Laxminarayan v. Returning Officer

822 LAXMINARA YAN AND ANOTIIER v. RETURNING OFFICER AND OTHERS _September_ 28, 1973 [P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND S. N. DWLYEDI, JJ.] _Representation_ _of_ _the People_ _Act_ (43 of 1951). _Ss._ 98, 116A, 119, _123(4)Corrupt practice-Scope of review by appellate Court-'lncurred'_ _in_ _S·_ 119, _meaning_ _of-Conduct_ _of_ _Election Rules,_ 1961, _r._ _63-Scope_ _of._ _Evidence_ _Act_ ( 1 _of_ 1872) _Ss,_ 98 _and_ 159 _to_ _161-Record_ _of_ _speeches_ _in_ _shorthand and long hand-Admissibility._ _'Bhrashtachar', meaning of._ JD and RS were two of the five candidates for election to the Lok Sabha. JD was the returned candidate .and RS polled the next highest number. of votes. After the counting of the votes, RS applied for a recount under r. 63 of the Cond.uct of Election RuL~s, 1961. In the petition he alleged that the difference in votes obtained by JD and himself was marginal, that more than 7000 votes were declared invalid; that votes have not only been declared as invalid but also that ''admitted disputed votes" were not properly counted, and that . the number of votes declared invalid materially affected the result of the election. He also alleged certain irregularities. The Returning Officer directed that all the votes cast in favour of JD and RS as well as the rejected votes should be recounted. There was a slight discrepancy in the number of votes obtained by each of the two candidates, and in the number of rejected votes, in the recount, but there was no effect on the result of the election. In a petition challenging the election of JD the followin~ grounds were urged, (!) that the election should be set aside under s. IQO(!) (iii) and (iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, because, the votes have-not been properly counted as valid or invalid and there was a violation of rule 63; and (2) that JD was guility of corrupt practice under s. 123 ( 4) of the Act in that statements were made and __ documents published, by person, with the consent of JD attacking the personal Character of RS; that his election agent distributed a weekly containing an attack on the personal character of RS; and that JD himself made such statements and published such documents. The petition was dismis.ed by the High Court. Dismissing the appeal to this Court (except in respect of costs), HELD : _(I)_ The plea in the election petition that valid votes have been counted as invalid and invalid votes as valid would not include the plea that anY valid votes of RS and other candidates have been counted as valid for JD. Therefore, it was not necessary to recount the votes of candidates other than JD and RS. On the allegations contained in the application .to the Returning Officer he could not have ordered a recount of all the votes and his order directing recount was not in contravention of rule 68. The discrepancies in the: number of votes was satisfactorily explained and there was no acceptable evi. dence of the alleged irregularities. [826 C; 827 A-BJ (2)(i) Section !16A of the Act provides for appeal to this Court . from an order of the High Court dismissing an election petition and an appeal lies on issues of both of law and of facts. Section 116C applies the Code of Civil Procedure as nearly as possible in the determination of the appeal. The power of the appell,ate courts is very wide. It can reappraise the evidence and reverse the trial court's findings of fact, but the practice of the appellate court however, has uniformly been to give the greatest assurance to the assi:~sme~t of the evidence made by the judge who hears the witnesses and watches their demeanour and judges of their credibility in the first instance. The appellate court may interfere with a finding of fact if the trial court is shown to have overlooked any material feature in the evidence of a witness or if the balance of probabilities as _io_ the credibility of the witness is inclined agai_ns~ the opinion, B #### c I) E G H A B c D F G H LAXMINARAYAN _v._ RETURNING OFFICER _(Dwivedi,_ /.) 823 of th.:: trial court. This limitation on the power of the appellate court · in a tir&t appeal from decrees will also apply to an election appeal undef s. 116A. ln an appeal bupien is on the- appellant to prove how the judgment under appeal is wrong. To establish this he must do something mote than merely ask for reassessment of the evidence. He must show wherein the assessment had gone wrong. This is especially so when the alleged corrupt practice is of a quasi cdminal nature; and this Court would be slow to disagree with the finding ot the High Court that such a charge was not established. [839 G-840 El _Sarav-eeraswami_ v. _Talluri,_ A.LR. 1949 P.C. 32, _Sarju Pershad_ v. _Raja_ _lwa-_ _leshwari Pratap Narain Singh,_ [1950] S.C.R. 781 at p. 784 per Mukherjea J., _Narbada Prasad_ v. _Chhagaul,_ [1969] 1 $.C.R. 499 at p. 504 by Hidayiltullah CJ., _D._ _P._ _Misra_ v. _Kam Narain_ _!>ilarnui,_ [1971] 3 S.C.R. 257 at p. 261 per !>bah. J., _Virendra Kumar Saklecha_ v. _Jagiiwan_ [1973] l S.C.C. 826, referred to. (ii) In the present case, the High Court was right in holding that there is no acceptable evidence, (a) of any consent given by JD to any one for the making of the various statements or the publishing of documents containing statements against the personal character ot RS and (b) of the distribution of the weekly, either by JD or his followers or agents. [834 B-C; 849 F; 850 _f._ HJ (iii) As _tegards the statements attributed to JD himself the evidence con~ sists of the "6ral evidence of some witnesses who claimed to have heard the: statements being made at various meetings, and the oral evidence of two police witnesses who .took down his speeches in shorthand and one speech in long. hand. While assessing the probative value of the oral evidence of the _police. witnesses it is necessary to remember that the report of a shorthand wnter is strictly speaking not subst_antive evidence as such, and it can only be used as a part of the oral evidence. Three conditions are, however, necessary for ad-mitti.ng such statements in evidence •. under s. 159 to 161 of the Evidence Act~ (a) the notes must have been taken down by the witnesses as and when thespeeches were being delivered or so soo1,1. afterwards that the speeches "'ere fresh in their memory, (b) the witnesses must be sure that the speeches have been correctly recorded by them, and (c) the notes. must be :Qroduced and shown to the adverse party if he requires them. In the present case the first condition may be taken to be satisfied. The third condition was also satisfied. _It_ could not be. said that merely because the notes of speeches were in short .. hand they would not be admissible in evidence and that they should have-been recorded in a language which could be understood by the adverse pa:rty, -According to section 98 of the Evidence Act evidence may be given to show the· meaning of illegi_ble or not commonly intelligible ·characters or of abbreviations· etc. Notes in shorhand may be said to in 'not commonly intelligible characters•· and 'abbreviations. [841 A-842 D] However, the record of the speeches, made by orie of these witnesses, i\i· not admissible ia the present case, ~~caus,e the second condition is not satis~ fied. The evidence shows that therl.! .ire various infirmities and that the extracts· were not a correct recording of the speeches made by JD. [842 F-G] _Kanti Prasad Jaysha11ker Yagni'k_ v. _Purshottamdas Ranc'hhoddas Patel_ [1969)" 3 S.C.R. 400 and _P._ _C._ _Purshothama Reddiar_ v. _S._ _Perumal_ (1972] 2 S.C.R. 646,. distinguished. (iv) As regards the other police witness according to his notes JD is alleged: to have made thl! following statements. (a) That RS was "Bhrasthachar," (b) 'This is a war_ between truth and power. We have to see whether truth wins· Jr ~ower wins. \Ve have: to 'ee whether truth wins or power lcses. whether falsehoo,l win~ or truth wins. We: have to see whether corruption wins )r purity, wins' and (c) 'You k.~ow his (RS) achievements and capacity. I d'J not wish to speak anything abo"Jt liim. • The word "Bhrashtachar" means a man of fallen conduct. The High Court, however, translated it to mean 'corruption', but in the context it is susceptible of the interpretation of a person who has fallen from orthodox conduct. It is 824 SUPREME COUR')' REPORTS [ 1974] 1 s.c.R. -one of those flourishes or hyperboles which are the common stock-in-trade of **A** **election speakers of exploit the emotions of the audience** **and** **tO** **augment their** popular support. As regards the other statements they do not refer to state **ments** **of fact** **in** **relation to** **the** **personal character or conduct** **of** **RS.** **There** **fore.** **the** **speeches** **attributed** **to** **JD** **do not** **make** **out** **any** **corrupt** practic~. The evidence of the other witnesses was rightly rejected by the High Court. 1846 F; 847 D-EJ (v) **The application for production** **of** **the** **summaries** **of** **the** **notes of the** **speeches said to** **have** **been sent** **by** **the** **police witnesses to** **the** **government for** **B** **corroborating** **the** **two** **witnesses should not** **be** **allowed, because** **apart** **from** **the** **fact that** **an** **elaborate** **inquiry** **will have to** **be** **made** **by** **examining a number** **of** **police witnesses** **and** **admitting** **a large** **number** **of documents for** **finding** **out** **whet-** **.her** **summaries** **or** **full** **reports** **were** **sent** **to** **the government,** **in** **view** **of** **the.** **findings** **that** **the** **record** **by** **one of** **the** **writings** **is** **subject to** **infirmities** **and** **that** **the** **statements** **in** **the** **record** **of** **the** **other witness** **did** **not** **amount** **to** **co1111pt** **practice,** **the** **production of such** **records** **will not** **advance** **the** **case of** **the** **appel-** lants. [847 F-848 CJ C **(vi) The contention of** **the** **appellants** **that** **those** **records** **would establish other** **jnstances of** **corrupt** **practice** **against** **JD** **cannot** **be** **entertained, because, such** **other** instanc?~ **were** **not pleaded** **in** **the** **election petition** **and** **JD** **bad** **no** **oppor·** tunity t~ deny them or disprove them. (848 C-D] (3) While dismissing the petition the High Court ordered that JD would be ·entitled to his costs including _costs_ at the scheduled rate of Rs. 400 /· per day **for** **52** **hearings,** **from** **the** **petitioners. The** **sum** **of** **Rs.** **400 /- per** **day** **is** **pres-** cribed by the Bombay High Court Rules for fees of counsel. Under s. 119 of **D** **the Representation of** **the** **People Act** **which** **deals with costs,** **"Costs** **sha II** **be** **in the discretion** **of the** **High** **Court** **provided** **thitt** **whether a petition** **is** **dismissed** **under clause** (a) **of** **section** **98** **the** **returned** **candidate shall** **be** **entitled to the** costs incurred by him in contesting the petition and accordingly the High Court shall make an order for coets in favour of the returned candidate". The petition in the present case was dismissed by the High Court under s. 98(a). But **the word** **'incurred'** **means** **actually** **spent.** **There** **is** **no proof** **of** **payment** **of** **any** l'ee to counsel by JD. Therefore, he was not entitled to the amount of R!. 400/ · **E** :per diem awarded by the High Court. [851 E-GJ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1014 of 1972. Appeal under section 116 of the Representation of People Act 1951, from the Judgment and Order dated 21st January, 1972 of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) at Nagpur in Election Petition No. 3 of 1971. **F** _Mc_ _N._ _Phadke, V._ G. _Palshikar, D. K. De_ and _H._ _E. Devani_ and _A._ G . _.R.atnapatkhi,_ fonh1n1ppellants. _A. K. Sen,_ _S._ _N._ _Sirpurkar,_ G. _l. Sanghi,_ _D._ _N. Mishra,_ _0._,C • _. Mathur,_ _J._ _B. Dadachanji,_ for respondent no. 2. _V._ _R._ _Manohar,_ _B._ _K. De,_ _H._ C. _Devani,_ _A._ C. _Ratnaparkhi_ and ~- _Balakrishnan_ and _N._ _M._ _Ghatate,_ for respondent,No. 3. _H._ _R._ _Khanna_ and _S._ _P._ _Nayar,_ for respondents Nos. 1 and 21. The Judgment of the Court was delivered,by DWNEDI, J. The· appellants, LaxrrJnarayan and Marotrao, filed ·an election petition challenging the election of J ambuwantrao Dhote to the Lok ·Sabha from 21 Nagpur Parliamentary Constituency. ·There were five candidates in the run. Dhote was one. He was G **H** A B ###### c D E F G H LAXMINARAYAN _V._ RETURNING OFFICER _(Dwivedi,_ _J.)