G. Gopalreddy v. Shanta Bai Talpalikar — 1968 DIGILAW 213 (SC)

JUDGMENT : M. Hidayatullah, C.J.I. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by which the election of the returned candidate (who is appellant) has been set aside. The facts of the case are as follows: The election was to the Legislative Assembly of Andhra Pradesh at the last general elections from the Kulwakurti Constituency. There were four candidates. The appellant was returned having received 19,289 votes. His closest rival was Respondent 1 who received 14,546 votes. The other two respondents received respectively, three thousand and odd and one thousand and odd votes. The election petition was filed by the first unsuccessful candidate on April 4, 1967. The charge against the returned candidate was that he was disqualified as a candidate as he was interested in certain contracts with the Government and they subsisted on the date of his nomination and further that he was guilty of the corrupt practice of engaging a bus and carrying voters to the polling booth at Kadthal. On the first point the decision of the learned Judge in the High Court was in favour of the returned candidate. It was held that the returned candidate was not interested in the contracts which, although they subsisted with Government, belonged to a new partnership of which the appellant was not a member, an earlier partnership having been dissolved. On the second point the finding was against the returned candidate and it was held that he had hired a bus No. APQ. 2095 from one Abdul Gafoor (RW 22) and this bus made two trips between Chitranaka and Kadthal and carried some voters belonging to the Lambada tribe. It is on this second ground that the election of the returned candidate has been set aside as involving a corrupt practice under the law relating to elections. Thus the appeal is on points of fact mainly, although a point of law arises in the question whether the returned candidate was disqualified or not. We begin with the question whether a bus was used to carry voters and that is a question purely of fact. 2. In a recent case we have stated the principles on which the evidence in election appeals will be gone into by this Court. We begin with the question whether a bus was used to carry voters and that is a question purely of fact. 2. In a recent case we have stated the principles on which the evidence in election appeals will be gone into by this Court. We have pointed out there that an appellant, when he questions a finding of fact, will be required to establish to the satisfaction of this Court how that finding is erroneous. We have also pointed out that although this Court would reappraise the evidence but if it is a question of the credibility of a witness depending upon the estimates of his truthfulness formed from observation of the witness by the court of trial, this Court will be slow to interfere, unless there is something radically wrong with the approach of the trial Judge. Bearing this test in mind we approach the problem of evidence in the present case. Before we consider the evidence it is necessary to point out that Mr Ram Reddy in arguing this appeal drew our attention to certain observations of this Court as to the trial of election petitions in which allegations of corrupt practice were made against candidates. These cases are Jagdev Singh Sidhanti v. Pratap Singh Daulta, (1964) 6 SCR 750 and Mohan Singh v. Bhanwarilal, (1964) 5 SCR 12 . In both these cases it is stated that a charge of corrupt practice is in the nature of a criminal charge and the burden is upon the election petitioner to establish his charge fully and to the satisfaction of the court. It is argued by Mr Ram Reddy that the burden is always on the election petitioner and the evidence must be clear and cogent and direct and should lead to the irresistible inference that the charge as pleaded has been found. In the absence of such clear evidence it is not open to the court to infer from mere preponderance of probabilities that a corrupt practice was committed. We would add that, in our opinion, the real approach to the problem is this. The acts constituting corrupt practice must be proved and established by direct evidence. In other words, if a particular type of corrupt practice is pleaded and alleged, it must be established by clear and cogent evidence that the corrupt practice did in fact take place. The evidence must be positive and definite. The acts constituting corrupt practice must be proved and established by direct evidence. In other words, if a particular type of corrupt practice is pleaded and alleged, it must be established by clear and cogent evidence that the corrupt practice did in fact take place. The evidence must be positive and definite. But there is room for another approach regarding the complicity of the candidate or election agent or some person acting with the consent of the candidate or his election agent. This may be inferred from circumstantial evidence also provided the circumstances point clearly to the individual charged. It is not necessary to explain our meaning more fully because this case does not need to be decided on the basis of circumstantial evidence. 