Dharmesh Prasad Verma Vs. Faiyazal
Azam [1984] INSC 121 (17 July 1984)
VARADARAJAN, A. (J) VARADARAJAN, A. (J)
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA MISRA RANGNATH
CITATION: 1984 AIR 1516 1985 SCR (1) 11 1984
SCC (4) 3 1984 SCALE (2)21
CITATOR INFO :
F 1987 SC1577 (26)
ACT:
The Representation of the People Act 1951,
Section 123 (5).
Corrupt practice-Procuring of vehicle for
free conveyance of voters- Evidence and proof.
Jeep belonging to friend of
candidate-Carrying of voters in jeep-Whether corrupt practice.
HEADNOTE:
The respondent was elected to a State
Assembly Constituency. The appellant who had contested the election pleaded
four items of corrupt practice in his Election Petition filed against the
respondent.
The Legislative Assembly to which the
respondent was elected has been dissolved and a fresh election has been held.
Notwithstanding, the fresh election the appellant pursued his election petition
in order to prove corrupt practice on the part of the respondent.
In his election petition, the appellant pleaded
that the respondent committed a corrupt practice falling under section 123 (5)
of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 by procuring and using a jeep for
the free conveyance of voters to the polling station on the date of poll. The
respondent denied the charge and contended that the appellant had not complied
with the mandatory provisions of sections 81, 82 and 83 of the Act read with
Order VI, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure and section 117 of the Act and
the election petition was therefore liable to be dismissed.
The Judge who tried the petition, followed
this Court's ruling in Rahim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed [1975] 1 SCR 653 that
Proceedings arising out of 12 election petitions are quasi-criminal in nature
and that evidence relating to corrupt practices should be scrutinized with
scrupulous care and merciless severity; considered the evidence adduced by the
parties, and found that the jeep bearing No. USJ 5226 while carrying five
ladies including P.Ws. 10, 11, 42 who were voters, free of cost, for casting
votes on behalf of the respondent was seized by the District Magistrate and the
Superintendent of Police about 1.5 miles from the polling booth and that at the
time of the seizure, the jeep was driven by a close friend of the respondent and
that this friend had worked for the respondent in the election and was present
in the booth on the date of the polling and that the respondent's polling agent
stood surety for the release of the jeep. The Judge held that these facts were
not sufficient to hold that the respondent procured the jeep, and that since
the jeep with the voters was caught not at the polling station but at some
distance way from it, it was only a case of an attempt at corrupt practice and
not corrupt practice itself under section 123 (5) of the Act, and dismissed the
election petition.
Allowing the appeal, this Court,
HELD: 1. The requirement of the law in regard
to corrupt practice under section 123 (5) of the Representation of the People
Act 1951 is that in addition to proving the hiring or procuring of any vehicle
or vessel for the carriage of voters to and from any polling station it should
also be proved that the electors used the vehicle or vessel free of cost to
themselves. [17A-B]
2. Section 123 (5) requires three things, (1)
hiring or procuring of a vehicle; (2) by a candidate or his agent etc.
and (3) for the free conveyance of an
elector. [16H] Joshibhai Chunibhai Patel v. Anwar Beg Mirza, [1969] 2 SCR 97,
Razik Ram v. Jaswant Singh Chouhan, [1975] 4 SCC 769 at 775 and Dadasahib
Dattatraya Pawar v. Pandurang Raoji Jagtap, [1978] 2 SCR 524 at 528, refereed
to.
3. The appellant has proved satisfactorily
all the three requirements of clause (5) of section 123 of the Act.
The respondent has therefore to be held
guilty of corrupt practice falling under this clause which is ordinarily
difficult to prove. [27F] In the instant case, the evidence of P.Ws. 6, 16 and
43 reveal that the respondent had procured the jeep USJ 5226 from his close
friend, Kabir Ahmed for the free conveyance of his electors and that the jeep
was, thereafter, used for that purpose on the day of poll, and seized by the
officials, P. W 69 District Magistrate, P.W. 73- Superintendent of Police and
P.W. 81-Station House Officer where it was being used for the conveyance of the
electors P.Ws. 10, 11, 42 and others including P.W. 67 free of cost to
themselves. The appellant s case that the respondent committed corrupt practice
is clearly established. [27D-E] 13
4. Corrupt practice such as in the instant
case is very largely resorted to in the elections and could be avoided by
either locating polling booths within walking distance of the electors or by
having mobile polling stations. [27G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 3011 of 1979.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 7th
September, 1979 of the Patna High Court in Election Petition No. 4 of 1977.