_ 825 ' elected. The poll was on April 18, 1971. Dhote obtained 1,25,665 votes. The next highest votes were obtained by Rikhabchand Sharma. He polled 1,23,615 votes. The election was challenged on diverse gronnds. There were as many as 13 issues. The record of evidence is voluminous. The judgment of the High Court runs to 244 pages. The High Court decided all the issues against the appellants. Hence this appeal. Sri Phadke, counsel for the appellants, has not covered the whole ground again; he has confined his arguments to issues 2, 4, 5, 8 and 9. Thus the scope of inquiry is much narrower in the appeal. _Issue_ _No._ 2: Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) specifies the grounds on which the election of a returned candidate may be set aside. According to s. 100(1) (d) (iii), the election may be set aside if the result of the election of the returned candidate has been materially affected by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void. Section !OO(l)(d)(iv) provides that the election may be set aside if the result of the election of the retnrned candidate has been materially affected by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of the Act or of any Rules or Orders made under the-Act. Paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 of the election petition allege facts in respect of this issue. According to paragraph 14, votes were counted in the YMCA Hall on April 19, 1971. There were no proper arrangements for admission of the candidates and their counting agents at the count. A large number of people had entered into the Hall. The counting was not complete on the said date. There was some counting on the day following, that is, on April 20, 1971. The counting when completed revealed that 3,46,093 votes were polled in all., J. B. Dhote received 1,25,665 votes; R. C. Sharma, 1,23,615, 7425 votes were rejected votes. Para!V~ph 15 states that at the end of. the counting R. C. Sharma made an application to the Returning Officer claiming recount of votes. The Returning Officer directed that all votes cast in favonr of J. B. Dhote and R. C. Sharma as well as all the rejected votes should be re.counted. He did not order that the votes of other candidates also should he recounted. Paragraph 16 states that after the recount it was declared that 3,46,079 votes were polled in all. The total of J. B. Dhote came down to 1,25,550; of R. C. Sharma to 1,23,493. The number of rejected votes went up to 7,597. It is further alleged that the recount showed that 14 votes were missing, that many rejected votes were counted as valid and that there· is a difference in the aggregate of different candidates. Paragraph 15 then sums up : "It is, therefore, clear that the votes have not been properly counted as valid or invalid, without a proper 826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1974 j 1 S.C.R. scrutiny required under the law. This has very much materially affected the result of the election. In tact the recount should have been for the entire votes cast in the election." Paragraph 16 states that it was necessary to count all the votes as there was no proper recount by the Returning: Officer. The recount itself shows that many rejected votes were counted as valid and many valid votes were rejected. The tendered votes were not counted and 14 votes were missmg. The plea in paragraph 16 that valid votes have been counted as invalid and invalid votes as valid would not include the plea that many · valid votes of R. C. Sharma and other candidates have been counted as valid for Dhote. It was accordingly not necessary to recount the votes of candidates other than Dhote and R. C. Sharma. The recount of the rejected votes and of the votes of these two candidates was enough. The appellants gave an application in the High Court for inspection of all .the votes. This application was rejected by an order on November 15, 1971. For the reasons already discussed !lie application was rightly rejected. Rule 63 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 provides fiOr the. recbunt of votes. According to sub-rule (2) thereof recount of all . votes or any part may be claimed on behalf of any candidate. An application should be made on his behalf to the Returning Officer. The application should state the ground on which the recount is claimed. The Returning Officer shall decide the question of recount and make an order either accepting or rejecting the application. The order should set forth the reasons. He may allow the application in whole or in part. The application for recount made by R. C. Sharma is Ex. P. 21 Parazi:aph 1 of the application states that more than _7000_ votes were declared invalid. They were neither shown to him nor to hls agents. Lighting aHangements were not satisfactory so that marks could not be prli)j)erly read at the counting. Paragraph 6 states that the difference in votes obtained by Dhote and R. C. Shanna is marginal. The number of votes declared invalid has materially aff~cted the result of the election. Many unauthorised persons entered the hall and they were interfering with the process of counting. Paragraph 8 states that the votes declared invalid were not so declared in accordance with the prescribed procedure. "Admitted disputed votes" were not admitted according to the prescribed procedure. So the prayer for recounting of votes was made. The main charge is that the votes· have not only been declared as invalid but also that "admitted disputed votes"; were not pr_operly counted. The Returning Officer allowed partial recounting. He directed that all votes cast in favour of Dhote and R. C. Sharma and all the rejected and invalid votes should be recounted. The reason given by him is that the difference of votes cast in favour of Dhote and R. C. Sharma is only 2049. He says that "the margin is small and in the interest of justice I agree to have a recount of votes" as directed. Accordingly, the votes of Dhote and R. C. Sharma were recounted as also invalid votes. The recouutir:g had no effect on the result of election. A B c D E. ' G H. LAXMINARAYAN _V._ RETURNING OFFICER _(Dwivedi,_ J.) 827 On the allegation contained in the application the Returning Officer could not have ordered recount of.all the votes. In our view, the order of the Returning Officer directing recount was not in contravention of Rule 63. The appellants have examined several witnesses in support of the alleged irregularities, but that evidence has not been accepted by the High Court. Nothing has been shown to us for taking a different view. The Returning Officer has been examined by the appellants. He has stated that the count and recount have. been done in accordance with the prescribed procedure. He has also explained the apparently missing 14 votes on recount. According _to_ the Returning Officer. the discrepancy of 14 votes might be due to the mistake in counting the votes and making them into bundles of 50 each. In the recount they recounted only some of those bundles and not all. For the reasons discussed above, we accept the finding of the High Court on this issue. _Issue_ _No._ 4: Three or four days prior to poll the Nagpur City District Congress Committee published an appeal in the riame of Smt. Indira Gandhi _to_ the voters of the constituency for supporting Rikhabchand Sharma. On the le(t top of this printed appeal there is a photograph of · Smt. Indira Gandhi; on the right top there is the picture of a cow and a calf, the symbol of the Congress candidate. On the left bottom there is printed "New Delhi, 8 April, 1971 ;" on the right bottom appears the signature elf Smt. Indira Gandhi. On April 16, 1971 one Satya Narain Sharma issued a statement to the press in respect of this appeal. The next day, that is, April 17, Tarun Bharat, a newspaper, published a summary of his statement. The summary states that Satya Narain Sharma has expressed "doubt about the genuineness of the letter by the Prime Minister calling upon the voters to vote for Mr. Rikhabchand Sharma." The summary further states that "there is no seal of the Prime Minister's Secretariat on this letter, nor it is mentioned to whom this letter is addressed." Satya Narain Sharma is also stated to have expressed doubt that the Prime Minister, who has avoided even _to_ mention the name of a candidate, would have issued a letter in support of him. The election petition states that Satya Narain Sharma was an agent of Dhote and that he issued the statement with the consent of Dhote. The statement was false and was believed to be falsf. by Dhote. I_t was reasonably calculated _to_ prejudice the prospects of the electiOn of R. C. Sharma. Thus a corrupt practice under s. 123 ( 4) of the Act has been committed. The High Court has held that no such corrupt practice was committed by Dhote. It has held that Satya Narain Sharma did not make a statement of fact. He has expressed an opinion. It has also held that the statement was not false and that it did not relate _to_ the personal character or conduct of R. C. Sharma or _to_ his candidature. It has also hdd that Satya Narain Sharma did not make this statement with the consent of Dhote. We shall first consider whether the statement was issued by Satya Narain Sharma with the consent of Dhote. _I_ A B ##### c D E F G H 828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1974 l 1 s.c.R. Satya Narain Sharma was examined by Dhote. He has denied that he made the statement with the consent of Dhote. Dhote has stated that he had not given his consent to any such statement. The High Court has believed Dhote. Nothing has been shown to us to take a different view. It is true that according to the evidence on record Satya Narain Sharma seems to have addressed several meetings ia support of Dhote and that in some of those meetings Dhote had also delivered speeches. But this circumstance alone would not prove the consent of Dhote. As we agree with the High Court that the statement is not proved to have been made with the consent of Dhote, it is not necessary for us to record a finding on the other aspect of issue No. 4. We agree with the High Court that the appellants have failed to establish this particular corrupt practice. _lssue_ _No._ 5: In his return of election expenses Dhote is shown to have spent Rs. 648/- on the publication of a pamphlet. The nature of the pamphlet does not seem to have been disclosed in the return. The appellants have alleged in the election petition that document C attached to the petition is that pamphlet. Dhote has emp)latically denied that it was document C. According to him, it was document 2R 20. Document C opens witil : "I am contesting this Lok Sabha election ...... against a corrupt candidate of Congress. The appellants say that this is a false statement relating to the personal character of Rikhabchand Sharma. 2R 20 is an · innocuous document. It was printed by the Narkesari Press and it bears the print line of the press. The close question is whether document C or document 2R 20 was published by Dhote. To prove their case, the appellants have examined one witness Prabhakar Sakhardande. He was employed on the relevant date as a priPter in the Narkesari Press. He says that document C was printed in the Narkesari Press on Sunday, April 11, 1971. According to him, it is printed in mono type. He also says that only the Narkesari Press in Nagpur has a mono-machine. The. High Court has not believed him. He is the President of the Rashtriya Press Kamgar Sangh which is affiliated to the Indian National Trade Union Congress. He does not give out the name of the person wh~ printed the document C in the N arkesari Press, nor does he disclose the name of the person who delivered the printed copies to the appropriate authority in the Narkesari Press. Although he admitted in cross-examination that he had not been to any other press in Nagpur, he has said that except Narkesari Press no other press in Nagpur has a mono-machine. Evidently, this part of his evidence does not inspire confidence. Not having seen any other press in Nagpur, he could not say that the Narkesari Press alone has got a mono-machine. For these reasons, we find it difficult to place any reliance on his testimony. Dhote has examined Manohar Bokare in support of his case that the document 2R 20 was published in the Narkesari Press. Manohar Bokare is the Manager of the Job Section of the Narkesari Press. He says that he receives orders from customers, hands over printed material to them, examines and makes bills and prepares quotations for printing jobs. Initially, he was summoned by the appellants as their A .B ##### c D F G H A B c D E r G H LAXMINARAYAN _v._ RETURNING OFFICER _(Dwivedi,_ _J.)