JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner Shiv Charan Singh has chillengej the election of respondent Janardan Singh Gehlot from Karauli Assembly Constituency (No. 80) for which the polling was held on February 27, 1990. 2. As per the result-sheet, the petitioner who was a candidate for Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) secured 31744 votes and the respondent secured 36569 votes. The petitioner was therefore defeated by a margin of 4825 votes. Though, the petitioner, in the petition, has challenged the election of the respondent, the returned candidate, also on the ground of corrupt practice of booth capturing for which issue No. I was also struck on that controversy, but during the course of evidence, learned counsel for the petitioner had relinquished the aforesaid issue and no evidence whatsoever has been led so far as allegation of corrupt practice of booth capturing is concerned. I will therefore in this election petition confine to the surviving ground of challenge of the election of the returned candidate. 3. It may be stated at the very outset that the election of the respondent has been challenged on the ground of his having committed the corrupt practice of bribery under sub-section (1) (A) (b) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, the Act) as also the publication of statements in relation of personal character or conduct of Shiv Charan Singh, the petitioner herein, which statements according to the petitioner was reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of his election. 4. The relevant pleadings in respect of surviving controversies as aforesaid are contained in paras Nos. 6 and 7 of the election petition so far as charge of bribery is concerned and in para 8 so far as the charge of publication of statements in respect of alleged character assassination of the petitioner is concerned. It is the case of the petitioner that Shri Gehlot, respondent, and his supporters with his consent, namely Shri Ram Dayal resident of Masalpur, Vishal Singh Ex-Sarpanch, r/o Siloti, Pyarelal Advocate r/o Gudla held a meeting in village Mahwa Kheda on February 25, 1990 at about 1.00 p. m. and a similar meeting was held in village Gujar Bhawli at about 3 p. m. and in the aforesaid meetings offer was made by the respondent and his supporters to supply wine to them as bribery in the exchange of their votes. In other words, the case of the petitioner is that in the aforesaid two villages at the aforesaid times on the aforesaid. date the respondent and his aforesaid supporters offered and bargained with the voters to vote for the respondent and to supply to them wine to them as bribery. The voters also agreed to vote for the respondent if the wine is supplied to them. The liquor was agreed to be supplied on February 26, 1990. Three bags containing 72 bottles of wine were seized and the jeep was being driven by the respondent and -Ramdayal of Masalpur was also with him in the jeep and they were going to village Mahwakheda and Gujar Bhawli to supply the wine to the voters as promised by the respondent. The seizure of the jeep is said to have been made on the complaint of Shiv Charan Singh, the petitioner herein, to the Police Station Kotwali Karauli on February 26, 1990. In continuation of the allegation in respect of alleged bribery as dehie J in sub-section (1) of Section 123 of the Act, it is said in para 7 of the election petition that respondent Shri Gehlot held a meeting on February 12, 1990 at Ambedkar Park, Karauli in which he promised the voters to get erected iron railing around the said park and asked the voters to vote for him in turn. The voters also agreed to vote for him if the iron railing are fixed around the said park. According to him, the respondent agreed to bear the expenses of their in railing which was to be fixed around the park, & in fact he got the iron railing fixed around the said park and this fact is said to have been mentioned in the proceeding of the meeting of Bhimrao Ambedkar Jayanti and Park Nirman Samiti, Karauli. The petitioner has given the names of the voters in Schedule-lI attached to the election petition in respect of aforesaid corrupt practice of bribery. 5. The petitioner has given the names of the voters in Schedule-lI attached to the election petition in respect of aforesaid corrupt practice of bribery. 5. Coming to the allegations of publication by the respondent of his statement of fact in relation to the personal character or conduct of the petitioner which according to the petitioner was false, it is the case of the petitioner in para 8 of the petition that the respondent gave a public speech on February 12, 1990 at Prem Kotia School (Saladi Rawal) Karauli and he declared that if the petitioner is elected in the Assembly Election, then as before 4 malls were murdered, there will be similar terror and dacoits Ramsingh and Bhagwan Singh will create terror and propagate for the petitioner. Some portion of said speech was published in News Paper 'Prajajan' a Hindi daily published from Gangapur District Sawaimadhopur, dated February 15, 1990. According to the petitioner, the said statement which was published related to the personal character and conduct of the petitioner. 6. The aforesaid allegations have been controverted in the reply filed by the returned candidate, the respondent herein. It will be proper to deal with the reply while dealing with the issues. 7. The petitioner and respondents have examined themselves and have also examined other witnesses. Documentary evidence has also been led. I will discuss the documentary evidence while dealing with the issues. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. My decision on the various issues along with reasons thereof is under. 