Shanti Bhushan and M.P. Jha for the
Appellant.
S.K. Sinha for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VARADARAJAN, J. This election appeal is directed against the judgment of the
Patna High Court dismissing Election Petition No. 4 of 1977 with costs of Rs.
1000/-.
The appellant Dharmesh Prasad Verma, who is
stated to have contested the election as a Janata candidate, had pleaded four
items of corrupt practice in his election petition filed against the respondent
Faiyazal Azam who is stated to have contested the election as a Congress-I
candidate. The poll in this case was held on 12.6.1977 for the election of a
member of the Bihar Legislative Assembly from No. 5 Sikta Constituency in West
Champaran district. The appellant secured 1795 votes while the respondent
secured 28324 votes and was declared elected on 15.6.1977. The election
petition was filed on 18.7.1977. The Legislative Assembly was dissolved in 1980
and fresh election had been held in that year and the respondent is stated to
have contested as a non-Congress-I candidate and to have been elected from the
same constituency. The appellant is, however, interested in pursuing this
election petition relating to the election of the year 1977 in order to prove
corrupt practice on the part of the respondent.
Mr. Shanti Bhushan, Senior Counsel, appearing
for the appellant, restricted his arguments to the first charge alone and that
too regarding the use of the jeep USJ 5226 which is alleged to have belonged to
one Kabir Ahmed. That charge is that respondent committed the corrupt practice
falling under s. 123(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
(hereinafter 14 referred to as the "Act") by procuring and using the
jeep for the free conveyance of voters to the polling station on the date of
poll. The respondent denied the charge in his written statement and contended
that the appellant had not complied with the mandatory provisions of ss. 81, 82
and 83 read with order VI, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure and s. 117 of
the Act and that the election petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
The learned Single Judge who tried the
election petition, after observing that it is common knowledge that every
politician realises the importance of vehicles during general elections,
noticed this Court's observations in Rahim Khan v. Khurseed Ahmed that
proceedings arising out of election petitions are quasi-criminal in nature and
that the evidence relating to corrupt practices should be scrutinized with
scrupulous care and merciless severity, and then proceeded to consider the
evidence adduced by the parties.
On the evidence the learned Judge found that
the jeep bearing No. USJ 5226 while carrying five ladies was seized by the
District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police of the district from a
road near a canal situate about 1.5 or 2 miles away from the Sarkiatola booth
on the date of the poll and that the five ladies including Murati @ Deokalia
(P.W. 19), Mehrunnissa (P.W. 11) and Rasulia (P.W. 42) were voters who were
being carried free of cost for casting votes on behalf of the respondent. The
learned Judge found that at the time of the seizure of the jeep it was driven
by Kabir Ahmed's nephew Tabrez Ahmed and that Kabir Ahmed was a great friend of
the respondent and he and his father worked for the respondent in the election
and were present in the booth on the date of the poll and that the respondent's
polling agent Manager Prasad stood surety for the release of the jeep. However,
the learned Judge held that these facts are not sufficient by themselves to
hold that the respondent himself procured the jeep from Kabir Ahmed. The
learned Judge further found that since the jeep with the voters was caught not
at the polling station but at some distance away from it, in any event, it was
only a case of an attempt at corrupt practice and not corrupt practice itself
as per s.
123(5) of the Act. Thus the learned Judge
rejected the appellant's case in regard to this instance of corrupt practice as
also the other instances and dismissed the election petition.
