Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Paragraph 20.

"Now we have set up the Dehati Conference on November 20, 1966. Now you do what you please. Now no villager will come to you for being hurt, nor shall anyone else. Now you fix an iron curtain outside your town, so that nobody casts eyes on your golden city and you enjoy the wealth robbed from the poor."

The High Court with reference to paragraphs 16, 17 and 20 of the pamphlet Ex. P. W. 1/11 held that the allegations con- tained therein constitute statements of fact in relation to the personal conduct and character of the respondent. With reference to paragraph 16, the High Court held that the respondent is shown to have apologized after paying some money and that he extricated himself from a criminal case and that the respondent is shown to be an associate of drunkards on whose support he comes and that these statements of fact were false and have not been proved by the appellant to have been made in a bona-fide manner. Again with reference to paragraph 17, the High Court is of the view that the respondent is charged with negligence and is stated to be responsible for the misfortune of certain arrested persons. In particular the High Court has held that in this paragraph "the petitioner is shown to have preached cow- slaughter (which is indeed heinous from Hindu point of view)." The High Court has further held that there are also allegations that the respondent has committed acts of fraud. These averments have been held by the High Court to be wrong and false statements of facts and not proved to be correct and such a type of propaganda has materially affected the prospects of the respondent's election as they touched his personal conduct.

With reference to the averments in paragraph 20 of the Ex. P. W. 1 /II, the High Court is of the view that there is an allegation that the respondent has looted the property of the poor and that he is further charged with appropriating the looted property. Such an allegation, which is false, relates to the personal character of the respondent. The High Court winds up its discussion on paragraphs 16, 17 and 20 of Ex. P. W. 1/11 as follows:

"The above referred to allegations made in paras 16, 17 and 20 are in my opinion statements of fact which are in relation to the personal character and conduct of the petitioner. He is described as one who apologized for extricating himself from a criminal case by paying money to the other side. He is shown to be an associate of drunkards on whose support he counts and in whose company he moves. He is also shown to be a preacher of cow-slaughter (a malafide statement which is likely to rouse the wrath of Hindu Janta against him and to malign him). He is said to be begging for votes from door to door (on humiliating terms). He is said to have committed acts of fraud and in the end what is worst is that he is asked to appropriate the looted property of the poor. The statements of facts have been made in the booklet Ex. P. W. 1/ II with the clear intention of maligning and defaming the petitioner and degrading him in the eyes of the voters. These statements are false and have not been proved to be correct. These statements of fact have been made by an active worker of the Congress who was not only a worker in election of the respondent but also his polling agent. It is true that the booklet was published before the notification calling upon the candidates to file n omination papers in the Constituency was made. May be also that the booklet was published only in reply to the poster Ex. P. W. 1/ b entitled 'Dihati Bhai Hoshiar Bash' issued by Jan Sangh as is argued. But it was issued on the eve of the election and in this there is a clear mention of election propaganda."
expense of the people of the villages who are comparatively stated to be poor. Therefore, paragraph 20 again, in our opinion, does not contain any statement relating to the personal character or conduct of the respondent. Taking up paragraph 16, the High Court has held that it con- tains two I statements which relate to the personal character or conduct of the respondent, namely, (a) that- the respondent apologized for extricating himself from a criminal case by paying money to the other side, and (b) the respondent is shown to be an associate of drunkards on whose support he counts and in whose company he moves. Broadly, the statements in paragraph 16, relate to the attack of two persons by the urban people including the respondent, their arrest and the case instituted by them being dropped or compromised on the respondent asking for a pardon by paying some small amount. There is a further statement that the respondent relies on the support of his companions who are found drinking from morning till evening and the respondent not having taken any action against them, cannot blame the villagers Here again the theme seems to be the same, namely, of the town people receiving a more favorable treatment than the people in the villages. There is no such averment as understood by the High Court that the respondent is an associate of drunkards on whose support he counts and in whose company he moves. On the other hand, there is a statement that some of the sathis of the respondent are found drinking from morning till evening and that the respondent relies on their support. This support, referred to, must relate to the political support that the respondent derives from such persons. This averment will have to be taken along with the statement contained in the earlier part of Paragraph 16, that the respondent along with his urban friends after attacking the two persons mentioned therein has raised the question that the people from the village come to town and drink and roam aimlessly like vagabonds. Read in his manner the idea is quite clear, namely, that the respondent and his other urban friends charge the-villagers of drinking when they come to town and the villagers in turn charge the respondent that his own companions in the town are also persons who drink. There is no reference in these allegations to the personal character or conduct of the respondent. But, on the other hand, it is really a criticism by the village people of the habits and manners of the people in the town in retaliation to the allegations made against the village people. Therefore, it follows that there is no such statement in paragraph 16 to the effect that the respondent is an associate of drunkards on whose support he counts and in whose company he moves. This leads us with the question whether the High Court is correct in its finding that in paragraph 16, the respondent is described as one who apologized for extricating himself from a criminal case by paying in money to the other side. So far as this aspect is concerned, Mr. Garg, referred us to the evidence to show that a criminal complaint was actually filed against the respondent and others and that the matter was compromised on an apology tendered by the respondent. If that is so, the counsel urged, the statements contained herein, even assuming that they relate to the personal character of the respondent, are true and therefore they do not amount to corrupt practice under Section 123 (4). On, the other hand, Mr. Bhalgotra, learned counsel for the respondent, pointed out that the"evidence"regarding the filing of a complaint and the respondent having tendered an apology is unsatisfactory and such evidence should not be acted upon. The evidence bear- ing on this matter may be referred to. in paragraph 16,the two persons who are stated to have come to Riasi and assaulted are Dhani Ram and Baldev Singh. Baldev Singh has given evidence as R. W. 37. He has deposed that about two years prior to his giving, evidence. he and Dhani Ram had gone to the town of Riasi and visited the shop of Shyam Lal Jargar.When a piece of timber was sought to be used as fire wood by Shyam Lal, Dhani Ram tried to seize the piece of timber on the ground that it belonged to the firm of jodha Mal and Company, in which lit was employed.On this a hue and cry was raised by the people of the townwhich included the respondent. 'All of them beat the witness andDhani Ram. After refering to the fact that their com that he went With Dhani Ram and Amar Nath R. W. 43 to udhampur to file a complaint before the court. die, speaks further to the fact of filing of the complaint and that on the next day a compromise was brought about between the parties. He has produced Ex. R.W. 37 / 1, the complaint and the vakalat executed by him in favour of Durga Dutt,Vakil, R. W. 18, has been produced as R. W. 18/2A. R. W. 12, Fatch Singh also refers to the incident of attack on Beldev Singh R. W. 37 and Dhani Ram, in which the respondent and certain other town people also took part. He speaks to having stood as a surety for Baldev Singh and Dhani Ram for obtaining their release. He refers to having delivered a letter to Durga Dutt Vakil, a Udhampur and to Baldev Singh and Dhani Ram coming to Udhampur to file the complaint. R. W. 18 is a lawyer at Udhampur. He speaks of Baldev Singh and Dhani Ram having come to him on September 19, 1966 with a letter from Mr. Raghunath Das Advocate, Riasi. He has also spoken to Baldev Singh and Dhani Ram giving him instructions to file the criminal complaint. He has produced the vakalats Ex. R. W 18/2 and Ex. R. W. 18/2A, executed by Dhani Ram and Baldev Singh respectively in respect of the criminal complaint, He has referred to the fact that he signed the complaint petitions and filed them in the Court of the A. D. M. Udhampur on September 20. 1966. The Magistrate forwarded the two complaints to the Station House Officer, Riasi, for investigation. He has stated the reasons as to why the vakalats were retained by him, by saying that when a complaint petition is sent by the court to the police for inquiry through the complainant In self, the vakalats are retained by the lawyer. He has no doubt admitted that he is the maternal uncle of the appellant. 11- 1 S.C. India/71 R.W. 43 Amar Nath has spoken to his knowing Baldev Singh and Dhani Ram and also to the incident which took place in Riasi and their being beaten by the people including the respon- dent. He has further referred to R.W. 12 requesting him to accompany Baldev Singh and Dhani Ram to Udhampur for filing a criminal complaint and to his having actually accompanied them. He further deposed to R. W. 18 being engaged as a counsel and to the filing of the complaints by Baldev Singh and Dhani Ram. in cross-examination this witness has stated that the respondent got the case compromised and the various accused in the ceiminal complaints were told that if any fine was imposed on them, it will be paid by the respondent and his party, the Jan Sangh.