9. The issue No. 2 reads as under : "Whether the respondent and his supporters with his consent committed corrupt practice of bribery as alleged in para No. 6 and 7 of the election petition and Schedule 11 attached with the election petition ?" A reference to the averments made in Election Petition (para 6 and 7) has already been made in the earlier part of this judgment. It may anyhow be stated that in the said paragraphs it has been stated that the non-petitioner Shri Gehlot went to two villages. It may anyhow be stated that in the said paragraphs it has been stated that the non-petitioner Shri Gehlot went to two villages. Mahawakheda and Gujar Bhawli on February 25,1990, held meetings there at 1.00 p m. and 3.00 p.m. respectively and bargained with the voters to vote for him and to supply wine to them as bribery and the voters agreed to vote for him if wine is supplied to them and the respondent promised to supply wine to them on February 26,1990. A look at the written statement filed by the respondent will show that the respondent has denied the contents of paras Nos. 6 and 7 of the election petition and he states that he does not even know as to whether Ramdaval r/o Masalpur and Vishal Singh, Ex-Sarpanch and resident of Siloti were suppoting him or not. So far as Pyarelal Advocate resident of Gudla is concerned, the case of the respondent is that he was supporting the petitioner himself. The respondent denied having held any meeting in the aforesaid two villages Mahawa Kheda and Gujar Bhawli, as alleged by the petitioner. He also denied that he barganed with the voters. to vote for him and promised to supply wine to them as bribery. According to him all these averments are false. It is not denied that the Jeep No. 7923 is registered in the name of his wife Smt. Mridula Gehlot, but the case of the respondent is that the factual position is that she had already sold that vehicle to one Babulal Banera and he was the real owner of the vehicle. The sale was effected on February 9, 1990. Ex. DW-25/1 has been filed which is a copy of the sale-agreement dated February 9, 1990. It is also the case of the respondent that in fact the aforesaid jeep was taken on hire by one Govind Sharan Sharma, who was fighting the Assembly election as an independent candidate, at Rs. 400/- per day. Govind Snaran Sharma has also shown the same in the election expenses. He denied that on February 26, 1990 the respondent was driving the jeep or that it was loaded with and carrying liquor for being distributed to the voters in the aforesaid two villages. 400/- per day. Govind Snaran Sharma has also shown the same in the election expenses. He denied that on February 26, 1990 the respondent was driving the jeep or that it was loaded with and carrying liquor for being distributed to the voters in the aforesaid two villages. As per the respondent, a country liquor godown of Yashvendra Singh who is son of Shri Shiv Charan Singh, petitioner and who is a partner of Roop Narain and party, is there nearby Jamunalal Petrol Pump. Yashvendra Singh and some others gave beating to the driver whose name has been given as Btbu Khan, brought the liquor from nearby godown and placed the same in the jeep. 10. So far as para No. 7 of the election petition is concerned, reply of the respondent is that no meeting whatsoever was held by him on February 12, 1990, or on any other date at Ambedkar park Karauli and no such promised to erect iron railing around said park was ever-made by the respondent nor any voter was, asked to vote for him in turn of the wine. According to the respondent he never promised to bear the expenses of iron railing and the proceedings of the aforesaid Samiti are said to be forged and manipulated. 11. In reply to the contents of para No. 8 of the election petition the case of the respondent is that he did address the Congress(I) workers at Prem Kotia School and that meeting was exclusively of Congress (1) workers. It is denied that he made any declaration against the petitioner that as before malis were murdered, there will similar terror and dacoits Ram Singh and Bhagwan Singh create terror and propogate for the petitioner. According to him cards were issued and the entry was regulated. Arun Kumar Jindal is not Congress (I) worker and he could not be present in that meeting. He is the son of Brij Mohanlal Barisal who was an office bearer of Jan Sangh which has merged in Byartiya Janata Party. According to him cards were issued and the entry was regulated. Arun Kumar Jindal is not Congress (I) worker and he could not be present in that meeting. He is the son of Brij Mohanlal Barisal who was an office bearer of Jan Sangh which has merged in Byartiya Janata Party. It will be seen from the 'corrupt practice' as defined in Section 123 (1) (A) (b) of the Act that if any gift, offer or promise by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent of any gratification, to any person with the object, directly or indirectly, of inducing an elector for having voted or refrained from voting, only then it will be a bribery and the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that there is no pleading, much less proof that the persons to whom the respondent is alleged to have offered wine, were electors. According to the learned counsel in the absence of any pleading and evidence that the persons to whom the offer of wine was made were electors, no offence of bribery could be made out. Even the evidence on that account is lacking. In support of his contention, learned counsel referred to the case of Tirath Singh Narain Singh v. Bachitar Singh Mit Singh and others, AIR 1954 Pepsu 118 . From a bare reading of the definition of 'bribery' as contained in the aforesaid provision, there can be hardly any dispute that the offer or promise by a candidate or others mentioned therein must be to an elector to vote. -Elector' has been defined in Section 2(1) (e) of the Act and in relation to a constituency, `elector' means a person whose name is entered in the electoral roll of that constituency for the time being in force and who is not subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in Section 16 of the Act. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in para 6 of the election petition, it has been clearly mentioned that the respondent and others named therein who had accompanied him to the aforesaid two villages, namely -Mahawa' khda and Gujar Bhawli on February 25, 1990, held meetings, offered and bargained with the voters to vote for the respondent and promised to supply wine for them as bribery. The voters also agreed to vote for the respondent if the wine is supplied to them. The names of the voters to whom such offer was made have not been mentioned in para 6 of the election petition but in para 7 of the election petition it has been mentioned that the details of voters etc. have been given in Schedule-II annexed with the petition. An objection was taken on behalf of the respondent that the election petition does not contain concise statement of material facts in so far as the corrupt practice which includes bribery is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that from a perusal of Schedule II annexed with the election petition it will be clear that the names of some of the persons who were present, have been mentioned. According to learned counsel a look at the reply of the respondent in para 7 will show that the aforesaid allegation as contained in para 6 along with the Schedule have not been expressly or impliedly denied. According to the learned counsel there are sufficient pleadings that offer of wine was made to the voter-electors in exchange of their votes. In my opinion, it cannot be said that the pleadings are lacking. It is a different matter whether on evidence on record, the same have been proved or not? 12. Let us examine the evidence of the parties in respect of issue No. 2. We will start from the statement of PW. I Shiv Charan Singh, the petitioner himself. According to PW. 1 Shiv Charan Singh, he was not present on February 25, 1990 when Shri Gehlot accompanied by others, had visited Mahwakheda and Gujar Bhawli and had offered wine to the villagers in exchange of their votes and the voters are said to have agreed to the same. PW. I Shiv Charan Singh states that one Kanhaiya told him on February 25, 1990 itself at 6 p. m. that Janardan Singh Gehlot had bargained with the voters in Mahwakheda at I p. m. and offered wine to the voters in exchange of their votes and at the same day i. e. February 25, 1990 at about 3 p. m. in respect of the promise of Shri Gehlot to the villagers at Gujar Bhawli to supply the liquor in exchange of their votes. He informed the police that very day that liquor is being carried for being distributed to the voters by Shri Gehlot and thereafter his vehicle was seized. Therefore, so far as the statement of PW. 1 Shiv Charan Singh is concerned he has no personal knowledge because he was not present at any of the aforesaid two meetings. PW. 4 is Pyarelal Advocate practising in Karauli. He states that on February 25, 1990, he accompanied by Ramdayal, Vishal Singh Ex-Sarpanch, and Shri Gehlot reached Mahwakheda village at about 1 p. m. and there a meeting was organised and in that meeting Kanhaiya, Chiranji, Birbal, Sarupi Thekedar, Jai Singh, Munna Singh and many others in all 20 to 25 persons were present. It is further stated by him that they talked to the voters to cast their votes on February 26, 1990. It will be proper to extract the relevant portion of his statement in this respect which reads as under : "Janardan Singh Gehlot said to the voters that they should vote to him and the voters said that -Vote to lamen Dena Hi Hai'. In my presence it was agreed in between Gehlot and voters that Shri Gehlot will supply liquor to them and they will vote forhim. The voters asked as to when the liquor would be supplied and Shri Gehlot said that on 26-2-90 liquor will be supplied to them". It was also stated by him that in the Jeep the above persons namely be himself, Ramdayal,Vishal Singh & Gehlot proceeded from there to Gujar Bhawli & reached that village at 3 p. m. There, Rimphal, Hari, Bhoori, Gujars and Lahsaniya Jatav and others in all 20 to 25 persons assembled and a meeting was held and there also they asked them to vote for Shri Gehlot. Shri Gehlot told voters that he will supply liquor to them and in turn they should caste their votes to him. In cross-examination he states that in Mahwakheda meeting about which he has stated above, 30 minutes were spent and neither they stayed thereafter nor did' they take any tea and none was offered. According to him, the distance of Gujar Bhawli is about 6 to 7 kms from Mahwakheda and not 20 kms and when one goes from Mahwi kheda to Gujar Bhawli, he has to pass through Masalpur and Golara villages. According to him, the distance of Gujar Bhawli is about 6 to 7 kms from Mahwakheda and not 20 kms and when one goes from Mahwi kheda to Gujar Bhawli, he has to pass through Masalpur and Golara villages. They did not stay in any of the villages through which they passed nor did they ask the voters to vote for Shri Gehlot. He admits that as an advocate, he knows that offering liquor to the voters for their votes is an election offence, but still he did not lodge any complaint, and he did not do so because it would have been against the interest of the party. According to him, he belongs to Congress party and is an active member of Dehat Congress Committee Karauli in the year 1989-90. He was General Secretary of Youth; Congress Karauli and was appointed as such by the President, whose name surprisingly he has forgotten He says that he does not remember the name of General Secretary of the Congress in 1990. He does not know when amendment in the Congress Constitution took place and when new elections are to be held. He was appointed in writing as General Secretary of Youth Congress by Shri Ashok Garg, President of Youth Congress Sawai Madhopur in 1990. There were 8 to 10 General Secretaries of Youth Congress in Sawai Madhopur but he dos rot remember her rarest. In my on, he can of be relied upon that be belongs to Congress party. If as an advocate he was knowing that to supply liquors to the voters in exchange of their votes is an election offence, it was his duty to have informed the authorities about it. Chapter IX A of the Indian Penal Code is in respect of offences relating to elections and Section 171-B IPC defines bribery. Whoever, gives a gratification to any person with the object of intending him or any other person to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any person for having exercised any such right, or accepts either for himself or for any other person any gratification as a reward for exercising any such right or for inducing or attempting to adduce any other person to exercise any such right, commits the offence of bribery. Under sub-section (2) of Section 171-B a person who offers or agrees to give or offers or attempts to procure a gratification shall be deemed to give a gratification. Under sub-section 1 i 1-E, whoever commits the offence of bribery shall be punished with imprisonment or eight description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine. or both. It can therefore not be disputed that electoral offence of bribery as defined in Section 171-B is penal and having come to his knowledge, it was his duty