Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Another circumstance that points in the same direction is that the appellants, if they were in fact kept in illegal confinement, made no attempt at all to file any complaints either with the Police or before a Magistrate so as to seek redress against this criminal offence committed against them. Even on 22nd January, 1967, when appellant No. 1 addressed the meeting at 'Durgada Bailu' in Hubli, he did not tell the people, about his illegal confinement and the corrupt practice committed by the workers of respondent No. 1 in order to obtain his withdrawal. The most telling circumstance, however, which leaves no room for doubt that the version of the appellants about their confinement in the house of R. W. 3 until the early hours of 22nd January, 1967, is false, is that an item appeared in the newspaper 'Vishal Karnataka' in the morning issue of 22nd January, 1967, saying that one only out of the five candidates who had withdrawn their candidature had been made to withdraw his nomination paper by use of force and great threat; and it was learnt that, as against this, 'a notice had been caused to be given through a Pleader. Appellant No. 1 himself admitted. that this newspaper is a daily morning paper so that this particular issue came out on the morning of 22nd January, 1967. According to the version given by appellants 1 and 2, they were kept in confinement at the residence of R. W. 3 until released at about 4-30 a.m. on 22nd January whereafter they proceeded to Hubli and, for the first time, gave their version of confinement to 'their lawyer, P. W. 2, at about 3 p.m. According to them, they did not mention their confinement and use of force or of threats against them to- anyone else until they were able to consult P, W. 2 At about 3 p.m. If this evidence, was true, it is incomprehensible how the news of obtaining withdrawal of a nomination paper by use of force and great threat could appear in the morning issue of 22nd January, 1967 which came out several hours earlier. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the appellants, tried to explain away this news by comparing it with another item of news appearing in an issue of the newspaper 'Prajavani' published from Bangalore on the morning of 22nd January, 1967. The news item in it purports to be dated 20th January, 1967 and is to the effect that the Chief Minister is about to bring about the first and the most important success to the Mysore Pradesh Congress by his uncontested election from the Shiggaon Assembly Constituency. It mentions that, as the other contestants had withdrawn their candidature, only the candidature of respondent No. 1 was remaining in Shiggaon Constituency and he was going to be declared elected uncontested on the 23rd January, 1967, which was the last date fixed for withdrawal of candidature. From the fact that this news item was published as an item of 20th January, it was argued that there must have been a pre-arranged plan to manoeuvre the withdrawal of all candidates from the Shiggaon Constituency for the purpose of achieving uncontested return of respondent No. 1, because there could not be and there were no withdrawals on 20th January which was the date for filing nominations, and the evidence also proves clearly that the withdrawals, in fact, took place on 21st January, 1967, which was the date of scrutiny. It, however, appears to us that, in this newspaper, the date January 20 as the date of the news item is incorrect. If, in Bangalore, this news item had been received by the newspaper on 20th January, it would surely have been published in the issue of 21st January. The very fact that it was published in the issue of 22nd January shows that this news must have been received by the newspaper on 21st January and the date January 20 printed in it is an error in printing. No newspaper would unnecessarily delay such a news item by full 24 hours. On the 21st January, according to the evidence given by the Returning Officer and other witnesses examined on behalf of respondent No. 1, all the withdrawals had taken place by about 3 to 4 p.m. of course, thereafter, this news about withdrawals could have been flashed to Bangalore and received there later in the evening of 21st January, so that it could be published in the morning issue of 'Prajavani' of 22nd January, 1967. The publication of this news is, therefore, not at all comparable with the publication in Vishal Karnataka, to which we referred earlier. It is significant that the newspaper Vishal Karnataka, which is published at Hubli, was interested in appellant No. 1. This is clear from the circumstance that, after printing this news item about use of force and great threat to induce a candidate to withdraw his nomination, this very newspaper published a number of 54 5 appeals to raise funds in order to support the case of appellant No. 1 for challenging the uncontested election of respondent No. 1. The publication of these appeals in subsequent issues of Vishal Karnataka has been admitted by appellant No. 1. The subscriptions were to be sent to Vishal Karnataka Office. In these circumstances, an inference clearly follows that, in fact, appellants No. 1 and 2 were not kept in confinement at the residence of R. W. 3 and they deliberately made out this story to challenge the uncontested election of respondent No. 1, some time on the evening of 21st January, 1967. Having decided that the election 'should be challenged on such a ground, they gave out this news item to Vishal Karnataka; but they did not realise that the publication of this news item would itself betray them and make it clear that they could not have been kept in confinement up to the early hours of 22nd January, 1967, which was the version they decided to put forward against respondent No. 1. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the appellants, also tried to suggest that this news item might refer to the withdrawal of candidature of some candidate other than appellant No. 1, but we can see no basis for such a suggestion. No witness has made any statement indicating that any candidate other than appellant No. 1 had the grievance that the withdrawal of his nomination had been obtained by use of force or threats. None of the witnesses of the appellants, including P.W. 2, S.S. Sattar, their legal adviser, have stated that any other candidate was made to withdraw in that manner. On the other hand, in the election petition itself, the appellants have come forward with the case that the withdrawals of all other candidates, except his own, were voluntary and valid. This plea was put forward in order to claim the seat for appellant No. 1 himself on the election of respondent No. 1 being declared void; but this pleading clearly negatives any possible suggestion that there was some other candidate who was also subjected to threats and use of force to induce him to withdraw his candidature. Obviously, this news item could refer to no one else, except appellant No. 1 and it could only appear in the morning issue of 22nd January, because the appellants were not under confinement on die 21st January, 1967. This piece of evidence, thus leaves no room for doubt that the entire story of use of inducements, threats and illegal confinement has been concocted by the appellant so that the witnesses examined in support of it cannot be at all relied upon. In these circumstances, we hold, as we have indicated earlier, that the High Court was justified in not insisting on the production of Patil Puttappa as a witness on behalf of respondent No. 1 or in not examining him as a court witness. The version put forward by the appellants was I controverted in his evidence by R. W. 4, Mahalinga Shetty who, according to the appellants, was in the company of Patil Puttappa at both stages when bribe was offered to appellant No. 1 and, later, when he was induced by threats and illegal confinement to withdraw his candidature. Further, R. W. 3, was examined to controvert the version of the incident alleged to have taken place at his residence during the illegal confinement of the appellants. Such evidence being available and the version put forward on behalf of the appellants having been shown to be false by various circumstances indicated by us above, there could be no need for the Court to take the step of examining Patil Puttappa as a court witness. The High Court was fully justified in holding that the charges of corrupt practices of undue influence and bribery had not been proved against respondent No. 1.