_ 829 witness. But later they g<ive him up. So he was examined by Dhote. He has said that document 2R 20 was published in the Narkesari Press. He produced the original of the document. He has stated that B. N. Gaikwad had given him the original for printing. He has also filed the counter-foil of the bill issued by him in connection with the printing of the document 2R 20. He has denied that the document C was printed in the Narkesari Press. The High Court has believed his evidence. Nothing has been shown to us to enable us to take a different view. Sri Phadke has made several comments on his evidence. Firstly, he has not produced the order book. But he was never asked by the appellants to produce the order book. In cross-e4amination he simply said that he has not brought the order book. Secondly, while be has said that the printed matter was delivered by him to a boy, B. M. Gaikwad has stated that it was sent for by him through one Doonger Fourthly, the Narkesari Press did not comply with the provisions of s. 127A of the Act in regard to document 2R 20. So it should be held that this document was not published by the Narkesari Press. Section 127 A(2) provides that no person shall print or cause to be printed any election pamphlet or poster-(!) unless a declaration as to the identity of the publisher thereof, signed by him and attested by two persons to whom he is personally known, is delivered by him to the printer in duplicate; and (2) unless, within a reasonable time after the printing of the document, one copy of the declaration is sent by the printer, together with one copy of the document, if printed in the capital of the State to the Chief Electoral Officer and in any other case to the District Magistrate of the District in which it is printed. Mano-· bar Bokare has admitted in cross-examfuation that he has neither obtained a declaration from B. M. Gaikwad, nor has he sent a copy of the document 2R 20 to the District Magistrate, Nagpur. This is incomplete and ineffective cross-examination. Manohar Bokare should have been also asked if he had any explanation for those omissions. ':f'he omissions might have been of some assistance to the appellants· ag~d about 50 years. This discrepancy is not sufficient to discredit his evidence. He was examined several months after the event. Such a minor mistake is accordingly not unnatural and may be a slip of memory. Thirdly, document C is printed on news print paper. It is. said that news print paper is not available in the market and that document C must have been printed in the Narkesari Press where Tarun Bharat was also being printed. But there is some evidence on record to show that neswprint paper was available in the open market. That aside, B. M. Gaikwad has stated that the paper for printing document 2R 20 was supplied by him from the stock of paper belonging to his party at Chhindwara from where a weekly organ of his pru:ty was 0eing published. Manohar Bokare has deposed ·that there is an endorse ment on the original of 2R 20 that paper was given by the party who got it printed. The endorsement was according to him necessary for the purpose of sales-tax. On his copy o~ the bill there is an endorse ment "not taxable". He has explained that it was necessary to obtain the signature of the customer if the paper was given by the press .. 1f Bokare could not give a proper explanation. The possibility of a good explanation cannot be rule& out. We agree with the High1 .830 S'JP!\EM,; COURT REPORT~ l un J I s.c.R. Court that no adverse infere11ce can be drawn from these breaches .of law. Fifthly, he could not give the exect date of the printing of 2R 20. But he has said that no record of the date of printing is maintained by him. Lastly, Dhote has admitted that the diction of the document C resembles his own. It would show that he has published this document. This criticism has little force. Dhote has also said that he had made numerous speeches in the course of his .election. · So it was quite easy to pick out . words and phrases from his speeches· and piece them together in the document C. Now, the case of the appellants is that the document C was printed. The case of Dhote that is 2R 20 was printed. It is significant that it is not the case of the appellants that two documents were published ;at onee and the same time, one innocuous and the other offending This has an important bearing on probabilities. It is highly improbable that a candidate would publish an offending document. and show Jhe expenses illcurred on its printing in nis return of election expenses. The appellants have examined several witnesses to prove the -,distribution of the document C during the election. The High Court has disbelieved those witnesses. It has held that from their demeanour they appear to be tutored witnesses. Their evidence has not been pressed in service before us on behalf of the appellants. So we do ,iot deal with . it. J~e-No. 8: This is the crucial issue in the appeal. The appellants' case is that Pundalik Masurkar and Satya Narain Sharma had delivered ·speeches in three meetings during the election. '.Those meetings were ·held on March 29 and 30, 1971, and April 7, 1971. They were held lfespectively ·at Nawi Mangalwari Ganji Peth and Maska Sath. By Jheir. speeches they have committed the corrupt practice specified in s. 123 ( 4) of the Act. They committed the corrupt practice with the .consent of Dhote. Dhote, it is alleged, delivered speeches in the said meetings as well as in the meetings in Chamar N ala "amJ..-Kastufi:hand Park. The meetings in the latter two places-were held .on April 14 cand 15, 1971. By his speeches, he also has committed the aforesaid .corrupt practice. The High Court has recorded these findings on this ·issue : (1) the appellants have failed to prove that Dhote made any -0ffending statements in the aforesaid meetings; (2) they have also failed to prove that Pundalik Masurkar and Satya Narain Sharma made any offending statements in the aforesaid meetings; (3) they ·have also failed to prove that Pundalik Masurkar and Satya Narain A JI c D E F G H Sharma. made any offending statements in those meetings with the consent of the/ Dhote. It has further held that they have failed to prove that the statements,11ttributed to Dhote, Pundalik Masurkar and Satya Narain Sharma c9llstituted the corrupt prectice specified in s. 123(4) of the Act. The ground of challenge in . tile petition is one covered 11y s. 100(.l)(b) and not s. lOO(l)(d). So we shall first examine the evidence to find out whether Pundalik Masurkar and Satya Na rain :Shar~a made the allegedly offending statements with the consent of The ground of challenge in . tile petition is one covered 11y s. 100(.l)(b) and not s. lOO(l)(d). So we shall first examine the evidence to find out whether Pundalik Masurkar and Satya Na rain LAXMINARAYAN _v._ RETURNING OFFICER _(Dwivedi,_ _!.)_ 831 A Dhote. If his consent is not proved, it will not be necessary to examine the other aspects of this part of the issue. _Nawi Mangalwari Meeting:_ 29-3-1971 : The appellants have examined Marot Rao, Ishwar Giri, Shanker Laxman and Manhor Kashinath Kalankar. Dhote has examined B himself, Pundalik Masurkar and Satya Narain Sharma. ' ~I _, c D E F According to Ishwar Girl, Dhote was not present in the meeting while Pundalik Masurkar and Satya Narain Sharma were speaking. Dhotc came to the meeting just five minutes before the end of Satya Narain Sharma's speech. Marto Rao and Shanker Laxman say nothing about the presence of Dhote during the speeches of Pundalik Masurkar and Satya Narain Sharma. Manohar Kashinath Kalankar is the C.I.D. Shorthand Writer. He says that he was present in the meeting and he took down the notes of speeches of various speakers including the aforesaid two speakers. He says that he remembers that Dhote wa_s present in the meeting from the very beginning. But there is no note to that effect in his note-book. It will accordingly be not safe to depend on his memory, especially when Ishwar Giri contradicts him. Pundalik Masurkar has said that Dhote was not present while he was speaking. Dhote has said that he was not present when Pundalik Masurkar and Satya Narain Sharma delivered their speeches. He arrived in the meeting just when Satya Narain Sharma was finishing his speech. He has further said that Pundalik Masurkar and Satya Narain Sharma had spoken in the meeting without his knowledge and consent. He has said that it was not his business to arrange ele<;tion meetings and to invite speakers. His election office used to attend to these matters. His workers use to take him to various meetings without any prior information of the meetings on his part. SatyaNarain Sharma has said that he did not reporHo any one the contents of his speeches. He has also said that B. M. Gaikwad, the election agent of Dhote, used to invite him to speak in the meetings held in support of Dhote. This is the entire evidence on the question of consent. This evidence would show that Dhote was not present in the meeting when Pundalik Masurkar and Satya Narain Sharma were speaking. He had no prior knowledge of the fact that they would speak in the meeting. He had not invited them to the meeting. He denies his consent to their speeches. There is no direct evidence of consent from the side of the appellants. It is not possible to infer constructive consent from the foregoing facts and circumstances. G _Ganji Peth Meeting:_ 30-3-1971 : The appellants have examined Manohar Kashinath Kalankar, Shesb Rao Kambale, another C.I.D. Shorthand Writer, Mohd. Yakub Qamar and Dr. Ram Narain. Dhote has examined himself and Satya Narain Sharma. There is no direct evidence of consent Mohd. Yalrub Qamar ano Dr. Ram Narain say nothing about the presence of Dhote while Satya Narain Sharma was speaking. Manohar Kasbinath H Kalankar says that he remembers that Dhote was present in the meeting from the very beginning. Shesh Rao, refreshing his memory from his notes, said that his notes show that Dhote was welcomed and · ' 13-L392Sup.C1/74 832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 197 4 ] 1 s.c.R. "therefore I say be was present from the very beginning." The note book of Manohar Kashinath Kalankar does not re(;()rd that Dbote was present from -the very begmmng. lt will not be safe to rely on his memory. It is true tpa< ;:,hesh Rao has noled in his note book that Dhote was welcomed .. But from this fact it does not necessarily follow that he was present from the very beginning. He could be welcomed whenever' he arrived in the mee<ing. Dhote has said that when he reached the meeting, Satya Narain Sharma was 'half way thrcmgh his speech'. B" t we de not know when Satya Narain Sharma made the allegedly offending remarks in the course of his speech. lt cannot theretore be said that those remarks were made in the presence of Dhote. So we agree with the High Court that the appellants have failed to prove tha,t Dhote had given his consent to the speech of Satya Narain Shanha in this meeting. _Maska Sath M{!eting:_ 7-4-19'71 : The witnesses of the appellants for this meeting are Manobar Kashinath Kalan!