3. In the present case we are concerned with the hiring of a bus and its use for transporting the voters to the polling booth which is contrary to the provisions of the Representation of the People Act. This fact, therefore, must be established by the election petitioner fully and to the satisfaction of the court before a conclusion can be reached that the corrupt practice charged had in fact occurred. 4. The case about the hiring of the bus and the carriage of voters from Chatrinaka to Kadthal on the 15th February falls into three phases. The first phase is deposed to by Desya (PW 4) who stated that 8 days before the election the returned candidate had approached him and offered him money to get the votes of the Lambadas for himself. Desya sated that on that occasion a sum of Rs. 100 was given by the returned candidate of which Rs. 50 was kept by Desya and the balance was given to Bakya (PW 5). Desya claimed that he and Bakya were the leaders of the Lambadas and that this sum was paid to him and to Bakya to arrange to canvass the votes of the Lambadas. This phase of the case has not been corroborated by any other witness and the High Court did not rely upon it because there was no mention of it in the election petition. 5. The next phase is a visit on February 14 to Chatrinaka by the returned candidate in the company of one Bhattu Srinivasulu (who has not been examined) and Kumari Ramayya (PW 3). 5. The next phase is a visit on February 14 to Chatrinaka by the returned candidate in the company of one Bhattu Srinivasulu (who has not been examined) and Kumari Ramayya (PW 3). This visit has been held by the High Court to be proved. On this occasion the returned candidate met Desya (PW 4) and Bakya (PW 5) and told them that a bus would be arranged for taking the Lambada voters to Kadthal for voting the next day and it was also promised by the returned candidate that a sum of Rs. 5 would be paid to each voter, and they would also be fed after the voting. This part of the case was attacked on the part of the returned candidate in the High Court on several grounds. One of the grounds was that he was present on the 14th at Jupalli and could not therefore have gone to Chatrinaka to meet Desya and Bakya. It was also challenged on the ground that PW 3 could not have gone to Chatrinaka on the 14th because he was on that date at Urukondapeta. In this Court these two aspects of the matter have been pressed before us and in addition an attempt has been made to discredit the evidence of PW 3 Kumari Ramayya by showing that it is at variance with the evidence of the other witnesses particularly Desya. 6. The third phase of the hiring and the use of the bus is said to have taken place on February 15 which was polling day. On that day the story is that the bus had reached Chatrinaka at 7 to 7.30. a.m. and from there it made two trips taking the Lambadas to Kadthal for voting. This case is based on the evidence of a large number of persons from the Lambada community and others at Kadthal and Chatrinaka who had seen the bus moving with voters on the polling day. In this connection both sides attempted to prove their case with the aid of oral testimony. The returned candidate tried to descredit the witnesses who deposed about the bus and the election petitioner attempted to establish that a bus was sent and that reports about it were made to various officers when the bus was being used to carry the voters. We shall come to the details of this part of the case in due course. The returned candidate tried to descredit the witnesses who deposed about the bus and the election petitioner attempted to establish that a bus was sent and that reports about it were made to various officers when the bus was being used to carry the voters. We shall come to the details of this part of the case in due course. The second and the third phase were accepted in the High Court and the case of the returned candidate, now as appellant before us is, that the evidence relied upon by the High Court is worthless and should be discarded. 7. We shall begin not with the first phase of the hiring of the bus and its use but with the second. No attempt was made before us by the election petitioner to establish the earlier visit which Desya stated was 8 days before the election. Since this part of the case has not been accepted by the High Court and has not been pressed upon us we shall ignore the evidence of Desya on this point. On the second phase the evidence comes from PWs 3, 4 and 5 and the election petitioner. Ramayya (PW 3) is characterised as a turn-coat and one who was admittedly deposing because he had not been paid Rs. 100 for acing as polling agent by the returned candidate. Whatever be the motives of Ramayya (PW 3), we shall examine his evidence as criticised in this Court and compare it with the evidence of Desya and Bakya. It may be mentioned here that the High Court treated Desya and Bakya as in the nature of accomplices and stated that their evidence would not be accepted unless corroborated in material particulars. Mr Ram Reddy's attempt in this appeal therefore is to prove that the other evidence rather than corroborate them contradicts them in many material particulars. 