Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The appellant Bapat PW1 in his statement deposed that voter cards had been issued about eight days prior to the poll to every voter as mentioned in the voters list Ex.74 and according to his estimation the cost of printing of the voter cards would be Rs.2,25,000/-. In the course of his statement he, however, admitted that in the case of respondent No.2, Shri B. L. Purohit voter cards had also been issued to the voters but went on to say that the same had been got printed by the BJP at its own expense and were distributed by the workers of the B.J.P. without any expense being incurred or borne by respondent No.2 himself. With regard to the publication of the posters, he deposed that the posters had been used by the returned candidate extensively. Specimen of some of the posters were produced as Ex.75 to Ex.78. PW1, asserted that the expenditure for the printing of voter cards and the posters in the case of the returned candidate was borne by the first respondent himself and not by anyone else.

Appellant No.1 Bapat, appearing as PW1 in his statement asserted that each one of the voters in the constituency had received such an inland letter from respondent No. 1 but admitted during his cross examination that he had no idea whether the letters had actually been signed by the first respondent or by someone else. The petitioner also examined Shri JD Kotwal PW56 as the Hand-writing Expert to identify the signatures of Respondent No. 1 on Annexures 13 and 14 (Ex.79 and 80), and to compare the same with the admitted signatures of the first respondent. The Hand-writing Expert PW56, however, did not support the case of the election petitioner and deposed that no opinion could be expressed regarding the authorship or otherwise of the disputed signatures on Ex.79 and 80 (Annexure 13 and 14). With the denial by respondent No.1 that he had neither signed those letters nor sent any such letters to the electorate and the evidence of the Hand-writing Expert PW56, the appellants must be held to have failed to prove that the letters like Annexures 13 and 14 were signed by respondent No.1 or that he was responsible for sending those letters to the electorate. The argument of Dr. Ghatate that even if the letters had not been signed by respondent No.1, but since the same had been sent as an appeal to vote for him, it should be presumed that he was the author and sender of the letters, does not appeal to us. The court can only decide the case on the basis of the evidence led and not on what ought to have been led. In the instant case, the election petitioners have failed to examine any witness to show that the letters (like Annexure 13 and 14) had in fact been sent by respondent No.1 to the electorate. The letters were, on the face of it, sent by the Sangathan. No evidence has been led to show that the money spent by the Sangathan had been provided by respondent No.1 either or that the Sangathan was a non-existant body. The allegation has remained totally unsubstantiated. It was certainly not obligatory for the returned candidate under the circumstances, to have produced any witness from the Sangathan to prove that Sangathan had sent the letters on its own or that it had also incurred the expenditure itself. Since, the case of the returned candidate categorically had been that those letters were neither signed by him nor sent by him nor did he incur any expenditure in respect thereof, it was for the election petitioners to establish the charge by leading reliable and satisfactory evidence. The evidence of appellant Bapat PW1, to the effect that he had made inquiry from the Charity Commissioner and learnt that there was no such Sangathan registered with the Charity Commissioner, to urge that the Sangathan was a `fake' organisation and was not a genuine society, ignores the fact that the registration of such a Sangathan is not necessarily to be done only with the Charity Commissioners. The petitioner admittedly made no inquiry from any other quarter to find out whether or not the Sangathan was in fact in existence or not. The intrinsic evidence of the document shows that the letters were sent by the Sangathan and keeping in view the evidence of the handwriting expert, it appears that the letters bore the name of `Datta Meghe' and not his signatures. The petitioner could have produced some witness from the Sangathan to show that no such letters had been sent by the Sangathan. The petitioners did not even summon a witness from the Sangathan alongwith the record. Had it been done and if the summons could not be served because of the alleged non-existence of such a Sangathan, it may have been possible for the petitioner to argue that the Sangathan was a fake organisation and that an inference may be drawn that the letters had been sent by respondent No.1 at his expense but no such inference can be drawn in favour of the appellants in view of the facts and circumstances existing on the record. Respondent No.1 had disclosed the name of Shri Bhasme as one of the officers of the Sangathan in his testimony and the appellants should have sought permission of the Court to summon Shri Bhasme at that stage atleast but they did not do so for reasons best known to them. We are unable to agree with Dr. Ghatate, that the evidence should have been led by the returned candidate to prove that actually the letters had been sent by the Sangathan after incurring the expenses itself and the petitioners should not be expected to lead such evidence. The onus to prove the charge was on the election petitioners and in the absence of any satisfactory evidence adduced to discharge that onus, the returned candidate was under no obligation to prove that he was not responsible for committing the corrupt practice. Again, it is not the case of the appellants that the expenditure had been incurred by the Sangathan, with the consent of the returned candidate or his election agent nor is it their case that the returned candidate had undertaken to reimburse the expenditure incurred by the Sangathan. The trial court, in our opinion, after properly considering and appreciating the evidence rightly found that there was no evidence on the record to support the plea that the first respondent had spent the amount as alleged on the postage and printing of the inland letters of the type, Annexure 13 and 14 (Ex.79 and 80) or that he had sent those letters to every voter in the constitutency. From the material on the record, there is no scope even to raise a strong suspicion against the first respondent in that behalf. The appellants appear to be labouring under the wrong impression that once they make an allegation against the returned candidate, their responsibility is over and it is for the returned candidate to prove his innocence. It is against the essential principles of election law. At the risk of repetition it may be stated that where allegations of corrupt practice are alleged, it is for the election petitioners to prove the charge against the returned candidate beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the court. The obligation of the returned candidate to rebut the allegations by leading evidence arises only after the election petitioners have led dependable evidence in support of the charge of corrupt practice and not till then. The appellants have in the present case failed to do so in respect of the charge relating to issue No.5(b)(v) and accordingly we agree with the High Court that the returned candidate was not required to refute the charge by leading evidence on this behalf. The issue is accordingly decided against the appellants and we confirm the finding of the High Court.