to have informed the police about the same. It does not appeal to reason that as stated by Pyarelal that he did not report the matter because it would have been against the interest of parry as according to him be belongs to that party. When he was asked as to why has come to appear as a witness against the MLA who belongs to that party, be explained that he is stating now because he is being asked by the court. His statement does not appear to be correct. It is denied by the respondent in the reply as well as statement that Pyarelal belongs to Congress party. P.W. 6 is Kanhaiyalal, He is Gujar by caste and belongs to the caste of the petitioner. He states that he does not remember the date, but two days before the election at about 12 or 1 noon, Shri Gehlot accompanied by two or three persons whose names are Vishal Singh, Ex-Sarpanch. Pyarelal and Ramdayal, visited village Mahwakheda. It is proper to extract his statement in his own words : "He of his own said that he will supply them liquor and they should give vote to him. We said alright we will give the totes, The liquor was not supplied to our village thereafter. The same day went to Karauli and told this to Shiv Charan Singh. Shiv Charan Singh asked me about the votes and I said that talks have taken place with Gehlot about the supply of liquor and giving of votes". According to him, there are 700 to 800 votes in his village and about 500 votes were cast. The same day went to Karauli and told this to Shiv Charan Singh. Shiv Charan Singh asked me about the votes and I said that talks have taken place with Gehlot about the supply of liquor and giving of votes". According to him, there are 700 to 800 votes in his village and about 500 votes were cast. It will appear from the return sheet that in Mehwakheda 337 votes were cast in favour of Shri Gehlot as well as 157 votes were cast in favour of the petitioner and so far as Gujarbhawli is concerned, 259 votes were cast in favour of the respondent and 357 votes were cast in favour of the petitioner. He states that he of his own went to . Karauli and informed the petitioner about the meeting which had taken place that day. He made specific statement that : "None of the voters in the meeting had asked for liquor and Gehlot of his own said that he will supply liquor in exchange of votes. Because of non-supply of liquor by Gehlot there was no effect on the voters in the village in casting the votes." Merely because he belong, to Gujar caste to which the petitioner Shiv Charan Singh belong,, will not suit into to say that he is interested witness and his statement should be discarded. But if he takes so much interest that he goes to Karauli the same day and informs the petitioner Shiv Charan Singh, it can be said that he is an interested person. 13. PW. 10 is Chiranji who belongs to Mahwakheda village. According to him also, a meeting took place in Mahwakheda at about 12.00 noon or I p. m. It was called by 'Shri Gehlot who was accompanied by Vishal Singh, Ramdayal, Pyarelal Advocate and tw3 mare persons in a jeep." He states that it was decided between the villagers and Shri Gehlot that Shri Gehlot will supply liquor to the villagers and the villagers will cast their votes in his favour. He also states that the liquor was not supplied to the villagers. He states that "Mool Chand, Gopal, Birbal and two or four persons out of 20-25 persons who had assembled asked Sh. He also states that the liquor was not supplied to the villagers. He states that "Mool Chand, Gopal, Birbal and two or four persons out of 20-25 persons who had assembled asked Sh. Gehlot if he will supply liquor to them votes will be cast, in his favour." He states that he cannot say that non-supply of liquor had any adverse effect on the votes cast in his favour. He also belongs to the caste of Shiv Charan Singh, the petitioner herein, though not related to him. 14. PW. 11 is Shri Bhanwar, resident of village Gajar Bhawli. He also state that Shri Gehlot came to their village about 2 days prior to the polling and told them that they should caste their votes in his favour. He states that he did not ask for liquor, but Ram Singh, Badam, Lashna, Ghhuttan had asked for the same. According to him, Shri Gehlot promised to supply liquor and went away, and persons told that liquor was not supplied. According to him, he was called by Vishal Sin?h for the meeting and the meeting took place for 1/2 hour. It appears from his statement that Shri Gehlot had not of his own offered the liquor in exchange of votes to the villagers, but he states that he didnot ask for liquor and he is not adicted to drinks, and others namely Ram Singh, Badam, Lashna, Chhuttan had asked for the liquor. PW. 12 is Ramphal, resident of Gujar Bhawli. He also does not state that he asked Shri Gehlot for liquor, but states Gehlot asked us for votes. The villagers said that in other villagers liquor is being distributed by the candidates. Gehlot said to them that they should vote and he will supply them sufficient quantity of liquor. Thereafter, liquor N as not supplied to the villagers." According to him, the same day he went to Karauli and narrated the incident to Shri Charan Singh. He states that he had not asked for supply of liquor but Bhuri, Ram Singh, Ram Prasad. Chhuttan, Lashnia, had asked for liquor. It is also stated by him that those who asked for liquor were 'charmar' and 'gujar' Shiv Charan Singh also came to Gujar Bnawali about 5 to 6 days before the polling. He had assembled 40-35 persons But none asked Shiv Charan Singh to supply them liquor. Chhuttan, Lashnia, had asked for liquor. It is also stated by him that those who asked for liquor were 'charmar' and 'gujar' Shiv Charan Singh also came to Gujar Bnawali about 5 to 6 days before the polling. He had assembled 40-35 persons But none asked Shiv Charan Singh to supply them liquor. The meeting is said to have taken place 1 /2 hour Ram Singh and Lashna and Chhuttan are said to have spoken in the meeting. According to him, he reached Karauli at about 8 or 9 p.m. and Shiv Charan Singh met him on the petrol pump. PW. 13 is Hari Singh, resident of Gujar Bhawli and he also states about the meeting acid the offer of Shri Gehlot to the villagers to supply wine in exchange of their votes. He states "Lashna, Chhuttan, Ram Prasad, Bhuri had told Gehlot that liquor is being distributed in other village and that he should supply liquor to them for their votes. Geblot said that he will supply liquor to them and they should give him their votes. I am not adicted to drinks, I had not asked for liquor." He also states that petitioner Shiv Charan Singh also came to the village about 5 or 7 days prior to the polling and he was accompanied by two to four persons whose names he did not know. He does not even remember as to who had come to call him for the meeting, and in his presence none of them asked Shiv Charan Singh to supply liquor. 