<lar, Shesh Rao Kambale, Manohar Taj~ne, Yadao Shripurkar and M,arot Rao, Dhote has examined himself anqI Satya Narain Sharma Man\)har Kashinath Kalankar and Shesh Rao Kambctl" arc the C.l.D. Shorthand Writers. The appellants' witnesses have deposed that offending speeches were delivered by Dhote and Sl!tya Narain Sharma. According to _Manohar Kashinath Kalankar, Gunawan! Nagpure had spoken before Satya Narain Sharma. He says that Dhote arriv~_d in the meeting while Gunawant Nagpure was speaking and that Gunawan! Nagpure continued speaking after his arrival. lie aJso says that he has made a note about Dhote's arrival while Gunwant Nagpure was speaking in his note-book. He has produced his .note-book. It begins with the speech of Chandrabhan Bodkar. The speech is written in shorthand Two-third of the page is covered by , the speech of Chandrabhan Bodkar, and over the remaining seven lines - of the page no speech is recorded. The speech of Satya Narain Sharma is taken down in short-hand on the next page. The contents recorded over seven lines of the preceding page are these: "Kamal Kishore Upadhyaya Something in Short-band Gunwant Nagpure (F.B.) -/2 Sri J. B. Dhote arrived. Sri Nagpure .. continued speaking." There is absolutely no difierence in the ink of the notes of the speeches of Chandrabhan Bodkar a-nd Satya Narain Sharma. But the ink of the aforesaid quoted lines written in English is visibly different. This difference is suggestive of later interpolation of the aforesaid' quoted lines, the purpose being to prove the presence of Dhote during Satya Narain Sharma's speech and his implied consent to that speech. It may, however, be observed that Mano\lar Kashinath K)llankar was not cross-examined by Dhote on the ~erence in ink. However, suspicious the entry of the af9fesaid lines may be, we are reluctant to draw any adverse inference against• Manohar Kashinat'1 Kalankar from the difference in ink for want of (iross-examination. But in view of certain other sircumstances we do not think it safe to rely on the aforesaid A B (; ll E F G H LAXMINARAYAN _v._,RETURNING OFFICER _(Dwivedi,_ /.) 833 A note in his note-book. One, Shesh Rao Kambale, another C.I.D. Shorthand writer, was also present in the meeting. He . has taken down in abort-hand the speeches of Kamal Kishore Upadhayaya, Gunwant Nagpure, Keshav Rao Gadekar and Dhotc. He bas not deposed that Dhotc arrived in the meeting while Gun want N agpure was speaking. Two Manohar Kashinath Kalankar seems to us to be anxious to help the cause of the defeated Congress candidate, R. C, Sharma. As reB gards the meeting held at Na\\i Mangalwari and Ganji Peth, he has deposed from memory that Dhote was present from the very beginning of those meetings. It may be observed that he has made no such note in his note-book. We have already held that Dhote arrived in those meetings when Satya Narain Sharma was about to finish his speech. We have disbelieved his st&tement made from memory. It seems to us that C be has ventured to speak 'from memory' in order to help the appellants and R:. C. Sharma. Third, Manohar Tajane, Shesh Rao Kambale and Marot Rao say nothing in their evidence about the presence of Dhote during the speech of Gun want N agpure and Satya Narain Sharma. Marot Rao is one of the appellants in this appeal. The note alleged to have made by Manohar Kashinath Kalankar in his note-book does not get supporf from their testimony. Fourth, Yadao Shripurkar said that Dhote was present when Satya Narain Sharma was speaking. The D High Court has disbelieved him. W c see no reason to difier with the High Court. He has admitted that he was the Vice-Pr,;sident of the N1>gpur City Congress Committee. He has also admitted that he has canvassed and given speeches in support of R. C. Sharma He has distributed cards for R. C. Sharma. He was R. c. Sharma's counting agent also. He is thus a partisan witness., The High Court has made E an adverse note about his demeanour. He is unable to ·explain his presence in the meeting, for his evidence shows that he had no prior hformation of the meeting. Although he was very closely connected with the election campaign of R. C. Sharma, be admits that he informed neither the Congress Election Office nor R. C. Sharma of the offending speeches of Dhote and Satya Narain Sharma. According to him, he and Manohar Tajane went together to the meeting. He further says F that when Satya Narain Sharma finished his speech, both of them were away to Itwari Chowk for about H hours for taking tea. When both of them returned to the meeting, Dhote was speaking. Manohar Tajane does no~ support him there. According to him, he did not go with Yadao Shirpurkar to Itwari Chowk. They parted company after the end of Satya Narain Sharma's speech. Yado Shirpurkar betrays a tendency of giving evasive answers to awkward questions in cross-examiG nation by merely saying "I do not remember." For all these reasons, we .are not inclined to place reliance on his evidence. In his cross-examination, Satya Narain Sharma has stated that he arrived at the meeting when Kesho Rao Gadekar was speaking. He further said that Dhote spoke after him. He was not asked as to whether - Dhote was present in the meeting when he arrived or while he was H speaking. In his examination-in chief, Dhote stated that he reached the meeting after the speech of Satya Narain Sharma. In his cross-exami nation he stated that he generally arrived in the meetings at the end as, several meetings were addressed by him every day. He further stated 834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ( 1974 j 1 S.C.R. that he did not remember whether Gunwant Nagpgre spoke in this meeting. He was not specifically asked whetfier it was a fact t;hat he arrived at the meeting when Gunawan! N agpure was speaking. It may also be obser:ved that the appellants did not come forward with a positive case in their petition that Dhote was present during the speech of Satya Narain Shanna and that he did not protest against the allegedly offending statements of Satya Narain Sharma. This lack of a positive statement is a characteristic of,the appellants' allegation of consent in respect of all the meetings discussed earlier. In the circumstances of this case and for the reasons already disc11Ssed we think that the High Court has rightly held that the appellants have failed ·to prove the consent of Dhote to the speech of Satya Narain Sharma in this meeting. _·The Care against Dhote_ We shall now examine the appellants' evidence against Dhote. The High Court has elaborately discussed and commented upon the evidence. As.we are in agreement with the High Court, we shall indicate only the salient. features of the evidence. _Nawi_ _Mangalwari_ _Meeting-29-3-1971_ It is alleged in paragraph 23(a) of the eletion petition that Satya Narain Sharma and Pundik Masurkar said that Rikhabchand Sharma "is a man having no character and is a smuggler of gold:" Satya Narain Sharma, it is alleged, also said that Rikhabchand Sharma "has taken a bribe of Rs. _5_ lakhs from powerloom owners' and, therefore. the recommendatfons of Ashok Mehta Committee to the effect that the coloured saris should not be printed on powerloom has not been given effect to." It is further al!eged that Dhote "also made personal attack on Shri Sharma saying that he has no character." In his written statement Dhote has admitted that he had spok~n in the meeting. But he said that he made no adverse remarks against Rikhabchand Sharma. To prove their case, the appellants examined Marot Rao (one of them), Ishwargiri, Shankar Laxman Nandankar and Manohar Kashinath Kalankar. We shall disc11Ss the evidence of the last witness at a later stage and under the general heading of police witnesses. For the present, we shall confine ourselves to the evidence of the remaining witnesses. As regards Marot Rao, the High Court says that his evidence is not reliable. The High Court has further remarked that counsel for the appellants did not rely on his evidence. According to the High Court, Ishwar Girl did not attend the meeting and has given a tutored version. Shankar Laxman Nandankar was a chance witness and is not believed by the High Court. Counsel for the appellants has not been able to show us that the Hipt Court is wrong in the appraisal of the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses. . Maro! Rao is an appellant in this case. lie is an interested witness. I{e is also an omnibllS witness. He clalms to have been present not ohly-in. this meeting but also in the Ganji Peth and Kastur A B c _-.if-_ ## ) D E ' F G H LAXMINARAYAN _v._ RETURNING OFFICEI. _(Dwivedi,_ /.) 835 # A chand Park meetings. Admittedly, be did not take down notes of the speeches. His evidence does not completely correspond to the pleadings in paragraph 23 (a). In his evidence he says that Pundlik: Masurkar called him a' smuggler of gold. In bis evidence he says that Satya Narain Sharma said that Rikhabchand Sharma has received Rs. _5_ lakhs from powerloom owners, and that he was a man of no character. B lshwar Giri is a chance witness. He has admitted that in his life ho has never attended any meeting except this meeting. He pretended to ha_ve an excellent memory. But a vigorous cross-examination has shattered his tall claim and has shown that he is a man of sh on memory. He has admitted that he did not take notes of the speeches in the meeting. According to him, Pundlik Masurkar said that Rildiabchand c Sharma was carrying on smuggling business and was corrupt. Satya Narain Sharma said that when the Bunker Sena made a statement on the production of coloured saris on power loom, the Maharashtra Government "hung up the Ashok Mehta Committee Report on a peg". Rikhabchand Sharma was "a leader of the people who mannfacture illicit liquor in Nagpur and who run gambling dens in Nagpur." Dhote said that corrupt and -characterless Rikhabchand Sharma was talking of purchasing poor people. Corrupt and characterless Sharma has com0 mitted the political murder "of my friend Deoghare." Corrupt Sharma has secured 500 powerlooms for the Momins. He has taken Rs. _5_ Jakhs from them and he has distributed that amount lavishly for election purposes. He runs distilJation centres, gambling dens and. brothels in Nagpur. Obviously he is making preceptible improvements on the pleading in paragraph 23 (a) of the petition. E Shanker Laxman N andankar also is a chance witness. N awi Mangalwari is three miles from his house. He says that he went to the house of his aunt's son who is living there because he was called by the latter to his house. But for this explana\ion he would not have been present in the meeting. Admittedly, he did not take down notes of the speeches. Although several speakers spoke in the meeting, F he does not remember the speeches of. the speakers other than Dhote, Pundlik Masurkar and Satya Narain Sharma. According to him, Pundlik Masurkar said that Rikhabchand Sharma was selling land which he had purchased during his Mayorlity of the Nagpur Qty Corporation and using that money for electi~n. He ~!so ~aid that Rt'lchabchand Sharma was carrying on 'smuggling busmess . Satya Narain Sharma said that Rikhabchand Sharma was a corrupt man and that he had taken money from powerloom owners and was utilising G that money for elections. He also said that Rikhabchand Sharma carried on 'smuggling business' and that he was a corrupt and characterless man. Dhote said that Rikhabchand Sharma w"s ·a co.,-nnt man. 'While paragraph 23 (a) of the petition alleges that Rikhabchand Shar ma was called a man of no character, he says that Rikhabchand Shar H ma was also spoken of as a corrupt man. He makes other variations and omissions from the pleadings in his evidence. Having regard to the foregojng discussion, we agree with the ffil!h Court that it will not be safe to xely upon the evidence of these witnesses. / 836 SUPRE?.!:E COURT REPORTS [ 1974 J 1 s.c.11.. I,'' _Ganji_ Peth-30-3-1971 Paragraph 23 (d) of the petition alleges that Satya Narain Sharma and Dhote spoke in this meeting. Satya Narain Sharma said that R.ikhabchand Sharma_ "is a supporter of gundas and gangs involved ill smuggling." Dhote said that R.ikhabchand Sharma "is trying to purchase votes by money". He also said that Rikhabchand Sharma "is a corrupt man and in fact Rikhabchand Sharma is thy name corruption." The appeJ!ants examined three witnesses, Marot Rao (one of them), Mohd. Yakub Qamar and Dr. Ram Narain. The High Court has not . relied upon the evidence of Marot Rao. Re)larding Mohd. Y akab Qamar, it has held that he did not attend the meeting. Dr. . Ram Narain, according to the High Court, has given false evidence. We have already rejected the testimony of Maro! Rao in regard to N awi Mangalwari meeting. Obviously, there is variance betw~n tbe pleading and his evidence in regard to the speeches of Satya Narain Sharma and Dhote. Mohd. Yakub Qamar seems to have a· grome against Dhote. He is the Chairman of the powerloom society. He has admitted that Dhote led an agitation against the production of coloured saris 'On powerlooms and that the powerloom society was opposed to the agitation. Ho was a Congress candidate for the Nagpur Coqioration in the elections held i.n 1959, 1962 and 1969. He ii an 'active' member of the Congress. He has admitted that he did not take notes of the speeches in the meeting. He has also admitted· that he did not inform anybody about the speeche• i'l the meetin": he did not inform even the Congress Election Office. With bis interest in the Congress candidate, it is difficult to believe that if Satya Narain Shanna and Dhote had made objectionable speeches, he would have faikd to inform Rikhabchand Shanna or the Congress Election Office. He is a man of weak memory. He could not reproduce the speech of Satva Narain Sharma which he had repeated earlier in his evidence. He could not explain as to how the appellants came to know that he was prete11t· in the meeting. There is variance between the. pleading and . his evidence as regards the speeches of Satya Narain Sharma and Dhote. According to him, Satya Narain Sharma said that Rikhabchand Sharma was the protector of the goondas and that he arranged for regular payments to be made to the police by persson who maintained gambling dens and that he also indulged in smuggling gold. Dhote, according to him, said that Rikhabchand Sharma was a Bhrashtachari (corrupt). B c D E F Dr. Ram Narain has appeared as a witness for Rikhabchnd Sharma, G He was the counting agent of Rikhabchand Sharma and was in. the hall where counting was done from 8.00 a.m. to 10.00 p.m. He was a Congress candidate in the Nagpur Corporation election in 1969. He is an 'active' member of the Con~ess. So, he is a highly intere.t,. ed. witness. He has admitted that he did not inform Rikhabchand Sharma and the appellants about his presence in the meeting. Having' re1Zard to his interest in Rikhabchand Sharma, it is difficult to belieYe H that if any objectionable speeches had been made in the meeting by Satva Narain Sharma and Dhote, he would have failed to inform Rikhabchand Sharma of the offending speeches. There is yariance bet LAX~l!NARAYAN _v._ RETURNING OFFICER _(Dwivedi,_ _J.)