15 Section 123(5) of the Act read thus:
"S. 123. The following shall be deemed
to be corrupt practice for the purpose of this Act:
(1) ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
(2) ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
(3) ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
(4) ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
(5) The hiring or procuring, whether on
payment or otherwise, of any vehicle or vessel by a candidate or his agent or
by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent, or
the use of such vehicle or vessel for the free conveyance of any elector other
than the candidate himself, the members of his family or his agent, to or from
any polling station provided under section 25 or a place fixed under
sub-section(1) of section 29 for the poll:
Provided that the hiring of a vehicle or
vessel by an elector or by several electors at their joint costs for the
purpose of conveying him or them to and from any such polling station or place
fixed for the poll shall not be deemed to be a corrupt practice under this
clause if the vehicle or vessel so hired is a vehicle or vessel not propelled
by mechanical power:
Provided further that the use of any public
transport vehicle or vessel or any tram-car or railway carriage by any elector
at his own cost for the purpose of going to or coming from any such polling
station or place fixed for the poll shall not be deemed to be a corrupt
practice under this clause.
Explanation:- In this clause, the expression
'vehicle' means any vehicle used or capable of being used for the purpose of
road transport whether propelled by mechanical power or otherwise and whether
used for drawing other vehicles or otherwise." 16 In clauses (5) of s. 123
the word "or" is used in several places and the word "and"
is used in two places in the first proviso and the explanation. Prima facie,
Parliament must be deemed to have used the word "or" and "and"
for different purposes or objects. If the matter is res integra it could be
said that the main clause (5) consists of two separate parts, namely (1) the
hiring or procuring, whether on payment or otherwise, of any vehicle or vessel
by a candidate or his agent or by any other person, with the consent of a
candidate or his election agent for the free conveyance of any elector to or
from any polling station, or (2) the use of any vehicle or vessel by any
candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate
or his election agent for the purpose of free conveyance of any elector to or
from any polling station. It is true that in the latter part of clause (5) the
word "such" issued before the words "vehicle or vessel for the
free conveyance of any elector to or from any polling station". But the
matter is no longer res integra.
In Joshibhai Chunibhai Patel v. Anwar Beg
Mirza Hidayattullah, C.J. speaking for himself and G.K. Mitter, J.
has observed:
"This brings us to the examination of s.
123(5) with a view to finding out what are its requirements.
We have already indicated that in our opinion
the election petitioner must prove in addition to the other ingredients of the
section that the vehicle was used for free conveyance of voters which
ingredient we have stated was not attempted to be established in the case...
... ... ... ... This section defined one of the corrupt practices and it
consists of hiring and procuring whether on payment or otherwise of any
vehicle. This hiring and procuring must be by any other person with the consent
of the candidate or his election agent and the hiring according to the section
must be for the free conveyance of any elector other than the candidate himself
or members of his family or his agent to and from any polling station. It will,
therefore, appear that the section requires three things, (1) hiring or
procuring of a vehicle; (2) by a candidate or his agent etc. and (3) for the
free conveyance of an elector. It will be noticed that the section also speaks
of the use but it speaks of the use of such vehicle which 17 connects the two
parts, namely, hiring or procuring of vehicle and the use. The requirement of
the law therefore is that in addition to proving the hiring or procuring and
the carriage of electors to and from any polling station, it should also be
proved that the electors used the vehicle free of cost to themselves." In
Razik Ram v. Jaswant Singh Chouhan, Sarkaria, J.
speaking for himself and Alagiriswami, J. has
observed:
"On analysis, clause (5) of Section 123
falls into two parts. The requirements of the first part are; (i) The hiring or
procuring, whether on payment or otherwise, of any vehicle or vessel for the
free conveyance of voters (ii) Such hiring or procuring must be by a candidate
or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or
of his election agent. The second part envisages the "use of such vehicle
or vessel for the free conveyance of any elector (other than the candidate
himself, the members of his family, or his election agent) to or from any
polling station". The two parts are connected by the conjunction
"or" which is capable of two constructions.
In one sense, it is a particle coordinating
the two parts of the clause and creating an alternative between them. In the
other sense which is akin to the sense of "and" it can be construed
as conjoining and combining the first part of the clause with the second. The
latter construction appears to comport better with the aim and object of the
amendment of 1966. In this connection, it is not worthy that even before the
amendment, this Court in Balwan Singh v. Lakshmi Narain [1960] 3 S.C.R 91, held
that in considering whether a corrupt practice described in Section 123(5) is
committed conveying of electors cannot be dissociated from the hiring of a
vehicle.