We are not inclined to accept the evidence of the respondent ,on this point in view of the overwhelming oral and documentary evidence, which conclusively establishes the events leading up to the filing of the compliant Ex. R. W. 37 /II and to the proceedings being dropped because of a compromise. No doubt R. W. 37, who was one of the complainants does not speak to any apology being given by the respondent, but we have already pointed out that R. W. 43 has clearly stated that the criminal case was compromised. In view of all these circumstances the inference is irresistible that the criminal case must have come to a close because of a compromise arrived at by the parties and probably due to some sort of apology given by the respondent. But even if it is held that there is no evidence that the respondent actually tendered any apology, nevertheless, as the other allegations are held to have been substantially true, any reference to respondent asking for a pardon in paragraph 1, must only be considered to be a highly exaggerated version given by the author of the booklet. But on that ground it cannot be held that the allegations regarding the filing of the criminal complaint are not true. Therefore, the view of the High Court that the statement in paragraph 16 that the respondent apologized and extricated himself from criminal case by paying money, is false, cannot be accepted, as we am of the opinion, that the said allegation has been proved to be correct. To conclude there are no statements of fact in paragraphs 17 and 20 of Ex. R. W. 1/ II in relation to the personal character or conduct of the respondent. There is no allegation in paragraph 16 that the respondent is an associate, of drunkards. The averment in the said paragraph that some of the companions of the respondent on whose political support the respondent relies are found drinking from morning till evening, does not relate to the personal character or conduct of the respondent. The allegation in the said paragraph regarding the respondent extricating himself from a criminal case filed by Baldev Singh and Dhani Ram has been proved to be true and as such falls outside Section 132(4) of the Act. Therefore, it follows that the finding of the High Court that the statements contained in paragraphs 16, 17 and 20 amount to corrupt practice under Section 132(4) of the Act, cannot be sustained. On the above conclusion arrived at by us it becomes unneces- sary to consider the second contention of Mr. Garg that the High Court's finding regarding the publication and distribution of the booklet Ex. P. W. 1 /11, is erroneous and is not based upon the evidence in the case. Mr. Bhalgotra, learned counsel for the respondent however, has attempted to support the judgment of the High Court by attacking the findings recorded against his client in respect of paragraphs 7, 8, 10, 18 and 19 in Ex. P. W. 1/ II. He has not attacked the findings recorded by the learned Judge on other allegations of corrupt practice made by the respondent in his election petition. In Ramanbhai Ashabhai Patel v. Dabhi Ajitkumar Fulsinji and ,others (1) it has been held by this Court that On a consideration of justice, this Court should permit the respondent to Support the judgment in his favour even upon the grounds which were, negatived in that judgment. The same view has been reiterated recently by this Court in Shri Thepfulo Nakhro Angami v. Shrimati Raveluei alias Rani M. Shaiza (2). Though the above decisions were given under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, Mr. Grag, learned counsel for the appellant, accepted the position that the same principles are applicable to the present appeal which has been filed under the Act. We have permitted the respondent to support the judgment in his favour by establishing, if he can, that the findings recorded by the High Court against him with regard to paragraphs 7, 8, 10, 18 and 19, are erroneous.