_ 837 A ween the pleading and his evidence in regard to their speeches. According to him, Satya Narain Sharma and Dhote both said that Rikhabchand Sharma "was arranging regular payme':1t to the poke, that he was siding with the goondas and that he earn~ on ~muggling business." They also said that he was a corrupt and discredited man. He also said that Dhote asked a question "whose name was Bhrashtachari and himself answered by saying the Congress cha nam BhrashtaB chari (Congress is corrupt). He also said that the Con~ess .men were Haram Khor (bad living) and they purchased votes with tainted money. He further said that Rikhabchand Sharma was a Bhrashtachari (corrupt). In view of the foregoing discussion, we are in agreement with the High Court that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of these C witnesses. _Marka Sath-7-4-1971_ The appellants examined two witnesses, Manohar Tajane and Yadao Shirpurkar. The Jiigh Court has held that the former is a tutored witness and the latter is not reliable. D There is variance between the pleading and the evidence of Manohar Tajane. He also tried to improve on the pleading. Paragraph 23 ( c) of the petition alJeges that Satya Narain Sharma said that Rikhabchand Sharma "is a man of no character." Dhote said that "the fight is between corruption and purity represented by him a.nd corruption by respondent No. 3." According to Manohar Tajane, Satya Narain Sharma said that Rikhabchand Sharma "is corrupt and deals in E smuggling of gold." He also said that Rikhabchand Sharma was "characterless and is a protector of people who are dealing in liquor, ganja, satta_ and gambling." According to him, Dhote said that .it is a fight between "corruption and characterless and purity and good character. On one side there is corrupt Sharma, on the other good character and purity." F Yadao Rao Shirpurkar, as discussed earlier, is highly interested in R.ikhabchand Sharma. His evidence suffers from the same infirmities as that _cl_ Manohar Tajane. The High Court did not rely on their testimony, and neither do we. _Chamar Nala_ -14-4-1971. The· appellants examined Laxminarayan Ganjli (one of them) G and Shankerlal. The High Court says that .the evidence of the former is thoroughly unreliable and counsel for the appellants did not refer to his evidence at all. Shankerlal, the High Court has found, did not attend the meeting. Laxminarayan is one of the appellants. He is accordingly an interested witness. Admittedly, he took no notes .of the speech. Although he says that both the appellants gave information to the lawyer who drafted their election petition, he did no{ inform the H lawyer about his presence in the meeting and about the offending speech delivered by Dhote. He makes improvement upon the pleading. Paragraph 23 {d) of the petition alleges that Dhote said that Rikhabchand Sharma "is a corrupt man supported by corrupt Naik Govern 838 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ( 1974] 1 S.C.R. ment." In his evidence, he says that Dhote said that Rikhabchand ### ' Sharma has become rich by indulging in corruption and black-market. Rikhabchand Sharma was trying to purchase votes by money. A corrupt man like Rikhabchand Sharma could not usher in the socialist society. He was the symbol of sin in the city of Nagpur. Shankerlal could not tell the name of the President of the meeeng. Admittedly, he took no notes of the speech. He also admits that he did not tell any body of his presence in the meeting. He also makes improvement upon the pleading. According to him, Dhole said that Rikhabchand Sharma was a Bhrashtachari and that all his money was earned by corruption. He also said "Ye Rikhamchot Sharma earns money by corruption." We agree with the High Court that it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of these witnesses. _Kasturchand_ Park-15-4-1971 A B c The appellants have examined Marot Rao (one of them) Janaklal and Namdeo Rao. The High Court held that Maret Rao was not pre sent in th•e meeting and is an unreliable witness. ·It has also held that Namdeo Rao is an interested witness and that he did not attend the ·· D meeting. Janaklal's evidence is not helpful to the appellant's case. According to him, Dhote delivered an innocuous speech. It has found that Namdeo Rao is an interested witness and was not present in the meeting. Maret Rao, being an appellant, is an interested witness. The dais in the meeting was improvised on a truck which had been used in the procession taken out before the meeting. But he did not say that the dais was improvised on a truck. He improved upon the pleading. We have already rejected his evidence in regard to other meetings. Janaklal also could not say that the dais was improvised on a truck. He is a chance witness. Moreover, according to him, Dhote simply said that "he did not want to say anything about Sri Sharma, that they would learn about him after reading Gram Sewak." This evidence does not attribute to Dhote any statement of fact which would fall within the grip of section 123(4). Namdeo Rao is an interested witness. He is a member of the Congress which has set up Rikhabchand Sharma as a candidate. He was Rikhabchand Sharma's counting agent in the election. He did not info,m anyone about the speech of Dhote. It is difficult to believe that if Dhote had in fact made any objectionable remarks, he would have failed to inform Rikhabchand Sharma. He has improved upon the pleading. Paragraph 23 ( e) alleges that Dhote said that Rikhabchand Sharma "is corrupt." According to his evidence, Dhote said that Rikhabchand Sharma was a corrupt man and has no character. He also said that Rikhabchand Sharma was dealing in illicit liquor and was running brothels and was a smuggler of gold. There is one curious thing about him. While according to Janaklal Dhote said that "he did not want to say anything about Sri Sharma and that they would learn E F G H LAXrnNARAYAN _v,_ RETURNING OFFICER _(DH'ivetli,_ _J.)_ 839 A about him after reading Gram Sewak", he says that Dhote first said that he did not want to speak anything about Sri Rikhabchand Sharma and that the audience knew about the work of Rikhahchand Sharma. Thereafter he says that Dhote further made the aforesaid false statement regarding the character of Rikhabchand Sharma. Thus he seeks to reconcile his statement to that of .Janaklal. B Like the High Court, we are unable to rely on the evidence of these witnesses. _Pouce_ _witnesses_ : c D E F We shall now consider the evidence of the two C.I.D. Shorthand writers, Manohar Kashinath Kalankar and Shesh Rao Kamhalc. Manohar Kashinath Kalankar was it is said present in the Nawi Mangalwari, Ganji Peth, Maska Sath, Chamar Nata and Kasturchanci Park meetings. Shesh Rao Kambale was present in the Ganji Peth, Maska Sath, Chamar Nala and Kasturchand Park meetings. One or the other of them took down the notes of the speeches of Pundalik Masurkar, Satya Narain Sharma, Dho.te and other speakers. The notes were taken down in short-hand except in the case of Dhote's speech in the Nawi Mangalwari meeting. That speech was taken down in long hand in Marathi by Manohar Kashinath Kalankar. The tr;mscrihed note of speeches recorded by Manohar Kashinath .Kalankar at the Nawi Mangalwari are Ex. 70, at Ganji Peth Ex. 71, at Maska Sath, Ex. 72, at Chamar Nala Chowk, Ex. 73. The transcribed notes of speeches recorded by Shesh Rao Kamhale in the meeting at Ganji Peth are marked Ex. 79, and at Maska Satb Ex. 80. The transcribed notes of the speech of Dhote in the::. Kasturchand Park meeting are marked Ex. 8 !. It appears that the High Court was not sure that the speeches have been correctly recorded in the note-hooks. The High Court has also found t!iat they were "too ready and willing to help the petitioners," and it will not be safe to rely on their testimony. Three preliminary questions arise for our consideration: (1) the scope of appellate review in thls case, (2) the admissibility of notes of speeches recorded by the ·aforesaid witnesses; and (3) their credibility. _Scope_ _of_ _appellate_ _review_ : Secti.on 116A of the Act provides for an appeal to this Court from an order of the High Court dismissing an election petition. The G appeal lies both on issues of law and of facts. Section 116C applies the Code of Civil Procedure as nearly as possible. Hence the present appeal is in the nature of a first appeal from decree under that Code· The power of the appellate Court is very wide. It can reappraii;e the evidence and reverse the trial court's findings of fact. But like any other power it is not unconfined: it is subject to certain inherent limitations in relation to a conclusion of fact. While the trial court H has not only read the evidence of witnesses on record but has also read their evidence in their faces, looks and demeanour. The appellate Court is confined to their evidence on record. Accordingly "the 840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 197 4] l s.c.R. view of the trial judge as to where credibility lies is entitled to great weight.'' (See _Saraveeraswami_ v. _Talluri(I)._ However, the appellate court may interfere with a finding of fact if the trial court i~ sho\Vn to have overlooked any material feature in the evidence of ·a witness or if the balance of probabilities as to the credibility ·of the witness is inclined against the opinion of the trial court. (See _Sarju Pershall_ v. _Raja Jwaleshwari Pratap Narain Singh.