15. This is all the evidence on this issue in so far as the averments contained in para 6 of the petition on the charge of bribery are concerned. Gehlot DW 1 in his statement has denied that he ever went to the above villages and ever addressed any meeting or offered wine in exchange of votes. According to him those areas are inhabited by the persons belonging to Gujar caste. He states that he know Ramdayal and Vishal Singh, but they had not worked for him. According to him, he does not know Pyarelal Advocate by face, though he knows him by name because he belongs to the group of Shiv Charan Singh and was canvassing for him openly. He states that he know Ramdayal and Vishal Singh, but they had not worked for him. According to him, he does not know Pyarelal Advocate by face, though he knows him by name because he belongs to the group of Shiv Charan Singh and was canvassing for him openly. Even in the year 1980 assembly elections Hansram Gujar was a candidate against him from Karauli Assembly Constituency on BJP ticket and said Pyarelal had worked and canvassed for hint According to him on the whole day of February 25, 1990, he was in Karauli town on Padx at( a. DW 23 Om Prakash states that Pyarelal Advocate is not a Congress worker and in 1990 Assembly elections he worked for BJP party. He was neither any office bearer nor General Secretary of Youth Congress t1) in February 1990. He opposed Shri Gehlot in Assembly Elections. 16. From the above evidence which has been led on behalf of the petitioner on a part of issue No. 2 it can be said that the evidence is not consistent. Some witnesses have said that Shri Gehlot of his own offered wine to the villagers in exchange of their votes and some have said that the villagers had asked Shri Gehlot to supply them wine if he wants their votes. Some of them have stated that they told Shri Gehlot that in nearby villages candidates are supplying the wine and then Gehlot agreed to supply them wine. The charge of bribery is not to be proved by preponderance of probabilities being a charge of criminal nature and this charge has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Most of the persons who have been named as having asked for wine have not been examined and it is not possible for me to hold that the charge of bribery contained in para 6 of the election petition which charge has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt has been proved by the petitioner against the respondent. 17. The other relevant evidence is in respect of seizure of the jeep. There is no dispute that the registered owner of the Jeep No. RN-E-7923 is Dr. Mridula Gehlot wife of the respondent. 17. The other relevant evidence is in respect of seizure of the jeep. There is no dispute that the registered owner of the Jeep No. RN-E-7923 is Dr. Mridula Gehlot wife of the respondent. Not a single witness has said that the jeep, even assuming it was loaded with gunny brags containing bottles of country liquor was being taken to Mahwakheda and Gujarbhawli and' these of the jeep loaded with country liquor bottles by itself will not amount of offence of bribery unless the evidence of two meetings at Mahwakheda and Gujarbhawli produced against Shri Gehlot and also to supply wine in exchange of the votes was to be held reliable and I have held above that the same evidence is not reliable and the evidence of the petitioner that Shri Gehlot and few others and gone to the above named two villages on February 25, 1990, addressed meetings there and promised to offer wine in exchange of the votes has been disbelieved. A look at the definition of bribery as contained in Section 123(l)(A) (b) with % which we are presently concerned will show that any gift, offer or promise by a candidate Or,his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent of any gratification to any person whomsoever with the object directly or indirectly of inducing an elector for having voted or refrained from voting, is an offence. But even if this part of the evidence is looked into, no reliance can be placed to it was Shri Gehlot who was in the jeep as when the police reached near the jeep Shri Gehlot was not found there. There is evidence on record, namely return of Govind Sharan, an independent candidate, in respect of his election expenses and evidence has been led on behalf of the respondent that the jeep has been transferred by his wife in favour of Babulal, much before February 25, 1990 and merely because, for custody of the jeep an application before the Magistrate was filed on behalf of Dr. Mridula Gehlot, wife of the respondent, it cannot be said that on February 25, 1990, it was the wife of the respondent Gehlot who was in possession or control over the vehicle because the application for custody of the jeep could be filed by the registered owner or on his behalf. 18. So far as PW. Mridula Gehlot, wife of the respondent, it cannot be said that on February 25, 1990, it was the wife of the respondent Gehlot who was in possession or control over the vehicle because the application for custody of the jeep could be filed by the registered owner or on his behalf. 