Even if the word "or" is understood
as a coordinating conjunction introducing alternatives then also a petitioner
in order to succeed on the ground of a corrupt 18 practice under the second
part of the clause, must prove, in addition to the use of the vehicle or vessel
for the free conveyance of any elector to or from any polling station, the
hiring or procuring of that vehicle or vessel. This is so because the word
"such" in the phrase introduced by the 1966 amendment, expressly
imports these elements of the first into the second part of the clause.
In the view we take we are fortified by the
dictum of this Court in Joshibhai Patel v. Anwar Beg Mirza [1969] 2 SCR 97,
wherein Hidayatullah, C.J., speaking for the Court analysed the requirements of
the clause, thus:
It will be noticed that this section also
speaks of the use of such vehicle which connects the two parts, namely, hiring
or procuring of vehicle and its use. The requirement of the law therefore is
that in addition to proving the hiring or procuring and the carriage of
electors to and from any polling station, it should also be proved that the
electors used the vehicle free of cost to themselves." In Dadasahib
Dattatraya Pawar v. Pandurang Raoji, Jagtap, Jaswant Singh, J. speaking for the
Court has observed:
In regard to section 123(5) of the
Representation of People Act, 1951 which before its amendment by Act 47 of 1966
was identical in terms with section 144-1(3) of the Act, it was held by this
Court in Shri Balwant Singh v. Shri Lakshmi Narain that in considering whether
a corrupt practice described in section 123(5) is committed conveying of
electors cannot be dissociated from the hiring of a vehicle.
It has also been held by this Court in Ch.
Razik Ram v. J.S. Chouhan and Ors. [1975] 4 S.C.C. 769] that 19 to establish
the corrupt practice under section 123(5) of the Representation of the People
Act, 1951, it is necessary for an election petitioner to prove (i) that any
vehicle or vessel was hired or was procured, whether on payment or otherwise by
the returned candidate or by his election agent or by any other person with the
consent of the candidate or of his election agent; (ii) that it was used for
conveyance of the electors to or from any polling station and (iii) that such
conveyance was free of cost to the electors.
Failure to substantiate any one of these
ingredients leads to the collapse of the whole charge." We shall now
proceed to consider the evidence adduced by the parties alleged by the
appellant. On the day of poll, 12.6.1977 J.K. Dutta, P.W. 69, the then District
Magistrate, West Champaran was proceeding to Sikta in a jeep accompanied by the
Superintendent of Police in the course of his duties in relation to the
election. Finding a jeep carrying some ladies, P.W. 69 instructed the
Superintendent of Police to make the necessary enquiry. After the necessary
enquiry was made by the police the jeep with the occupants and the driver was
taken to the police station by the Station House Officer, Sikta Police Station,
who found the jeep having been detained by the District Magistrate and the
Superintendent of Police on the road near a canal situate about 1.5 or 2 miles
away from the Sarakiatola booth when he was proceeding towards Parsa village
with some policemen.
Subsequently, the ladies who were in the jeep
were taken from the police station by a government jeep to the place from where
the private jeep with the occupants and the driver was taken by the officials
to the Sikta Police Station. Anil Kumar, P.W. 73. the then Superintendent of
Police, Bettiah who accompanied P.W. 69, has given a little more detailed
evidence regarding what happened when he was accompanying P.W. 69 to Sikta. He
has deposed that since they suspected that the four or five rustic ladies who
were being carried by the jeep could not be its owners, he seized the jeep,
evidently under the impression that the ladies were being carried free of
charge to the booth, near a canal situate about 1.5 or 2 miles from the booth
and took it alongwith the driver and its occupants to the police station. After
the statements of the ladies and the driver were recorded by the Station House
Officer at the Sikta Police Station, they were taken back 20 by a government
jeep to the place from which the private jeep in which they were travelling
earlier was seized so that they could go and cast their votes. P.Ws. 69 and 73
do not remember the number of the jeep and P.W. 69 does not know to whom the
jeep belonged. Amal Ranjan Sarkar, P.W. 81, is the Station House Officer who
took the jeep with its occupants and the driver to the police station after he
found the jeep having been detained by P.Ws. 69 and 73.