8. Ramayya's evidence is criticised on many grounds. Ramayya is a resident of Jakinapalle which is 8 miles from Kulwakurti. The distance from Kulwakurti to Chatrinaka is about 52 miles and to Hyderabad 55 miles. Mr Ram Reddy's attempt in this appeal therefore is to prove that the other evidence rather than corroborate them contradicts them in many material particulars. 8. Ramayya's evidence is criticised on many grounds. Ramayya is a resident of Jakinapalle which is 8 miles from Kulwakurti. The distance from Kulwakurti to Chatrinaka is about 52 miles and to Hyderabad 55 miles. The story given by Ramayya was that on the day previous to the date of poll i.e. February 14, 1967 he left his house at about 5 a.m. and walked to Kulwakurti where he met the returned candidate who was accompanied by one Bhattu Srinivasulu and the three of them travelled by jeep to Chatrinaka. At Chatrinaka they spoke to Desya and Bakya and informed them about the arrangement for the bus the following day and that each voter would be paid Rs. 5. The criticism in this connection is that Desya does not speak of the presence of Ramayya at Chatrinaka. This is deduced from a statement made by Desya in cross-examination that there were three persons in the jeep. Mr Ram Reddy contends that the three persons must have been the returned candidate, Bhattu Srinivasulu and the driver of the jeep. Therefore his contention is that this leaves Ramayya out of the picture. It may be pointed out that in an earlier part of his deposition Desya made a mention of two persons in addition to the appellant and Bhattu Srinivasulu. If one goes by this statement there would be room for Ramayya to have accompanied the returned candidate on this trip. It appears to us that Desya did not pay attention to the question which was put to him. On the second occasion he probably omitted the driver of the jeep from count and when he said that there were three persons in the jeep, he meant the four passengers and not the driver of the jeep. On the earlier occasion he had included the driver as one of the three persons. There was not much cross-examination on this part of the evidence and we are not satisfied that from this stray omission which is capable of an explanation, we can hold that Desya had excluded Ramayya as one of the persons in the jeep. 9. On the earlier occasion he had included the driver as one of the three persons. There was not much cross-examination on this part of the evidence and we are not satisfied that from this stray omission which is capable of an explanation, we can hold that Desya had excluded Ramayya as one of the persons in the jeep. 9. In addition, there was the other argument that Ramayya was not connected with the voting at Kadthal polling booth, that he was a polling agent at quite a different polling booth for the returned candidate and that there was no reason for him to go to Chatrinaka for this bargaing, particularly as Desya ascribes no part to him in the conversation. Mr Ram Reddy contends that it seems futile to have taken Ramayya to Chatrinaka if he was not going to make any approach to the Lambadas and was not going to take any part in the discussion. He also submits that Ramayya's reaching Kulwakurti so early in the morning on foot from his place 8 miles away and his walking back from Kulwakurti in the evening after the jeep returned shows an infirmity in the election petitioner's case because it seemed to be an unusual conduct for a person who was to play no part. We do not know what other functions Ramayya performed that day. It is well-known that there are wheels within wheels in elections. People pretend to be with one party while supporting another. Whether Ramayya was playing the game of cat and mouse with the returned candidate or with the election petitioner is not quite clear. The question is whether we believe Ramayya when he states that he went in the jeep to Chatrinaka and was present at these conferences? Nothing has been brought to our notice as between the depositions of Ramayya and Desya which would tend to discredit one or the other or both and in fact no attempt was made to compare their versions to show that there were inherent defects in them. On the other hand the entire effort was directed to proving that Ramayya could not have been present at this conference between the returned candidate and Desya and Bakya. On the other hand the entire effort was directed to proving that Ramayya could not have been present at this conference between the returned candidate and Desya and Bakya. For this purpose the bulk of the evidence in the case was led to prove that the returned candidate could not have gone to Chatrinaka that day because he was canvassing at Jupalli. 