(_ _[2]_ _)_ This limitation on the power ()f the appellate court in a first appeal from decree, on principle, will also apply to an election appeal under section_ ll 6A. It has been so extended by this Court. Whether we should believe the witnesses or not involves how far we should enter into facts. "No <ioubt, an apjieal before this Court under. S· 116A is an appeal. ... on facts and law; still the practice of the courts has uniformaly been to give the greatest assurance to the assessment of evidence made by the Judge who hears the witnesses aiid watches their dem~ and judges of their credibility in the first instance. In an appeal the burden is on the appellant to prove how the judgment under api-! is wrong. To establish this he must do something more than merely ·ask for a reassessment of the evidence. He must show wherein the assessment has gone wrong." (See _Narbada Prasad_ _v._ _Chhagaul(•)._ It should also be borne in mind that in the instant case the High Court 'bas held Dhote not guilty of the alleged corrupt practice which is a A B c D F G quasi-criminal charge. This Court should be slow to disagree with the finding of the High Court based on appreciation of evidence. _(D._ _P._ _Misra_ v. _Kam Narain Sharma(')._ The appellant should put their case within the scope of this limited review; otherwise they should not succeed. Counsel for the appellants points out that in _Reddiai·_ (supra) and _Virendra Kumar Sak/echa_ v. _Jagjiwan(•)_ this Court has reappraised evidence and reversed findings of facts relating to ci:>rrapt practice recorded by the High Court. _Reddiar_ (supra) is plainly distinguishable from the present case. We have earlier referred to this case. The oral evidence in the case was corroborated by "unimpeachable documentary evidence" of applications to police for. permission to hold meetings and by police reports of speeches delivered in the meetings. As regards 'the reports of speeches the Court said that the police witnesses were "not shown to be inimically disposed towards the respondent or his party." _Saklecha_ is indeed against the appellants. There the High Court had believed the oral evidence in proof of corrupt practices. This Court, on a f!'appraisal of the evidence, came to the reassuring conclusion that the witnesses "were all prepared on the same pattern of evidence." In the presc:llt case the High Court has recorded a similar finding. I. A. T. R. 1949 P. C. 32. 2. [1950[ S. C.R. 7Srat p. 784 per Mukherjea J. 3. ]19691 I S. C. R. 499 at p. 504 by Hidayatullah C. J. 4. (1971] 3 S. C.R. 257 at p. 261 per Shah J; 5. ]1972] I S. C. C. 826. A B ###### c **D** E F G **H** LAXMINARAYAN _v._ RBTIJRNING OFFICER _(Dwivedi,_ J.) 841 _Admissibility_ _of_ _their evidence:_ Counsel for Dhote has submitted that their evidence is inadalssible. Jn this connection it will be necessary to refer to ss. 159, 160 and _ 161 of the Indian Evidence Act. "S. 159· A witness may, while under examination refresh his memory by referring to any writing made by himself at the time of the transaction concerning which he is questioned, or so soon ~terwards that th~ Court co.nsidei;s it likely that the transaction was at that ttme fresh m his memory. The witness may also refer to any such writing made by any other person, and read by the witness within the time aforesaid, if when he read it he knew it to be correct. Whenever a witness may refresh his memory by reference to any document, he may, with the permission of the Court, refer to a copy of such document : Provided the Court be satisfied that there is sufficient reason for the non-production of the original : S. 160. A witness may also testify to facts mentioned in any such document as is mentioned in section 159, although he has no specific recollec:tion of the facts them· selves, _if he is sure that the facts were correctly recorded_ _in the_ _document._ (emphasis added). S. 161. Any writing referred to under the provisions of the two last. preceding sections must be produced and shown to the adverse party if he requires it; such party may, if he pleases, cross-examine the witness thereupon." There are thus three conditions for admitting their evidence. The first condition is that the notes must have been taken down by them **aa** and when the speeches were being delivered or so soon afterwards that the speeches were fresh in their memory. The second condition is !hat the witnesses must be sure that the speeches have been correctly recorded by them. The third condition is that the notes must be produced and shown to the adverse party if he requires them. Such party may cross-examine them if he so desires. It does not appear to have been the case of Dhote that the witnesses were not present in the meetings except one in which the offending speeches were delivered. The witnesses have stated that they took down the notes of the speeches as and when they were being delivered. Accordingly, the first condition is satisfied. Counsel for Dhote sa}" that the third ·condition was not satisfied. The transcribed notes of the llpeeChes were given to Dhote on demand and he has cross-examined the witnesses. But counsel says that the notes of speeches are in short-hand which Dhote cannot decipher at- all. According to him the notes must have been recorded in the language which can be under· stood by the ad~erse party. We are unable to appreciate this extreme r.ontention. It means that the notes of a speech recorded in Bengali or 842 SUPREME COURT "RllPOR'l's [ 1974l1 s.c.R. Oriya will be inadmissible if the adverse,party is ignorant of that script and language. Not any uniform rational ·principle, . but the literacy and multi-linguality of the adverse party will determine the· admissibility of document. This interpretation o~ s. 161 is absurd as well as impracticable. The Evidence Adt itself. furnishes cogent evidence against this interpretation. According to s. 98, evidence may be given to show the meaning of illegible or not OOII\lllOnly intelligible characters, of foreign, o!>solctte, technical, local and provincial expres sions or abbreviations, and of words used in peculiar sense. Under s. 162, where a witness asked to produce a document in Court objects to its production, the Court shall decide on such objection. For this purpose the Court may inspect the document, unless it refers to matters of State. The Court may get the document translated if it can· oot read the. original. Notes in short-hand may be said to be in 'not commonly intelligible characters' and 'abbreviations' under s. 98. Evidence can be given to show their meaning. It is a matter of every day experience that commercial documents recorded in mahajani are admitted in the civil courts. Claims are even founded on those documents. We go by English translations of documents on record. So we reject this argument. However, the note of the speed!! taken down by Manohar Kashinath Kalankar in the Nawi Mangalwari meeting is inadmissible under s. 160. The relevant extract from his notes of Dhote's speech is this : "Bhrashtachari Sharma is speaking the language of purchasing poor people ... at the time of election (you) will get note (money) but for the movement I am willing to shed my blood." In his examination·inchief Kalankar has deposed that .the extract was correctly recorded by him while Dhote was speaking. But in his cross-examination ho has made .this admission : "It is possible that if the speaker had said : "mttashtachari Congresscha Sharma" a word might have been missed. Now, I say that the word _"Congresscha"_ might have been missed." Now, there is a world of difference between "Bhrashtacbari Sharma" and "Bhrashtachari Congresscha Sharma". The former means· 'fallenconduct Sharma'; the latter means 'Sharma of the fallen conduct Congress.' If Dhote had really said "Bhrashtachad Congressclta Sharma" it would not amount to a corrupt practice. This admission of Kalankar in his cross-examination casts doubt on the accuracy of his recording of Dhote's speech in this meeting. A B c D E F Two other circumstances also enhance our doubt. Admittedly, Dhote spoke in Marathi. Kalankar is not a .Marathi short-hand writer. G So he says that he took down. the speech of Dhote in long hand in Marathi. It is quite possible' that in the long hand recording of a speech some words might be missed by the reporter. Again, while the election petition alleges that in this meeting Dhote said only that Rikhabchand was a 'charilfterless man' (Charitrahin), in the aforesaid extract the charges are of Rikhabchand Sharma being of fallen-conduct, and of the electors getting money in the election. On account of all these H c~ta".lces, we are not sure that the extract is a correct recording of the speech of Dhote. Hence we will exclude fri>m evidence the aforesaid extract as being inadmissible in evidence. A c D E F G H l.A.XMINARAYAN _v._ RETURNING OFFICER _(Dwivedi,_ J.) 843 . Counsel for the appellant has referred us to _Kallli Prasad_ la~er _Yagnik_ v. _i'urshottamdas Ranchhoddas Patel(_ _[1]_ _)_ and P, _C. Purshothllma Reddiar_ v. _S._ _Peruma/(_ _[2]_ _)._ These cases do not help him. In the former case, the police reporters who took down the speeches of Shambhu Maharaj had stated that they had correctly recorded the speeches. Nothing was elicited from their cross-examina· ti on to cast doubt on their asserted correct recording of the speeches. 'The High Court believed the police witnesses, and this Court affirmed the view of the High Omrt. In the latter case, the police reports of speeches were not cited for the purpose of proving the commission of any corrupt practice. They were cited merely to prove that the .-eturned candidate had held certain meetings, the expenses of which he had not shown in his return of election expenses. The corrupt practice charged was of spending more than the authorised !!mount in election. The Court was not concerned with the question whether the police reports of speeches were admissible in proof of a corrupt practice under s. 123(4). _Credibility_ _of_ _the_ _evidence_ _of_ _the aforesaid witnesses_ : Dhote spoke in Hindi .in the Chamar Nala meeting. Kalankar claims to have recorded his speech in the meeting. The relevant extract from his speech is as follows : "Sharma and Naik (reference is _to_ Rikhabchand Sharma and V asant Rao Naik, Chief Minister of H'.aharashtra) have become rich by corruption. Corruption thy name i~ Rikhabchand." He also said : "You have to oast your vote after thinking properly. It will be decided in this election whether people here will choose corruption or a social worker." It will not be safe to place implicit reliance on his testimony in regard to this meeting. While assessing the probative .value of his evidence, it will be necessary to remember that "the report of a short·hand writer is, strictly speak-. ing, not substantive evidence as such, and the document cari only be used as a part of the oral evidence sanctified by oath." _(Kanli_ _Prasad_ _Jayshanker Yagnik, supra)._ There are several reasons why his testimony does not inspire confi· dence. F°II'Stly, there is some evidence to show that the Nagpur police mllst have had a strong prejudice against Dhote. Rikhabchand Sharma bas filed a written statement. He has annexed a schedule to the written statement. The schedule gives a list of 25 cases Against Doote. On May 4, 1964 Dhote along with his associates assaulted Head Constable ~ N~ain. who was on duty at _Y eotmal. In a publio meeting held at Pimpan. he ts alleged to have delivered a speech instigaitng the people for I~ godowns an~ assaulti~g publi.c servants. On April 11, 1968 he delivereµ a speech m a pubhc meeting at Hinganghat instigatiag - people to assault government officials. On October 17, 1968 at Alcola Railway Station he forcibly entered into a first class compartment in which the late Shri Gopalrao Khedekar, a minister of Maharashtra ~ tra~elling, by pus~ing the police inspector aside. On May _5,_ 1970 he ts said to have delivered a speech at W ardha threatening Police (I) [1969] 3 S. C. R. 400. (2) [1972]S. _c:_ R. 646 •. 844 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1974 J 1 s.c.R. Sub-Inspector Pawar for prosecuting· Forward 'Block workers and demanding his transfer and threatening revenge. 1f he was not tr!lll8~ ferred. On November 22, 1970, Dhote along with his followers Jed a procession and is alleged to have threatened the police and caused damage to the police wireless van. Secondly, Manohar Kashinath Kalankar has evidently made exaggerations in his oral evidence. For instance, in his examinationin·duef he said that he had attended meetings of different parties, But in cross-examination he was forced to admit that he had attended only one meeting of the Hindu Mahasabha. He said in his cross-examina· tion that he could not tell from memory what speeches were deiivered in the meetings which he attended. It will indicate that he is not n man of super-human memory. 'Nevertheless he has ventured to vouchsafe fiom memory that Dhote was present from' the very begin· ning in the meetings in which Pundalik MaSUrkar and Satya Narain Sharma were speakers. On cross-examination, he admitted that there is no note to th!lt effect in his note-book. We have already held that he seems to be interested in helping the cause of Rikhabchand Sharma and appellants. From a witness of speeches he has converted himself to a witness of Dhote's. consent for the speeches of Pundalik Masurkar and Satya Narain Sharma. We have already rejected his evidence in that COIJDection. So he is not an impartial witness. Thirdly, it is not free from doubt that he was 'present in the Chamar Nala meeting. 