Kabir Ahmad's nephew Tabrez Ahmad was driving
the jeep. P.W. 81 obtained the statement, Ex. 13, written and signed by Tabrez
Ahmad as also the statements of five ladies who were found travelling in the
jeep. The jeep USJ 5226 which was taken into custody was later released to
Kabir Ahmad on 17.6.1977 under Ex. (c) after one Managar Prasad, who is proved
to have been the polling agent of the respondent, furnished security under Ex.
14 (b). There is evidence of Sheikh Ejazul, P.W. 8 that the jeep USJ 5226 which
was used in the election belonged to Kabir Ahmad and that it was driven by
Tabrez Ahmad. There is evidence to show that Kabir Ahmad's brother Nazir Ahmad
was another polling agent to the respondent like Managar Prasad. The learned
Trial Judge has found that Managar Parasad was the respondent's polling agent.
This fact, to which our attention was drawn by Mr. Shanti Bhushan was not
disputed by the respondent's learned counsel. The respondent, R.W. 45 has
admitted that Kabir Ahmad's brother Nazir Ahmad was his polling agent and that
Tabrez Ahmad is the nephew of Kabir Ahmad and Nazir Ahmad.
But he has stated that the does not know if
Managar Prasad whom he knows was his polling agent or whether he had furnished
security for the release of the jeep by the Police to Kabir Ahmad. D.N. Pandey,
P.W. 75 the then Anchal Adhikari of Sikta who had been deputed to work as the
Sub- Zonal officer during the election in 1977 has also deposed about the
seizure of Kabir Ahmad's jeep driven by Tabrez Ahmad. He was present at the
Sikta Police Station when the jeep with some women sitting in it was brought to
the police station. He has stated that Kabir Ahmad, who was very friendly with
respondent, came to the police station to get the women and the jeep released
from the custody of the police. The evidence of Muratiwa @ Deokha, P.W. 10,
Mehrunoissa, P.W. 11 and Rasulia, P.W. 42 who travelled in the jeep alongwith
two other ladies including Queresha P.W. 67 21 is that Kabir Ahmad got them
released from the police station on the day of the poll after they and the two
other ladies who were travelling with them by the jeep had been taken to the
police station. The aforesaid evidence of P.Ws. 69, 73, 81, 75, 10, 11 and 42
which has not been seriously challenged in the cross-examination establishes
satisfactorily that the jeep USJ 5226 belonging to Kabir Ahmad was seen being
driven by Kabir Ahmad's nephew Tabraz Ahmad with five women electors including
P.Ws. 10, 11, 42 and 67 on the road near a canal situate about 1 or two miles
away from the Sarakiatola booth on the day of the poll, that the jeep with the
ladies and the driver was seized on suspicion that it was being used for
carrying electors to the booth free of cost, that the statements of the five
ladies and the driver Tabrez Ahmad were recorded at the Sikta Police Station by
the Station House officer, P.W. 81, in the presence of P.Ws. 69, 73 and 75,
that Kabir Ahmad got the ladies released from police custody on the same day
and they were thereafter brought by a government jeep from the police station
to the place from where they had been previously taken to the police station in
Kabir Ahmad's jeep, that the jeep was released to Kabir Ahmad on 17.6.1977
under Ex. 14(c) and that the respondent's polling agent Manager Prasad
furnished security under Ex. 14(b) for the release of the jeep to Kabir Ahmad.
The appellant's contention is that the respondent procured the jeep USJ 5226
from Kabir Ahmad and it was used for the conveyance of electors free of cost to
themselves for the purpose of casting votes in favour of the respondent and
that the respondent is thus guilty of corrupt practice under s. 123(5) of the
Act. The evidence referred to above establishes the requirement of clause (5)
of s 123 that the vehicle USJ 5226 which is proved to belong to the respondents
close friend Kabir Ahmad was used for the conveyance of electors who were
proceeding to cast votes in favour of the respondent on the day of the poll. It
is not possible to agree with the learned Trial Judge that what this evidence
establishes is only an attempt to convey electors to the polling booth and not
actual conveyance of the electors merely because the jeep with the electors who
were being carried in it was intercepted at a distance of 1 or 2 miles away
from the booth and taken to the police station by the official who had
suspected that an election 22 offence had been committed. The jeep was seized
when it was being used for carrying electors who were proceeding to vote for
the respondent, no doubt at a distance of 1 or 2 miles away from the polling
booth. Even the learned counsel for the respondent did not contend before us
that what has. been established is only an attempt at conveying electors by the
jeep of Kabir Ahmad to the polling booth and not actual conveyance.