10. Here again there is rival evidence on the point. According to the returned candidate he was at Jupalli and was seen by a number of persons. According to the election petitioner the returned candidate was not at Jupalli and he cited R. Raghupathi Rao (PW 31) to prove this fact. The returned candidate swore to this fact himself as RW 4 and cited two witnesses in support of his case who were RWs 9 and 19. These two witnesses were disbelieved. To contradict R. Raghupathi Rao the President of the Taluka Congress Committee (PW 31), the appellant cited the Vice President of the Committee. He too was disbelieved by the High Court. Therefore we have before us positive evidence of the presence of the returned candidate at Chatrinaka where he had gone in a jeep and also positive evidence of his presence at Jupalli contradicted by other evidence to show that he was not there and was not seen. We have to judge the case between these two rival versions. 11. We are taken through the evidence of RWs 9 and 19 and were invited to accept their version. We have the appraisal of their evidence by the High Court and we have also the fact that they have been disbelieved. RW 9 worked for the election petitioner. He worked on the polling day too as the agent. It seems curious that he should have gone to depose for the rival party. A suggestion was made to him that he had been got at through another candidate but he denied it. It was put to him that the appellant did not visit Jupalli but he stoutly held that it was correct. He, however, could not give any indication of any other visit by the returned candidate to Jupalli between February 14 to February 20. It would appear therefore that his statement that he saw the returned candidate at Jupalli at about 10 or 10.30 a.m. and again at 2 or 2.30 p.m. was not quite correct. He, however, could not give any indication of any other visit by the returned candidate to Jupalli between February 14 to February 20. It would appear therefore that his statement that he saw the returned candidate at Jupalli at about 10 or 10.30 a.m. and again at 2 or 2.30 p.m. was not quite correct. If he could not remember his other visits it is remarkable that he remembered this. The High Court made a mistake in stating that the visit was at 11a.m. but that does not detract from the conclusion of the High Court since it is mainly a question whether the witness should be believed or not. We should be slow to accept the rival contention placed before us and to hold that he should be disbelieved. We must give due credence to the appraisal of the evidence by the High Court and we find nothing said in the High Court's judgment which would merit the criticism that it was based on any wrong assumption beyond the error in the time. Similarly RW 19 was pressed upon us for acceptance but his statement is thoroughly unreliable. He was asked where he had seen the returned candidate and he replied that it was when he was passing the bazar in the Harijanwada. He was asked what was he doing then? was he visiting any voters `houses? He answered he did not see what he was doing then. Then he said that it was the first time he had ever seen him and when asked who had told him that the man was Gopal Reddy, the answer was that as that man was with Venkateswara Rao and Vesudeva Rao, the witness thought that he was Gopal Reddy and therefore concluded that he was Gopal Reddy. This is hardly the kind of evidence which would impress a court. Of all the people at Jupalli why should the appellant have chosen a person who had seen him for the first time that day and who did not know him from before and who only inferred that he must have been Gopal Reddy because he saw him in the company of two others. We are satisfied that the High Court was not wrong in rejecting the testimony of RW 19. 12. This brings us to the evidence of the President and the Vice-President of the Taluka Congress Committee. We are satisfied that the High Court was not wrong in rejecting the testimony of RW 19. 12. This brings us to the evidence of the President and the Vice-President of the Taluka Congress Committee. The President said that he had not seen the returned candidate on that day at Jupalli. The Vice-President does not actually say that he saw him but he contradicted the president on many points. What we are looking for is the evidence regarding the movements of the returned candidate and if the Vice-president said nothing about it the evidence of the President stands uncontradicted at least so far as this point is concerned although it is only negative evidence. 13. On the whole we are satisfied that the alibi of the returned candidate at Jupalli was not satisfactorily established and positive evidence of Ramayya and Desya is acceptable. There are other reasons why we reach this conclusion. When we come to the evidence of the actual use of the bus it will be seen that this conclusion gets further strengthened. To contradict Ramayya that he had accompanied the appellant a witness was cited who is T.S. Reddy (PW 26). He was a worker of the returned candidate. He claimed to have written the appointment letters of polling agents including Ramayya and to have given the letter to him at Urkondapet on February 14, 1967 at 4.30 or 5 p.m. He did say that he did not know about the morning, but Ramayya was with him at Urkondapet from 12 noon. This witness was also disbelieved by the High Court. It is not stated where he met and what Kumari Ramayya and he were doing at Urkondapet that day. He was asked, if he knew that Kumari Ramayya claimed to be with Gopal Reddy and Battu Srinivasulu from 9 a.m. till 4.30 p.m. on 14. 