18. So far as PW. 1 is concerned, he does not claim to be present at the time when the vehicle was seized. Documentary evidence Ex. P.W. 1/1, PW. 1/2. Ex. P.W. 1/3. Ex. P.W. 1/4, Ex. P.W. 25/1, Ex. P.W. 10/1. P.W. 3/1, DW/1/2, are relevant in addition to the oral evidence led on behalf of the parties, Ex. PW. 1/1 is the application filed before the Magistrate by Dr. Mridula Gehlot for custody of the jeep. The custody of the jeep was given to Babulal hanera and supardginama has been filed as Ex. PW. 1/4. According to Shiv Charan Singh, Babulal Banera, to whom custody of the jeep was given, is an employee of Shri Gehlot and Babulal Banera looks after the mines of Shri Gehlot. He admitted that one Govind Sharan was also an independent candidate but he withdrew in favour of Shri Gehlot and thereafter he canvassed in favour of Shri Gehlot. PW. 17 is Bhur Singh and he states that on February 25, 1990 at about 12 in the night he had seen Gehlot at the petrol pump of Jamunalal and there were country liquor bottles in the gunny bags recovered from the jeep. According to him, Narendra Singh, Thanedar had caught hold of Gehlot but he was successful in making his escape from the jeep. The police took away Ramdayal and Gunny bags containing country made liquor bottles. In the cross-examination he states that seeing Thanedar coming, Shri Gehlot made his escape on foot from his jeep. The SHO did not chase Shri Gehlot and went away taking gunny bags and Ramdayal. His statement that Shri Gehlot was in the jeep cannot be relied upon, because had this fact been true, he could have disclosed to Thanedar that Shri Gehlot has made his ecape. Shri Gehlot DW I denied that he was in the jeep. He admits that the jeep was registered in the name of his wife. Dr. His statement that Shri Gehlot was in the jeep cannot be relied upon, because had this fact been true, he could have disclosed to Thanedar that Shri Gehlot has made his ecape. Shri Gehlot DW I denied that he was in the jeep. He admits that the jeep was registered in the name of his wife. Dr. Mridula Gehlot, but according to him, she sold the vehicle to one Babulal Banera as long back as on February 9, 1990 and the jeep was not in possession of his wife. He also states that the jeep was on hire with one Govind Sharan and said Govind Sharan who was an independent candidate for the Assembly Elections, has shown the expenses of the jeep in his return of election expenses. According to him, despite transfer of the vehicle, necessary formalities could not ',be completed because .file entire amount of price of the jeep was not paid. Babulal Banera has been exatniaied as DW. 26 and he states that he and Shiv Charan Singh were class-fellows and he purchased Jeep No. RNE 7923 from Mridula Bhadoria, as she was earlier known prior to her marriage with the respondent. He had left the jeep with the mechanic for repairs in January 1990. He had taken the jeep from the Mechanic near about February 7 or 9, 1990 and then the documents were written. The jeep was purchased for Rs. 31,000/- and Rs. 5100/- were paid in advance. He gave the jeep on hire to Shri Govind Sharan and he was paid Rs. 2800/- for seven days. He admits that the jeep was seized by the police and when he went to his advocate for applying for custody of the jeep, his advocate told that the jeep had not, yet been transferee i is his name and advised him to get a power of attorney from Dr. Mridula. He got a power of attorney prepared in his name from her side at Karauli, and came to Jaipur to get her signatures. Mridula. He got a power of attorney prepared in his name from her side at Karauli, and came to Jaipur to get her signatures. Thus, he states that he was the owner of the jeep and had given it on hire to Govind Sharan There is no dispute that thereafter the vehicle was transferred in the name of Babulal Banera, though the registration was transferred in his name in July 1990, DW 10 is Govind Sharan Sharma who was an independent candidate in the Assembly Elections from Karauli Constituency. He states that jeep No. RNE 7923 was hired by him from B tbulal Banera for 7 days at the rate of Rs. 400/- per day with petrol. Hari Om Sharma, Arun Saraswat and many others were his workers in the election. He filed statement of election expenses and so far as the jeep is concerned, he had incurred Rs. 2800/-. He proved as DW 10/1. from which it appears that election expenses in respect of jeep were shown in it. According to him, one Babukhan was the driver of the jeep. He denied that he worked for Shri Gehlot. Arun Kumar Saraswat has been examined as DW. 6, who claims to be a member of Congress (S) party. According to him about 2 or 3 days prior to the polling which was held on February 27, 1990, he was sitting in the election office of Govind Sharan Sharma and at about 12 in the night he was going in a Jeep No.RNE-7923 alongwith Hari Om Sharma, Ramdayal for elections (canvassion) to the villages from Kirauli wider the instructions of Govind Sharan Sharma. The jeep was being driven by Bubudin & Mahesh Singh was also an occupant in the jeep. Mahesh Singh of village Rampura met him on the crossing of Dakbungalow. He was also seated in the jeep. They to-)k the jeep at the petrol pump of Jamunalal which is at a distance of about 50' from the godown of country liquor. No sooner they stopped at the petrol pump, where 5 to 7 jeeps were already standing, some people of those jeeps came to them and amongst them were Yashvindra Singh who is son of petitioner Shiv Charan Singh, Mahesh Sharma, Panna etc. in all about 25 to 30 persons. Yashvindra Singh slapped the driver of the jeep. No sooner they stopped at the petrol pump, where 5 to 7 jeeps were already standing, some people of those jeeps came to them and amongst them were Yashvindra Singh who is son of petitioner Shiv Charan Singh, Mahesh Sharma, Panna etc. in all about 25 to 30 persons. Yashvindra Singh slapped the driver of the jeep. The driver ran away from there leaving the jeep at the petrol pump. Ramdayal, who was sitting on the front seat of the jeep by the side of driver-seat, was attacked. They brought some gunny bags full of country liquor bottles from the nearby country liquor godown of Yashvindra Singh, a liquor contractor and placed the bags in the jeep. He lodged a report in the police station of that incident which is Ex. DW 1/2. Even if the story that some people brought liquor from the godown, is accepted, it is not possible to hold that on February 25, 1990 Shri Gehlot was in possession of the jeep and it can be said that Govind Sharan Sharma had taken the jeep from Babulal Banera though the registration continued to be in the name of wife of the respondent and an application for custody of the vehicle was filed by Babulal Banera tinder the signatures of the registered owner of the jeep, i. e. Mirdula Gehlot, wife of the respondent. Narendra Singh has been examined as DW 30. He was Sub Inspector in the month of February, 1990. According to him, he received a telephonic message on February 26, 1990 in the night at about It or 12 p. m. that illicit liquor was being taken in a jeep and that the jeep was near-Jamunalal