'The relevant extract from his notes of the speech is : "Sharma and Naik had become rich by corruption.. . Corrnption thy name is Rikhabchand .. you have to cast your vote after thinking properly. It will be decided in this election whether people here will choose corruption or a social worker." Connsel for the appellants says that Kalankar was not specifically cross-examined in regard to his presence in the meot· ing. It is true that he was not confronted with the straight question that he was not present in the meeting and was falsely deposing. But the trend of cross-examination unmistakably shows that the cT06S· examiner was questioning his presence in the meeting. The relevant cross-examination elicits: "My notes show that the Chamar Nala meet· ing of 14-4-1971 was called by the Azad Bhim Sena. Generally \ve short-hand reporters do not attend cultural functions or meetings held to celebrate birth anniversaries or death annivarsaries. I cannot tell whether the names of the speakers who were to address the meeting on 144-1971 were earlier announced. Nobody had told me nor did I ask anybody whether Shri Jambusantrao Dhote was going to speak .(I! . the meeting." His presence having been questioned, it was incumbent on the appellants to produce documentary evidence in proof of his presence. There is no doubt that if he were really present iri the meeting, convincing police documentary evidence will be available to prove his presence. He has admitted that for going to the meeting a conveyance was given to him by the Department. No evidence has been produced to prove this fact aJso. The meeting was called to celebrate Ambedkar Jayanti day. Dhote spoke in Hindi. But in the whole of Dhote's speech, which Kalankar has noted down in his note-book, there is a solitary reference A B c D E G H A B c D E F G H LAXWNARAYAN l'. RETURNING OFFICER _(Dwivedi,_ _!.)_ 845. to the late B. R. Ambedkar and that too in Marathi. He is reported to have said: "Today we are celebrating the Jayanti of a great man." (emphasis added). The use of the mild epithet 'great' (and llmt too oruy once) is rather startlmg and unexpected of Dhote. He had gone there with an eye on vote-catching. He should accordmgl y have devoted the major part of his speech in eUlog1sing the qua.11ties and services of the late Dr. B. R. Ambedkar to the downtrodden and thus winning their heart and mind. The probability is that he would have merely alluded to the aspect of election from the side-lines. But his entire speech as recorded _by_ Kalankar is devoted to election. It is highly improbable to expect that from a shrewd speaker like Dhote. It creates misgivings in our minds about the presence· of Kalankar in the meeting. Again, Kalankar has admitted in his cross-examination that "Shri Dhote's speeclh is always systematic and there is no incoherence in it .• ~'Yet when one specific incoherent portion in Dhote's· speech as r~corded by him was pointed out to him, he admitted that the said· !>ortion does not fit in with what prec¢es and succeeds it. ·Ob.ote is .recorded to be speaking about the poverty of the people. In that context he said that "in the meeting at Lakarganj, Chief Minist.cr Vasant Rao Naik had said that they are· poor who have committed sins in their past life. This is a humilitating statement. No sooner, he said so, people raised slogans that Chief Minister Naik should go away. Chief Minister who talks of ushering in socialism should disclose in which book it is written that poverty is the consequence of the sins of the past life." After this portion the incoherent portion begins : "You should consider how Rikhabchand Sharma and Vasant Rao Naik can usher in socialism. When the whole country was fighting for independence, Sharma Ji was doing the work of puncture repairing. There are others who are doing that work, bnt they have not become capitalists. Sharma Ji and Naik have become rich by corruption. Sharma is rich. Therefore, we are poor. Sharmji's brain is fitted in re:verse and he is a candidate of the Cbngress." Thereafter the speech continues : "Taking the aid of their wealth, Congress leaders like the Chief Minister Naik and Yashwant Rao Chauhan are caricaturing the poor. In this Republic those ·who havl) got ill-earned income are rulers .. We are being looted and there is a fight for power. I can fight for the same. But poverty cannot be eliminated by such conduct as that of Sharma." Kalankar has made this admission in his cross-examination "It is correct .that if the (sandwiched incoherent) portion is omitted, the continuity of the speech will remain and that the portion following the (sandwiched) speech fits in the context of the portion preceding it". This admi&<ion also casts doubt on his presence in tlic meeting. Dhote has examined himself and Rajababu Ganpatrao Meshram .. Dhote has denied that he had made any offending remarks against Rikhabchand Sharma which Kalankar attributed to him in his notebook. Let us keep aside his denial for he is interested in denial. But. Rajababu Ganpatrao Mcshrrun's evidence cannot be overfookcd. According to Kal:inkar, he presided over the meeting. He has deposed: "Ambedkar Jayanti falls on 14th of April. On 14th April, a meeting was held in Chamar Nala locality. This meeting was cailed by Azad Bhim Sena in connectfon with the Ambedkar _I_ ayanti. I presided over 846 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 19721 J 1 **s.c.11..** this meeting." He said that the photographs of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar and Buddha were placed on the dais, and that they wero garlanded. According to him, Ajabrao Ingle spoke about the Bauddha commu· nity and Dr. Ambedkar. The other speakers dwelt on the work of Dr. Ambedkar for the labourers. Io his cross-examination on behalf of Rikhabchand Sharma, he admitted that Dhote also spoke about the election. In his cross-examination on behalf of the appellants, he said that Dhote first spoke on the problems of labour, then on Dr. Ambedkar and in the concluding part of his speech he said that he was standing as a candidate in the election. The High Court appears to have believed his evidence. He. does not seem to be an interested wit· ness. He has stood the test of cross-examination. There appears to be no reason why we should not believe his testimony. It is a curious feature of this case that neither during the election nor after the eleotion there was a whisper of protest by anyone includ ing Rikhabchand Sharma. against the alleged commission of corrupt practices. His statement issued after his defeat was published in the Nagpur Times of 23-4-1971. Even there he does not complain against the commission of corrupt practices by Dhote 11nd his supporters. The High Court did not con$ider it safe to rely on Kalankar's evidence. Its view is bottomed on appreciation of evidence based on the credibility of the witness. For the reasons already discussed, we are unable to hold that the High Court bas gone wrong in its view. It has not overlooked any material feature in the evidence. Nor cad its view be said to be perverse. Shesh Rao Kambale has recorded in short-hand the Marathi speeches of Dhote in the Ganji Peth, Maska Sath and Kasturchand Park meetings. In the Ganji Peth meeting Dhote is reported to have said : "Bhrashtachar thy name is Rikhabchand.. . . . you should not cast your vote in favour of fallen-conduct (Bhrashtachar) and if you do not want to elect me, you may vote for other candidates. Po not vote for a man of fallen-conduct (bhrashtaohari). Do not allow it to be proved that you are companions of fallen'conduct (bharashtachar)." Counsel for the appellants says that this portion of Dhote's speech makes out a corrupt practice under s. 123(4). We are reluctant to take that view. It is well to remember that it is one of those flourishes or hyperboles which are the common stock-in-trade of election speakers to exploit the emotions of the audience and to augment their popular support. Election speeches should be understood broad-mindedly, not literally. Election speakers often do not mean what they say, and the audience genernlly does not take them by their words. Even literally, "bhrashtachar" and "bhrashtachari" will not inevitably establish **a** corrupt practice. "Bhrashtaebar" is a compound Sanskrit word'. It is compounded of "bhrashta" and "'achar''. The word "bhrashta" is derived from the root "bhransh" which means, inter alia, 'fallen'. ISir Monier Monier-Williams : A Sanskrit Engli~h Dictiona•y _1956_ Edn. p. 769). So "Bhrasbtachar" means, inter alia, 'fallen-conduct'; (compare Kalidasa's phrase in the Meghaduta ~~f"I' <lftol <f.f = (fallen ·old leaves). "Bhrashtachari" will also mean a 'man of fallen conduct'. **A** B c D **E** **F** G **H** A B ###### c D l. G II LAXMINARAYAN _v._ RE1URNING OFFICER _(Dwivedi,_ _}.)_ 84 7 The High Court has given a uniform meaning of 'corruption' to the word 'bhrashtachar' in the reported speeches of Dhote. It appears to us from the context of the Ganji Peth speech that Dhote might have used the word 'bhrashtachar' in the sense indicated by us. In any case, the context does not plaihly exclude this innocuous interpretation. It is well-known that a person who takes liquor, etc; is even now regarded by the common folk as a 'bhrashtachari'. So it cannot be said that the aforesai4 portion of Dhote's speech is susceptible of one and only one construction which will establish a corrupt practice. And Dhotc cannot be put in peril on an ambiguity. In the Maska Sath meeting Dhote is reported to have said : 'This is a war between truth and power. We have to see whether truth wins or power wins. We have to see whether truth wins or power loses, whether falsehood wins, or truth wins. We have to see whether corruption "wins or purity wins." By no stretch and strain of these words, it is possible to make out a corrupt practice. In this speech Dhote dose not in our view make any statement of fact in relation to the personal character or conduct of Rikhabchand Sharma. In the Kasturchand Park meeting Dhote is reported to have said: "In the Chi tr a Talkies meeting the Chief Minister of Maharashtra, his discipiles, Mandani or Sukhadani had said that J ambuWantrao Dhote would be buried seven patals deep. In democracy the language p~ burying seven patals is spoken and that also by the Chief of a State. What is the meaning of this?" As regards. Rikhabchand Sharma he is reported to have said: "You know his achievements and his capacity. I do not wish to speak anything about him." This speech also does not amount to a corrupt practice. The police witnesses have said that they used to send transcribed summaries of their notes of speeches _to_ the Maharashtra government at Bombay. An application was made on behalf of the appellants in the High Court for summoning the appropriate officers to produce those summaries, for it was said that they would corroborate these witnesses. The High Court rejected the application because it appears to have bee11 made at a late stage in the course of arguments. An application has been made to the same effect in this Court also. We do not think that it will be proper to allow the application for various reasons. Firstly. Kalankar said in his cxamination·in·chief that full reports of the speeches were sent to the Government at Bombay, but in his cross-exami nation he admitted that only summaries of .the speeches were sent. Shesh Rao Kamble has no doubt uniformly said that only the summaries were sent. But in view of the statement of the former witness we do not fee!reassured that only summaries were sent. Secondly, the mere admission of summaries in evidence at this stage will not avail the appellants. A number of police witnesses from Nagpur as well as from Bombay will have to be summoned to give evidence. A number of documents, especially the dispatch registers, V1il1 have to be admitted in evidence to ascertain whether full reports or summaries were sent to Bombay. It is relevant to mention that Dhote has accused the witnesses of making interpoliations in their note-books. It is neither proper prudent to launch an enquiry of such a magnitude at this stage. 