2.1967. He stated that he knew it. He was asked who had told him this and he answered Pandurange Reddy and the returned candidate. It would appear therefore that he was in contact with the returned candidate. He was interested on other grounds also. We have not seen anything in his evidence which impresses us as being stamped with truth. It is easy for a witness to come forward and say that he had seen another person at a particular place or that he was with him. He was interested on other grounds also. We have not seen anything in his evidence which impresses us as being stamped with truth. It is easy for a witness to come forward and say that he had seen another person at a particular place or that he was with him. To test him we should know what they did, when they were together and on this there is hardly any evidence in his deposition. We are therefore satisfied that there was a visit to Chatrinaka by the returned candidate in the company of Battu Srinivasulu and Ramayya and that they met Desya and Bakya and arranged with them for the transport of the lambada voters the next day. We have however to examine this matter further, because Desya and Bakya are themselves criticised as being untruthful and not corroborated by any independent evidence. We propose to do this when we come to the next day's incident which relates to the actual use of the bus. 14. The witnesses who deal with the use of the bus are Desya and Bakya, and they are supported by three Lambadas PWs 11, 12 and 13. They are further supported by three other witnesses, who stated that they had seen the bus on the polling day bringing the lambada voters to Kadthal. It is contended that these witnesses (who have been believed in the High Court) should not be believed and that this part of the case is entirely false. Various circumstances are suggested to test the versions of Desya and also the other supporting witnesses and we shall come to this now. To begin with, it is stated that Desya and Bakya and PWs 11, 12 and 13 were lambadas and that they had received benefits in the shape of houses constructed by Government which fact they denied. This, according to Mr Ram Reddy, shows their interest in the Congress candidate and that they are even prepared to deny this evidence of benefit to themselves to support that candidate's election petition. They are also described as accomplices. In this connection it is also stated that they were found false in regard to the first incident, namely, the visit of the appellant eight days before the poll. 15. They are also described as accomplices. In this connection it is also stated that they were found false in regard to the first incident, namely, the visit of the appellant eight days before the poll. 15. As to the last point, it is sufficient to say that the court did not believe it, because that statement was not corroborated and also because there was no mention of it in the election petition. The court did not reject this testimony, because Desya and Bakya were found to have deposed falsely; rather the court did not go into this matter at all. No conclusion therefore against the rest of the evidence can be drawn from this fact alone. A great deal of emphasis, however, was placed upon the contradiction in regard to Ramayya's presence at the conference as deposed by Ramayya and Desya. To that, we have already referred. Another contradiction which was brought to our notice was with regard to the bus itself, and who boarded it, on the first trip. It was stated that according to Desya he went on the second trip, having seen off some lambada voters on the first trip. This statement was compared with the statement of Thavaria (PW 11) who stated that for the first trip, the bus had come to Chatrinaka at 7 a.m., and Desya and Bakya were in it, along with Battu Srinivasulu and he further stated that Desya and Bakya went to Kadthal in the bus on the first trip. The other two witnesses, namely, Bichya and Mudavath Ramulu (PWs 12 and 13) did not say this. It is inferred from this that there is something false in the story, because on this point, there should be no contradiction. We are not satisfied that it is not the result of want of proper observation on the part of PW 11. It stands to reason that Desya and Bakya would first send out a batch of lambada voters and then finally accompany the remaining in the last trip. Their position as leaders which is not denied would make them persuade the lambada voters to go. They will then arrange to collect the rest of them and carry them with themselves in the last trip. Therefore we think that there is some inaccuracy not in the statements of Desya and Bakya but in the statements of the other witness. Their position as leaders which is not denied would make them persuade the lambada voters to go. They will then arrange to collect the rest of them and carry them with themselves in the last trip. Therefore we think that there is some inaccuracy not in the statements of Desya and Bakya but in the statements of the other witness. In any case, this discrepancy is not sufficient to discredit the evidence of the carriage of these voters to Kadthal by bus. With regard to PW 11, it was contended that he also did not admit that houses were constructed by the Congress Government for lambadas. He is also characterised as a partisan or interested witness and in the nature of an accomplice. PW 12 was criticised, because he is the brother of PW 5. That in our opinion is not sufficient to discredit his testimony. 