Petrol Pump. He retched there immediately and saw a crowd there. He states that jeep No. 7923 was standing near Jamunalal Petrol Pump and 3 gunny bags of bottles of liquor were in the jeep. When he reached there, there was none. At about 5 to 10 yards from the jeep, these was one Ramdayal who was running. He apprehended Ramdayal and got him medically examined. Shri Gehlot was not seen there. He investigated the case and from his investigation he came to the conclusion that on February 26, 1990, the jeep was in the custody of one Govind Sharan Sharma who was fighting election as an independent candidate. Ramdayal has been examined as DW 7. He apprehended Ramdayal and got him medically examined. Shri Gehlot was not seen there. He investigated the case and from his investigation he came to the conclusion that on February 26, 1990, the jeep was in the custody of one Govind Sharan Sharma who was fighting election as an independent candidate. Ramdayal has been examined as DW 7. He states that he was canvassing for Govind Sharan Sharma during that elections At about 11 p. m. he left the election office of Govind Sharan in the Jeep No. RNE-7923 which was being used in canvassing for Govind Sharan during the elections. According to his statement, when he had taken diesel, 4 or 5 jeeps same there from which 30 to 40 persons alighted. Shri Shiv Charan Singh petitioner himself was there and according to him he slapped him. He tates that liquor was brought in the jeep from the nearby godown of liquor. Hari Singh has been examined as DW 8 and Mahesh Singh has been examined as DW 9. Babudin driver has been examined as DW 13. He states that he was driving the jeep for Govind Sharan. 19. From the above evidence it cannot be said that on February 26, 1990 it was Dr. Mridula Gehlot who was in possession of the jeep and it was Babulal Banera who was in possession of that vehicle and he had given the vehicle on hire for election purposes to G-)vind Sharan Sharma. There is oral evidence to that effect. Merely because the wife of the respondent was registered owner to my mind will not have much effect. Thus, on the evidence on record, it cannot be said that it was Shri Gehlot who was in possession of the jeep and that jeep was being used by him or by anybody with his consent and it contained gunny bags full of country made liquor and it cannot be said that the liquor was being taken to the villages for being distributed to the voters to meet the promi e alleged to have been made by Gehlot to the voters in the villages Mahwakheda and Gujar Bhawli. 20. 20. Apart from whatever has been stated above I have already disbelieved the evidence of holding meetings and making promise by Shri Gehlot to supply wine to the voters in exchange of their votes in the aforesaid villages and even assuming though not accepting that Mridula Gehlot, the registered owner, was in possession of vehicle. this evidence by itself will not bring home the charge of bribery as defined in Section 123 (1) (A) (b) or any of its clauses against Shri Gehlot. 21. I will now take up the other part of this charge, namely, the charge in respect of offence of regarding fixing the railings in the Ambedkar park by the respondent. The allegations to this effect are contained in para 7 of the election petition and as said earlier the respondent has denied holding any meeting on February 12 1990 in Ambedkar park or making any promise for getting the railings fixed around the park. As said earlier. PW. 1 is the petitioner himself and he does not claim to be present in the meeting alleged to have been held in Ambedkar park on February 12,1990. According to PW. 1 Shiv Charan Singh, it was only after the votes were polled that Pyarelal etc. had told him about the proceedings of February 12. 1990 and the promise of Shri Gehlot to get the railings fixed in the Ambedkar park. He states that the railings were provided by Shri Gehlot 2 days earlier to poling which took place on February 27,1990. In cross examination, he states that it is wrong to say that the persons who were present in the meeting belong to BJP. PW. 1 says that he does not know the name of the office-bearers of Ambeukar Sainiti. It is also stated by him that he has not checked the fact that boundary wall was constructed by the PWD nor could he, check the same. Pyarelal Advocate about whom I have already said that he has wrongly stated that he is a person belonging to Congress party, states that he was appointed by the President of Ambedkar Samiti as the General Secretary of that Samiti. According to him, on February 12, 1990 at about 1 p.m. he accompanied by Shri Gehlot had gone to Ambedkar park and held a meeting. There were 15 to 20 persons in that meeting. According to him, on February 12, 1990 at about 1 p.m. he accompanied by Shri Gehlot had gone to Ambedkar park and held a meeting. There were 15 to 20 persons in that meeting. Amongst them, Lalloo, Phoosi, Ramswarup, Dwarka, Jamuna, Manohari, Mool Chand, Shiv Charan and others were present, and all were members of the executive committee of Ambedkar Samiti and they said to Gehlot that he had assured that railing will be fixed in the park onwhich Shri Gehlot replied that he will see that railing will be fixed but there was one condition that they must see that the members of the Samaj should vote for him. It was decided between them, i.e. the Voters and Shri Gehlot that expenses for the railings will be paid by Shri Gehlot. It was also stated by him that the proceedings of the executive committee of the Ambedkar Samiti are recorded in the register. The aforesaid decision was also noted in the proceedings. The proceedings are dated March 1,1990 and are marked as PW. 4/1. According to him, the proceedings are in the writing of Bhagwan Das who then was Secretary of the Samiti. I have already disbelieved the statement of this witness & to me he does not belong to Congress' party & does not appear to have supported the respondent Shri Gehlot and therefore there was no occasion for him to accompany Shri Gehlot and to hold meeting in Ambedkar park. He is not a resident of Karauli and is a resident of village Gudala which is at a distance of about 10 km from Karauli. According to him, the land of Ambedkar park earlier was owned by Municipal Board Karauli, but Ambedkar Samiti got it allotted from the Municipal Board. He claim to have seen the allotment letter, but none