There is overwhelming evidence on record
including that of the Anchal Adhikari, P.W. 75 who had worked as the Secretary
of a Cement Committee of which the respondent was the President, to show that
the respondent is a good friend of Kabir Ahmad, whose brother Nazir Ahmad was
admittedly the respondent's polling agent. The respondent had used to him for
the purchase of a motor cycle for the benefit of Nazir Ahmad who admittedly
advanced the money required for its purchase and was using the vehicle which
stood nominally registered in the name of the respondent. The respondent has
professed ignorance in his evidence whether Kabir Ahmad owned the jeep USJ 5226
at all and he has denied that the jeep was used for carrying electors for
casting votes in his favour on the day of poll. A reading of the evidence of
R.W. 45 shows that his evidence is totally unreliable. We may state at this
stage that the respondent's learned counsel Mr. S.K. Sinha found it practically
impossible to deny any aspect of the appellant's case in regard to this item of
corrupt practice except the part relating to the procurement of the jeep USJ
5226 by the respondent from its owner Kabir Ahmad. We find that this part of
the appellants case relating to this item of corrupt practice is clearly
established by the evidence referred to above.
The next point for consideration is whether
the electors were carried free of cost to themselves by the jeep USJ 5226 on
the day of poll. On this aspect of the appellants case there is direct evidence
of the electors P.Ws. 10, 11 and 42 besides that of some other evidence. The
appellant's polling agent Jang Bahadur Mian, P.W.6, has stated in his evidence
that the jeep 23 USJ 5226 was being used for carrying electors to cast votes in
favour of the respondent, that the respondent met the expenses of electors and
that the jeep was seized by the District Magistrate and the police on the day
of poll. He has denied the suggestion that the jeep USJ 5226 was not used for
carrying electors at all. In view of the other evidence referred to above we
are of the opinion that there is no substance at all in this suggestion made
P.W. 9 who was an elector from Parsa village in the election held in 1977 has
stated in his evidence that electors were carried by Kabir Ahmad's jeep on
behalf of the respondent. The suggestion made to him and denied by him is that
he has given false evidence. The electors P.Ws. 10, 11 and 42 belong to same
Parsa Village. P.W. 10 has stated that Kabir Ahmad has asked her to vote for
the candidate whose symbol consisted of cow and calf, i.e. the respondent, that
she and four other women electors were being carried in Kabir Ahmad's jeep
driven by Kabir Ahmad's nephew when the jeep was seized and taken to the police
station and that they did not pay anything to the owner or the driver of the
jeep for their conveyance. To the same effect is the evidence of P.Ws. 11 and
42 who also have stated clearly in their evidence that they did not pay
anything for their conveyance to the owner or the owner or the driver of the
jeep and that they and the other women were carried in the jeep free of cost to
themselves. What has been elicited from P.W. 10 in the cross-examination is
that she does not know the names of the other ladies who travelled with her in
the jeep. P.W. 11 has denied the suggestion that she has been tutored to give
false evidence. P.W. 42 has denied the suggestion that she was not an elector
at all and that she has given false evidence. P.W. 10 is a Hindu while PWs. 11,
42 and 67 are Muslims. Yaqub Mian, PW 43, the husband of P.W. 42 also has
stated in his evidence that the electors were carried by the jeep free of cost
and that after learning that the jeep had been taken to the police station he
went to the police station and found that Kabir Ahmad had already obtained the
release of the electors from the police. He too has denied the suggestion that
he has been tutored to give false evidence and that he had worked for the
appellant in that election. We are of the opinion that there is no reason for
disbelieving the evidence of P.Ws. 10, 11, 42 and 43 that the electors who
travelled by the jeep which was intercepted by the officials and taken to the
police 24 station were being carried to the polling booth free of cost to
themselves for casting their votes in favour of the respondent. This part of
the appellant's case is clearly proved by the evidence of these four witnesses.
