Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This leaves only issue No. 4 concerning the allegation of bribery. This is the issue which was pressed before us as the main ground in support of the appeal. The allegations relating to the corrupt practice of bribery are contained in paragraph 13(ii) and (iv) of the election petition and the particulars are set out in schedule X thereto. Paragraphs 13(ii) and (iv) state:

"13. That the material facts relating to corrupt practice of bribery committed by respondent No. 1, his workers and agents with his consent are given hereinafter.
"13. That the averments made in para- graph 13 of the petition ...... are vague, absurd, wrong and baseless. No person can be stopped in donating certain amount in public institution or the charitable one. Donation to an institution does not amount to bribery. The construction of the part 6 indicate igno- rance of the petitioner who is not aware in spite the legal advice. The alleged allega- tion of bribery is denied in toto and is liable to be dismissed.

In paragraph 13(iii) of the written statement the first respondent refers to the contents in schedule X of the election petition as "too vague and incorrect, false and baseless". Counsel for the appellant contended that the denial amounted to this only that donation to a public or charitable institution could not constitute bribery. We think that a correct and complete reading of paragraph 13 of the written statement the construction put on it on behalf of the appellant would not be justified. It cannot be overlooked that the allegation of bribery is also denied ''in toto" and as false and baseless. The additional con- tention that donation to public or charitable institutions could not amount to bribery appears to be a legal plea asserting that even on the statements made in paragraph 13 of the election petition the allegation of bribery was not sustainable.

The other allegation with regard to the issue of bribery is that a sum of Rs. 3000/- was paid to Niamat Khan, Pradhan of village Bishambara, for constructing a mosque to induce the Muslim voters of that village to vote in favour of the first respondent. The only witness examined to prove this allegation is P.W. 24, Usman. According to him on the evening previous to the date of poll, grand-father of the first respondent came to Niamat Khan and paid Rs. 3000/- to him ;n return for his promise that he would see that all the Muslim votes were cast in favour of the first respondent. On cross-examination the witness admits that he does not know what happened to that money and that he was disclosing this fact for the first time in court. He is not named either in the election petition or on the schedule thereto. He came to depose without receiving any summons. Niamat Khan has been exam- ined by the respondent as his witness and he denies the allegation as totally false. The High Court therefore did not rightly put any reliance on the evidence of this wit- ness. The appellant had no personal knowledge of the facts alleged in support of the case of bribery. Exhibit P. 10, the letter he addressed to the District Magistrate on Febru- ary 25, 1974 of course contains a vague reference to these allegations, but this, as the High Court has said, seems to have been written "with a view to create some sort of an evidence in case. election petition was necessitated to be filed".