16. If the matter had stood with the evidence of these lambadas, we might have considered whether they should be believed without corroboration or not, because of the interest suggested and also because they were in the nature of accomplices having admittedly received some money from the appellant and also because Rs. 5 per voter was promised to them. We have however the evidence of three other witnesses who have been believed and who have corroborated these witnesses. They are PWs 18, 19 & 20. PW 18 is from Chatrinaka. It was said that he was an interested witness, because he is a member of the Congress Seva Dal which fact although he did not admit it was proved satisfactorily by the evidence of M. Satyanarayana (RW 21). There is a contradiction between PW 18 & PW 20 as to the meeting between them in the month of February. According to PW 20, he did not meet PW 18 throughout the month of February whereas according to PW 18 he had met him on one occasion, when he and Satteya son of Ramaiah were present. That was when the election petitioner visited the place and talked to them for five or ten minutes. According to PW 18, the election petitioner Shantabai had talked to him and Babaiah together. This however is a contradiction on a point which has no relation to the case and it was in any case 10 or 12 days after the election. According to PW 18, the election petitioner Shantabai had talked to him and Babaiah together. This however is a contradiction on a point which has no relation to the case and it was in any case 10 or 12 days after the election. He also did not admit that he was a worker for the election petitioner. On this also there was a contradiction between him and RW 21. These contradictions no doubt are there, but they do not bear upon the matter of the bus. Much of the evidence is led in the case to discredit the witnesses, generally rather than in relation to what they stated on that point. No doubt, the witness also did not say how many persons travelled in the bus and he did also say at one stage that the bus came empty, but on the whole, his evidence supports the fact that a bus was used. Similarly, S. Krishna (PW 19) is criticised, because he is a nephew of K. Chandramowli (PW 18) and also because he could not say how many persons had travelled by the bus or how many persons were there. Such cross-examination leads no where. This criticism has no bearing upon the fact which he was deposing to in relation to which there is no shaking of the witness in his evidence. He is also described as interested, because he has along with the others benefited in some way. C. Babaiah (PW 20) is next criticised; he was a peon who had come unsummoned to court. He stated that he had not seen Chandramowli (PW 18) and he is criticised as being contradicted by the evidence of Chandramowli (PW 18), but we cannot have it both ways. He could not say the direction from which the bus came. He was described as interested, because he came to court without obtaining the permission of his superior officers. The fact still remains that he was not shaken in his deposition that the bus was used. He was tried to be discredited in relation to his testimony generally but without any special reference to the fact about the bus. We are therefore satisfied that the High Court was not in error in holding that they supported the version of Desya and Bakya and in accepting the testimony of Desya and Bakya as corroborated by them. 17. He was tried to be discredited in relation to his testimony generally but without any special reference to the fact about the bus. We are therefore satisfied that the High Court was not in error in holding that they supported the version of Desya and Bakya and in accepting the testimony of Desya and Bakya as corroborated by them. 17. In this connection there are other witnesses who came forward to support the fact that from Chatrinaka the Lambada voters were sent out to vote at Kadthal. The bus on its journey had to pass through Pahadi Sharif. It appears from the evidence that the polling agent of the election petitioner G. Gopal Reddy (PW 21) saw this bus and he made an effort to bring this fact to the notice of the authorities. He went out on the pillion of a motor cycle driven by one Abhey Kumar and he chased the bus up and down and went to several places all along the route to make a report. The first effect of G. Gopal Reddy was to make a report to the Presiding Officer Singhade (RW 24). Singhade, however, denied that any report had been made to him. According to Singhade none brought any written complaint to him that a bus had been used for bringing the voters. G. Gopal Reddy, however, has not been believed and we see no reason to consider his evidence further. It was not presented before us for acceptance by the other side. There