We may state that the respondent's learned counsel has not disputed that the
evidence of these four witnesses proves that the electors were being carried to
the booth by the jeep USJ 5226 for casting their votes in favour of the
respondent free of cost to themselves. We find that the evidence referred to
above proves the second requirement of clause (5) of s. 123 of the Act.
The third point which alone is seriously
disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent is the question of procuring
Kabir Ahmed's jeep USJ 5226 by the respondent for carrying electors to vote for
him. Since it has been found that the jeep USJ 5226 belonging to the
respondent's close friend Kabir Ahmed was actually used for the conveyance of
voters who were proceeding to cast votes in favour of the respondent free of
cost to themselves, the jeep could have been put in use for the purpose either
by Kabir Ahmed himself or some other person without reference to the respondent
or his agent or it could have been procured by the respondent. It could not
have become available for carrying electors who were proceeding to vote for the
respondent in any other manner. It is not the respondent's case that Kabir
Ahmed or any other person put the jeep to use for carrying electors to vote for
him free of cost to themselves without any reference whatsoever to him. The
details relating to the jeep USJ 5226 had been given in the election petition.
The respondent could have made necessary enquiries from Kabir Ahmed, the owner
of the jeep and pleaded that the jeep was used for carrying electors for his
benefit without any reference to him voluntarily by its owner Kabir Ahmed or by
any other person if that were so.
The respondent has not come forward with any
such plea.
Therefore, it is not possible to accept the
submission of the respondent's learned counsel Mr. S.K. Sinha that in view of
the fact that it is the appellant's case that Kabir Ahmed is a very close
friend of the respondent, Kabir Ahmed himself could have put his jeep to use
for carrying electors for the benefit of the respondent without any request for
the use or the jeep on the part of 25 the respondent. Therefore, the only other
possibility is that the respondent or someone else acting as his agent had
procured the jeep from Kabir Ahmed for the purpose of using it for the benefit
of the respondent in connection with the election, namely, to carry electors
for voting in his favour free of cost to themselves. Having regard to this
probability we are of the opinion that even slight evidence in this regard
would be sufficient for proving this aspect of the appellant's case.
Regarding this aspect of the appellant's,
case on the side of the respondent there is the interested evidence of the
respondent alone and he has stated that he had not asked for any jeep or any
other help from Kabir Ahmed in connection with the election held in 1977 and
that Kabir Ahmed did not help him in any way in that election. The evidence of
the respondent is absolutely unreliable as stated earlier having regard to the
fact that it is clearly established by the evidence that the jeep USJ 5226
belonging to Kabir Ahmed was actually used for carrying electors who were
proceeding to vote in favour of the respondent free of cost to themselves and
that it was seized by the officials when it was being driven by Kabir Ahmed's
nephew Tabrez Ahmed, white the electors seated in the jeep. The evidence on
record clearly proves and it is not challenged by the respondent's learned
counsel but is on the other hand conceded by him that Kabir Ahmed had helped
the respondent by allowing his jeep USJ 5226 driven by his own nephew Tabrez
Ahmed for the free conveyance of electors who were proceeding to the booth for
voting in favour of the respondent. The appellant's polling agent P.W. 6 has
stated in his evidence that the respondent had borrowed Kabir Ahmed's jeep for
the conveyance of electors from their respective places to the booth had for
their return to their places from the booth. He has also stated that one of the
two jeeps used for carrying electors to vote for the respondent is USJ 5226. He
has denied the suggestion that the jeep USJ 5226 was not used at all for
carrying electors on the day of poll. Sahib Mian, P.W. 16 is a muslim barber
belonging to Haripur, which is also known as Sikta. He was an elector who had
cast his vote in the election held in 1977. He knows the respondent as well as
Kabir Ahmed who 26 owns a jeep and a mill at Parsa. He has deposed that when he
was given a share to Kabir Ahmed at his mill in Parsa, three persons including
the respondent went there and that the respondent asked, Kabir Ahmed agreed to
give it to him. He has denied the suggestion that he has given false evidence.
