara: He was confronted with Exhibit R-1/27. The Higb. Court described this document to be "purloined brief." Exhibit R-1/27 is a docu- . ment which contains the date and hour of the meeting at Morwan, the text of the speech at Morwan. Thereafter there are 7 questions c D E F and answers. The questions are as to when did Swamiji come; how be came; who· came with him; and it is also written in that document that the appellant came and listened to the speech and expressed gratitude and thanks to the public. Ratan Lal Banjara denied that he was tutored through that document The alleged speech of Swamiji of Bhanpura is typed in Hindi. One of. the notes in that document is that Moti Khema Jat and Gordhan Smgh were not seen at the meeting. Those two persons were cited by H the appellant as witnesses. It is indeed curious. that witnesses would spcifically say as to who were not present and the names of such persons who were not present are those who are cited by the G A B c V. K. SAKLECHA v. JAGJ!WAN (Ray, J.) 969 respondent as witnesses. It is not only unnatural but extraordinary that witnesses would notice as to who were not present at the meeting which, according to the witnesses, was attended by 500 persons. The respondent was shown Exhibit R-1/27. His explanation was that the notes were prepared for instructions to his counsel. The tenor of the document and the que 'lions and answers point with unerring accuracy that the documer. t was prepared to coach witnesses. The respondent said that he had prepared such note's for every meeting. Other documents did not see the light of the day. That would support the conclusion that other witnesses had been similarly prepared. It explains why all witnesses spoke the same language. All witnesses were coached. The respondent said that Jai Ram Jat had taken notes of th meeting at Morwan and gave the same to the respondent. The respondent said that the notes were not of significance, and, therefore, he did not take the notes from Jai Ram Jat. If the notes D were not significani the Morwan meeting also ~ame insignificant. E F G H The non-production of the notes and of the author of the notes are additional features to establish the vacuity of the respondent's allegations about the speech of Swamiji of Bhanpura at Morwan. The High Court referred to an article published in 'Sudesh' in the issue dated 30 November, 1966. There was an article written by Swamiji of Bhanpura.