is, however, other evidence which seems to point to the fact that a bus was in fact used. There is the testimony of Jamnaji Rao (PW 15) a sub-inspector, who accosted this bus at Pahadi Sharif when it was travelling from Chatrinaka to Kadthal. According to Jamnaji Rao he stopped the bus. A complaint had been made to him in writing by G. Gopal Reddy that the bus was being used for carriage of voters. He endorsed on the report that it should be presented to the proper authorities and returned it. This report has been produced in the case. It is contended that this report is a forgery which has been brought into existence later. Jamnaji Rao is criticised on the ground that his testimony does not find support either from the general diary or from the diary which he himself maintained. This report has been produced in the case. It is contended that this report is a forgery which has been brought into existence later. Jamnaji Rao is criticised on the ground that his testimony does not find support either from the general diary or from the diary which he himself maintained. The report is not mentioned in them. Since the report was returned with the endorsement that it be filed before the proper authorities there would be no need for him to write it down in his own diary. His diary, however, does show that he was present at Pahadi Sharif. In contradiction the evidence of Jahangir (RW 12) a headconstable is pressed upon us. He stated that he had not seen Jamnaji Rao between 12 noon and 1 p.m. at Pahadi Sharif. He also proved the general diary and stated that no report about the bus was written in the general diary. It appear to us that the fact that Jahangir did not see the sub-inspector does not prove that the sub-inspector was not at Pahadi Sharif, It is, however, pointed out to us that this sub-inspector was under suspension and his case was under enquiry but that was in some other connection which he explained in answer to the question whether he was suspended from 1st April or not. The fact is that Jamnaji Rao could depose to the presence of the bus on this route at 1 p.m. 18. Now the evidence of Jamnaji Rao is first criticised and then it is used in support of the case of the appellant because Jamnaji Rao stated that there were passengers and Lambadas in the bus. It is, therefore, argued that there was nothing wrong there, because if voters were being carried free to the polling station there would have been an offence under Motor Vehicles Act and the sub-inspector would have taken action. The sub-inspector having found the passengers in the bus, it is contended, that this was a bus on a scheduled journey and that it was not a bus specially chartered to carry voters from Chatrinaka to Kadthal. As against this the High Court has quite clearly pointed out that the timings of this bus were different. This bus belonged to one Abdulgafoor (RW 22) and it plied between Hyderabad and Kotiapet. As against this the High Court has quite clearly pointed out that the timings of this bus were different. This bus belonged to one Abdulgafoor (RW 22) and it plied between Hyderabad and Kotiapet. On its route it would pass Pahadi Sharif, but the timings of this bus were that it used to leave Hyderabad at 2 p.m reaching Kotiapet at 5 p.m., and the return trip was from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. According to the timings of this bus, it could not possibly have been at Pahadi Sharif at 1 p.m. Therefore, if we believe the evidence of the sub-inspector that he saw the bus of Pahadi Sharif at 1 p.m., it fits in with the evidence of Desya and Bakya and the other witnesses to whom we have referred hat the bus was making unauthorised journies between Hyderabad and Kadthal. We are inclined to accept the evidence of Jamnaji Rao and to hold that he had seen the bus at 1 p.m. at Pahadi Sharif which would prove that it was on a journey which was not regularly performed by the bus. We shall show presently how the owner of the bus fared in regard to this bus and that in our opinion clinches the whole matter. The bus was seen again at Kadthal by three witnesses PWs 14, 16 and 17. But their evidence was disbelieved by the High Court and we are not invited to consider them in this connection. We therefore leave them out of account. The witnesses who proved the arrival of the bus at Kadthal are PWs 4, 5, 11, 12 and 13. They would be in a position to depose to it, but unfortunately they are in the nature of accomplices. Therefore their evidence requires to be corroborated. It was contended that G. Gopal Reddy who went about attempting to make a report could have easily given this report to Altaf Husain (RW 10) at Kadthal, when he visited it., because this Sub-inspector claimed to have been present at Kadthal right from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. The D.S.P. was also staying at Kadthal and had lunch there. It was contended that G. Gopal Reddy was not so helpless in the matter of reporting to the authorities. He could easily have reported the fact to Altaf Husain and also to the D.S.P. if he had been so minded. It was contended that G. Gopal Reddy was not so helpless in the matter of reporting to the authorities. He