P.W. 43 has stated in his evidence that the
respondent and Kabir Ahmed went to his village on day prior to the day of the
poll and asked him to vote for the respondent and told him that a jeep had been
borrowed from Kabir Ahmed to carry voters and that accordingly a jeep driven by
Tabrej Ahmed came on the next day and carried female electors. No doubt, P.W.
43 and his wife P.W. 42 are casual laborers P.W. 43 has denied the suggestion
that he had worked for the appellant in that election and that he has been
tutored to give false evidence. There is no satisfactory reason for disbelieving
the evidence of these three witnesses P.Ws. 6, 16 and 43 of whom P.W. 6 was no
doubt the appellant's polling agent. It is not possible to reject the evidence
of P.W. 6 merely because he was admittedly the appellant's polling agent,
especially having regard to the fact that his evidence is in a way corroborated
by the evidence of P.Ws. 16 and 43. The respondent R.W. 43 has admitted in his
evidence that Kabir Ahmed and others own a mill and that Kabir Ahmed is a
partner in that mill business. As stated earlier, he has admitted that Kabir
Ahmed's brother Nazir Ahmed was his polling agent and that Tabrez Ahmed is the
nephew of Kabir Ahmed and Nazir Ahmed. The evidence of P.W. 75 shows that
Tabrej Ahmed did not even hold driving licence when the was found to be driving
the jeep USJ 5226 carrying electors to the booth on the day of poll and that he
was prosecuted separately for that offence under the Motors Vehicles Act.
There is evidence of Daroga Mahato, P.W. 56,
to show that the respondent and Kabir Ahmed were good friends and that Kabir
Ahmad's father Sharif Ahmad was sitting about 100 yards away from the booth on
the day of poll. The learned Trial Judge has found that Kabir Ahmad is a good
friend of the respondent and that he and his father had worked for the
respondent in the election held in 1977. Inspite of all these facts the
respondent has not called Kabir Ahmad as his witness to deny that he had
procured the jeep USJ 5116 from Kabir Ahmed for the conveyance of his electors.
He has not examined even Tabrez Ahmad though he had been admittedly named as
one of his witnesses in 27 the list of witnesses submitted on his behalf. He
would say that to the best of his knowledge Kabir Ahmad did not possess any
jeep and that he submitted the list of witnesses by merely looking into the
voters list without applying his mind because he was pressurized by his lawyer
to file a tentative list of witnesses as soon as possible and was informed by
his lawyer that if he did not file his list of witnesses he would lose his case
on that ground alone. It is not possible to accept this evidence of the
respondent as well having regard to the fact that it is stated without any
denial that he himself is a lawyer, it is improbable that he would have been
pressurize by his lawyer and that he filed the list of witnesses merely by
booking into the voters' list without applying his mind as to who should be
cited as his witness. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that it is
not possible to place any reliance on the interested evidence of the respondent
R.W. 45 on the question of procuring the jeep USJ 5226 from its owner Kabir
Ahmad. The evidence of P.W. 16 is most natural and reliable.
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for
rejecting his evidence which could not be outrode evidence. We accept the
evidence of P.Ws. 6, 16 and 43 on this aspect of the appellant's case and find
that the respondent had procured the jeep USJ 5226 from his close friend Kabir
Ahmad for the free conveyance of his electors and that the jeep was, thereafter
used for that purpose on the day of poll and seized by the officials P.Ws. 69,
73 and 81 when it was being used for the conveyance of the electors P.Ws.
10,11, 42 and others including P.W. 67 free of cost to themselves.
The appellant has thus proved satisfactorily
all the three requirements of clause (5) of s. 123 of the Act. The respondent
has therefore, to be held guilty of corrupt practice falling under that clause
which is ordinarily difficult to prove. We think that such corrupt practice which
is very largely resorted to in the elections could be avoided by either
locating polling booths within walking distance of the electors or by having
mobile polling stations. We accordingly allow this appeal in regard to this
item of corrupt practical one with costs qualified Rs. 5,000 and hold that the
res- 28 pondent was guilty of corrupt practice under s. 123(5) of the Act in
regard to his election in 1977 as a member of the Bihar Legislative Assembly
from No. 5 Sikta Constituency in West Champaran district.
N.V.K. Appeal allowed.
Back