848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1974] 1 s.c.R. Thirdly, as regards the reported speeches of Pundlik Masurkar and Satya Narai,n Sharma, we have already held, that they were not made with the consent of Dhote. As regards the speeches of Dhote, we have earlier held that one of them is not admissible in evidence, and three others do not make out a corrupi: practice. As regards the ·remaining one recorded by Kalankar in the Chamar Nala meeting, we have earlier expressed doubt about his presence in the meeting. So. summaries will not advance the case of the appellants. It will remain as it is now. In short, it will be a mere .waste of time to summon them. The High Court has exhibited _not only extracts from the reported speeches of Dhote but has also admitted the full reports of his speeches. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that the full reports establish other instances of the pleaded corrupt practice against Dhote. The High Con.rt was also addressed on this aspect. It did not 11ccept the_ argument. Nor can we. The other instances were not pleaded in the petition. The appellants did not seek to amend the petition by incorporating those instances. Dhote got no opportunity to deny them or lo tlispr'ove them. He did not even cross-examine the police witnesses with respect to those instances. He confined: his cross-examination mainly to the instanc~s plead,ed in the petition. . Taking notice of the · new instances will cause serious prejudice to him. _Issue No._ 9: It _is_ alleged that in the Kasturchand Paric: meeting Dhote and his followers distributed copies of the weekly Gram Scwal: which was published by Atal Bahadur Singh with 'the consent of Dhote. Dhote has denied that he had consented to its publication. He has also denied that he and his follmvers distributed the Gram Sewak in the meeting. There is no doubt that the Gram Sewak-CJ)ntains an attack on the personal character of Rikhabchand Sharma and falls within the grip of s. 123 ( 4) of the Act. But the High Court has found that neither Dhote nor his followers distributed it. It has also-jbund ·that Atal Bahadur Singh did not publish it with the consent of Dhote. Accordingly the issue has been decided against the appellants. Satya Narain Sharma, a witness for Dhote, has admitted that the copies of Gram Sewak were not distributed free but were sold on the road running from the Kasturchand statue to the Assembly building after the close of the meeting. Similarly, another witness of Dhote, B. M. Gaikwad, has admitted that he saw copies of the Gram Sewak ~ing sold outside the Kasturchand Park. So the important questions to be decided are: ( 0 whethec the Gram Sewak was published by Atal Bahadur Singh with the consent of Dhote; (2) whether Dhote hiinself distributed the copies of the Gram Sewak in the meeting; and (3) whether any of his followers distributed the copies of the Gram Sewak in the meeting. _Re._ (I) A B ###### _c_ D E F G There is no direct evidence to prove that Atal Bahadur Singh : published the Gram Sewak wit~ the consent of Dhote. Consen.t, how- . ever, may be inferred from circumstances. (See _Sheopat_ _S111gh_ v. H A n c D E F G H LAXMINARAYAN _v._ RETURNING OFFICER _(Dwivedi, I.)_ 849 _Harish_ _Chandra(')_ and _R._ _M. Seshadri_ v. _G. Vasantha_ _Pai(')._ Adllllttedly, Atal Bahadur Singh is the editor of the Gram Sewak. He has been examined by Dhote. He has slated that he had published the ottending Gram Sewak on his own initiative. He has denied that it was published by him with the consent of Dhote. He has also stated that 1000 copies of the Gram Sewak were printed on his order by Sri Sharda Mudranalaya. He had ~ent out of Nagpur 200 copies for sale; about 181) complimentary copies were sent to the advertising agencies; 200 copies ·were sent to the book stalls in Nagpur; 200 copies. were given to hawkers fo'I' sale. Out of the 400 copies given to the b<;lok-stall keepers and hawkers, 70 copies were returned to him. He received the price for 330 copies sold by them. He has stated in cross-examination that he maintains accounts relating to the publication of the Gram Sewak. He further said : "If I am asked to produce these tomorrow, I am willing to do so.'' No such demand was macje on behalf of the appellants. His evidence supports the evidence of Satya Narain Shae.ma that the Gram Sewak was sold and not distributed free outside the meeting. There is nothing in his evidence to discredit his testimony. He has been believed by the High Court. So we share the view of the High Court that it was sold by hawkers only. Atal Bahadur Singh has admitted that he had been canvassing for Dhote in his ward'. He has also admitted that he had pasted certain posters in his ward soliciting support for Dhote at his exp:nse. He has also admitted that hf had been working with Dhote in certain associations and in the Maha Vidarbha Andolan. His association with and his canvassing for Dhote could not establish that the Gram Sewak was published with the consent of Dhote. Evidence shows that when Dhote was canvassing from door to door in the ward in which Atal Bahadue Singh resides, he was not accompanied bv the latter. This will show that the latter was working on his own initiative. We have believed his evidence that the copies of the Gram Sewak were sold and not distributed free. It is hardly probable that if Dhote had given his consent to the publication of the Gram Sewak, it would have been snld and not distributed free. T'1e •ale suggests want of consent of Dhote. So we agree with the High Court that the appellants have failed to prove the publication of Gram Sewak with the consent of Dhote. _Re._ (2) To prove distribution of the copies of Gram Sewak in the meeting as alleged in the election petition, the appellants have examined Neoa"t Rao, Janak Lal, Namdeo Rao, Govind Marnt Rao and Marot Rao (one of the appellants). Nepat Rao and Namdeo Rao have stated that Dhote, Atal Bahadur Singh and B. M. Gaikwad had distributed the copies of the Gram Sewak. Both of them also say that Dhote gave one copy of the Gram Sewak to them. Marot Rao says that Dhote and Atal Bahadue Singh distributed the copies of the Gram Sewak. So his evidence is not material in regard to the distribution of the ·Gram Sewak by Dhote. Nepat Rao is the General Secretary (I) A.T.R. 1960 S.C. 1217. (2) [1969] 2 S.C.R. 1019· 850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1974 J 1 S.C.R. of the Lal Bahadur Sastri Dal. Laxminarayan (one of Jie appeliants) is the Prei;ident of the Dal. He is also a member of the Yuvak Congress, an affiliate of Congress (R), which had sponsored Rikhabchand Sharma's candidature. He has also admitted that he had been canvassing for Rikhabchand Sharma till April 15, 1971. Namdeo Rao is also a member of the Congress (R). He has admitted that he had been canvassing for Rikhabchand Sharma. He has also admitted that he was the counting agent of Rikhabchand Sharma. Janak Lal appears _to_ be a chance \\itness. . He says that he went to the Sitabadi. market at about 9 p.m. for purchasing a clutch wiic for his motor-cycle and on his way back he went to' the meeting in the Kasturchand Park. He has admitted that ordinarily the Sitabadi market is closed af 8.30 p.m. He has admitted that after the meeting he had never $poken about the distribution of the Gram Sewak to Rikhabchand or. to the appellants till the date of his evidence. His presence in the meeting. acoordingly, is very doubtful. Marot Rao bas denied that he had been canvassing _fo:_ Rikhabchand Sharma, but he has admitted that be went to Umred to see how the polling was proceeding as he was interested in the success of the Congress candidate. Nepal Rao, Nemdeo Rao and Marot Rao are evidently highly interested witnesses. It is surprising that no independent witness has been examined by the appellants in order to prove distribution of the Gram Sewak by Dhote, cspeci;tlly because the meeting was attended by a large number of persons. It is also difficult to believe these witnesses for another important reason. It has come in evidence of other witnesses of the al>Pellants that the meeting was addressed by Dhote from an improvised dais or a truck which was used in the procession before the meeting. These witnesses were cross-examined about the nature of the dais. None of them stated that the dais was improvised on the trUCk. Had they really attended the meeting, they could not have failed to notice this striking improvisation. Dhote has denied that he had distributed the copies of the Gram Sewak. Having regard to the nature of the appellants' evidence, we are in entire agreement with the High Court that they have failed to prove .the distribution of the Gram Scwak by Dhote in the meeting. Govind Marot Rao has deposed that B. M. Gaikwad had given him a copy of the Gram Sewak in the Chitnis Park from where the procession started before the meeting. Now, the distribution of the Gram Sewak in the Chitnis Park is not pleaded in the petition. ·B. M. Gaikwad was the election agent of Dhote. A corrupt practice committed by an election agent avoids the election. lt is not necessary to prove the consent of the returned candidate. If B. M. Gaikwad had really distributed the copies of the! Gram Sewak in the meeting or in the Chitnis Park, it is difficult to believe that the appellants would have failed to make a mention of it in their election petition. Govind Marot Rao is an active member of the Congress (R). Admittedly, he had canvassed for Rikhabchand Sharma. The High Court has disbelieved him, and we find no reason to disagree with the High Court. _Re._ (3) We have already held that the High Court rightly rejected the evi~ deuce of the appellants' witnesses in regard to the distribution of the A II D G II A LAXM!NARAYAN _v._ RETIJRNING OFFICER _(Dwivedi,_ J.) 851 Gram Sewak by Dhote in the meeting or anywhere else. That being so, we do not accept their eviclence of distribution of copies of the Gram Sewak by Atal Bahadur Singh, B. M. Gaikwad and others ln the meeting. We agree with the High Court that the appellants have failed to prove issue No. 9 in their favour. The last argument of the appellants is about the costs awarded by the High Court to Dhote while dismissing the election petition. The· High Court's order is : "I, dismiss the petition with costs with the direction that the respondent No. 2 (Dhote) will be entitled to his coots at the scheduled rate of Rs. 400/- per day for 52 hearings from the petitioners and that respondent No. 11 will get Rs. 1500/- as his ###### c costs payable by the petitioners." Counsel for the appellants points out that Rs. _4001-_ per day is prescribed by the Bombay High Court Rules for fees of counsel and the High Court has awarded costs to Dhote in accordance with that rule. He has also pointed out that counsel who appeared for Dhoto and re~pondcnt No. 11 did not file a certificate in the High Court in proof of payment of any fees to them. There is also no other evi() dence in proof of payment of fees to them. The opposing counsel do not contradict this statement of counsel for the appellants. Accordingly we are proceeding on the assumption that there is no evidence on the record to show that any fees were paid to counsel for Dhote and respondent No. 11. Section 96 provides that "the reasonable expenses _incu"ed_ by any £ person in attending to gi:ve evidence may be allowed by the High Court to such person and shall, unless the High Court otherwise directs _/_ be deemed to be part of the costs." Section 119 deals with cost~ in the cause. It reads : "Costs shall be in the discretion of the Hi~h Court: Provided that where a petition is dismissed under clause (a) G H of section 98, the returned candidate shall be entitled to the cosL~ _incurred_ by him in contesting the petition and accordingly the U~h Court shall make an order for costs in favour of the returned candidate." (emphasis added) . It may be observed that l1!e word _'incurred'_ occurs both in 8ection 96 and section 119. 'Incurred' means "actually spent". The petition was dismissed by the High Court under cl. (a) of s.98. Accord;ncly, it was incumbent on the High Court to award costs to Dhote. But be is entitled to only such costs as are shown to have been incurred by him. Admittedly, there is no proof of payment of any fee to counsel by Dhote. So he is not entitled to the amount of Rs. 400/- per diem awarded by the High Court. However, he will be entitled to any other costs which are shown to have been incurred by him. Having regard to the foregoing discussion, the appeal is allowed only with respect to counsel's fees awarded to Dhote and the resoondent No. 11 by the Hi~ Court. A8 for the rest, the apoeal is dismisged. Dhote will be entitled to such costs as have been incurred by him in this Court as well as in the High Court. V.P.S. _Appeal_ _allowed_ _re_ : _costs._