could easily have reported the fact to Altaf Husain and also to the D.S.P. if he had been so minded. The evidence of Altaf Husain that he was present at Kadthal from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. was disbelieved by the High Court and on a reading of it, we have not been impressed by it In any case, the sub-inspector would be with the D.S.P. and therefore not easily available. The omission of G. Gopal Reddy to find any police officer and to hand over the report to him does not militate against the fact that the bus was used. He did hand over a report to Sub-Inspector Jamnaji Rao, but it was returned to him. According to him, he tried to report to the Presiding Officer Singhade but he would not receive the report. The diary of Singhade was brought to our notice and it was said that there is no mention of such a complaint to him. The cross-examination seemed to indicate that the Presiding Officer was more interested in happenings within the 100 meters limit which has been fixed by law. He of course stoutly maintained that he had not received the report, but he was bound to say so if he had not made a note of it in his diary. The fact that a similar report was made the same day later to the sub-inspector clearly proves that another report might have been in contemplation but as it was not received, it has not been produced in the case. 19. The clinching evidence however comes in a very different way. The owner of the bus is Abdul Gafoor RW 21. It has been said that he had received Rs. 150 for these unauthorised trips and was to receive petrol. Now Abdul Gafoor was cited by the returned candidate in support of his case. It is curious that Abdul Gafoor was not summoned with the trip sheets and the tickets which must have been issued on that day on the normal routes. If this had been done and if the trip sheets showed that the bus has been plying on its normal route on the day in question, the case of the returned candidate would have been unanswerable. If this had been done and if the trip sheets showed that the bus has been plying on its normal route on the day in question, the case of the returned candidate would have been unanswerable. But Abdul Gafoor was merely cited to give oral evidence and oral evidence he did give supporting the returned candidate's case. Unfortunately Abdul Gafoor had already sworn an affidavit in support of the other side's case and he tried to get out of that affidavit by the usual plea with which we are very familiar that he had signed blank papers and the blank papers which have been used for making out an affidavit. On the other side there is the statement of the notary public who had administered the oath that Abdul Gafoor had sworn this affidavit. It would appear therefore that the best evidence in disproof of the use of the bus, namely, the trip sheets of the bus and the tickets that were issued on that day were not summoned at all. Abdul Gafoor was himself brought, but he cut a sorry figure and from his depositions itself one is led to the conclusion that his bus must have been used because if it had not been used and had been running from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. that day between Hyderabad and Kotiapet, it would have been an easy thing to prove it. On the whole therefore we are satisfied that the case as presented by the election petitioner was rightly held to have been proved in the case. 20. As regards the second point, we wish only to say this that the partnership which the appellant had entered into had been previously dissolved and the contracts of the Government were not with the partnership but with an individual by name. Therefore there was no privity between the partnership as such and the Government. The contracts which were entered into bound only one individual and the dissolution of the partnership therefore terminated the connection with the Government contract if any. Since we hold that a corrupt practice has been committed, we are not enlarging this point. Therefore there was no privity between the partnership as such and the Government. The contracts which were entered into bound only one individual and the dissolution of the partnership therefore terminated the connection with the Government contract if any. Since we hold that a corrupt practice has been committed, we are not enlarging this point. This case is distinguishable from the earlier case decided by us in CA No. 1705 of 1967 K. Rudrappa Nadgowda v. Vishwanath Reddy decided on 19.7.1968 where the contract subsisted, because it was entered into with the partnership and its dissolution without notice to Government and without the concurrence of the Government did not save the responsibility of the person who had entered into the contract as members of the partnership. Here the contract of the Government was with an individual and Government had not entered into contract with the partnership of which the appellant was a member. Therefore its existence had no relation to the pending contracts and that point therefore was rightly decided in the High Court. 21. In the result, we find no substance in the appeal. It fails and will be dismissed with costs.