has been filed. He also states that there is no entry in the revenue record in favour of Ambedkar Samiti. He has not seen the record of PWD in respect of fixing the railings in Ambedkar park. According to him, there is no date fixed for holding meeting of the executive committee of Ambedkar Samiti & as & when the President calls, it is held. In the meeting of February 12,1990, the President of Ambedkar Samiti was not present and Bhagwan Das, General Secretary was present. According to him, there is no date fixed for holding meeting of the executive committee of Ambedkar Samiti & as & when the President calls, it is held. In the meeting of February 12,1990, the President of Ambedkar Samiti was not present and Bhagwan Das, General Secretary was present. PW.14 Manohari states that Shri Gehlot held hadheld a public meeting about 15 days prior to the polling at Ambedkar Park, Karauli, and he had attended that meeting. According to him, in writing as well as orally, Bhim Rav Ambedkar Park Samiti had put a resolution that the railing of the park should be completed and Shri Gehlot said 'Yes' and three days before the polling day, the railing was completed. He admits that he is a municipal council or in the Municipal Boar] Karauli from BJP. He admits that he worked on daily wages in the construction of the Cinema Hall, namely Ganesh Mandir which is in the name of the w:fe of petitioner Shiv Charan Singh. He states that the park is private property of the Ambedkar Samiti and the land was allotted to it by the Municipal Bard. He is unable to give the names of labourers who had fixed the railings in the park but they were residents of Karauli and were Mohanidans. When a suggestion was put to him that the railings were provided by the PWD, he said that it is wrong. He states that a resolution was put in writing as well orally that railing should be completed, but no such resolution has been produced. Even Pyarelal PW. 4 in his statement, to which reference has already been made in the earlier part of this order, has stated that a decision was taken in the presence of Shri Gehlot. in the meting of Ambedkar Samiti in respect of fixing the railing and the decision taken was recorded in the register, but surprisingly the proceedings are not shown to have been recorded in the register of proceedings in respect of the meeting dated February 12, 1990. PW. 15 is one Mangya and according to him the meeting was geld in Amb: dkar Park 15 days prior to the polling and he said that he (Mangya) was present in that meeting. He states that Shri Gehlot of his own promised to get the railings fixed in the park. PW. 15 is one Mangya and according to him the meeting was geld in Amb: dkar Park 15 days prior to the polling and he said that he (Mangya) was present in that meeting. He states that Shri Gehlot of his own promised to get the railings fixed in the park. He is not even residing in Karauli and his village is Mamchari which is about 9 kms. away from Karauli. He states that one Pyarelal Advocate who had come to his village about two days before the meeting, said that the meeting will be held in Ambedkar park. Pyarelal is a resident of Gudala which is at a distance of about 10 kms from Karauli. No reliance can be placed on his statement. PW. 18 is Govind Lal Gupta. He states that. There is Ambedkar park in Karauli and there is railing on the boundary of that park. One Asnad Al i of Karauli had taken iron from his shop and he cannot give the details of articles taken from his shop. He only soli the goods to him and he does not know how the goods were utilised. PW..,19 is Ramswaroop. He states that in the year 1988- 89 he was President of that Samiti and proceedings of the meeting of the Samiti were held and he presided over those proceedings. He states that 15 days before the polling day, a meeting of the Samiti was held in the park.In that meeting Janardan Singh Gehlot who was a candidate in Karauli Assembly Elections accompanied by Pyarelal had come to the park and p.-sides him Jamunalal, Dalloo, Gulab Chand and Babu Phool Chand Prahlad Master and about 100-200 persons were present. It is also stated by him that Shri Gehlot had asked them to cast their votes for him in the Assembly Elections and they told him to get the railing fixed in the park, on which Shri Gehlot said that the railing will be fixed before the elections. He states that the Samiti had taken a decision that they should vote in favour of Shri Gehlot. He states that the Samiti had taken a decision that they should vote in favour of Shri Gehlot. In cross-examination he states that he was not present on the day when the meeting of the Samiti was held and one Prakash Chand Jatav was the President and he was present and one Bhagwan Dais Jatav was the General Secretary According to him, it is correct that Pooran Singh Jatav, Ajun Kavi, Parsadi Jatav, Bhakshu Bodra Ratan, Prasadilal Vakil, Ganeshilal, Ballabh Jatav, Govind Ram, Kadam Jatav, Jagdish Jatav, Hari Jatav, Gangadhar Jatav, Makhanlal Jatav and Dyoji Jatav were then office-bearers of the samiti but all of them were not present and only Hari and Jagdish Jatav were present. He states that it is not correct that the proceedings were not written on the same day. He does not say whether Shri Gehlot came of his own or the meeting was pre-arranged. According to him, there is no patta in the name of Samiti for the land where park is situated and there is a boundary wall outside the park. The boundary wall was constructed by the Samiti out of contribution about 3 or 4 years ago. He admits that a function immediately after completing the boundary wall was held. He denied that the railing was fixed by the PWD. It appears from his statement that some persons were there as Office bearers of the Samiti and none of them has come on behalf of the petitioner to say that any meeting was held and promise was made by Shri Gehlot for getting the railings fixed. As said earlier, no proceedings from the register were produced and it is not the case of the petitioner that any proceedings of the meeting of February 12, 1990 were recorded. PW. 20 is Dalloo. He states that he attended the meeting in Ambedkar park which was held about 15 days before the polling day. The raised a demand to Shri Gehlot for getting the railings fixed in the Ambedkar Park to which Shri Geblot promised. Railing was fixed about 3 or 4 days prior to the polling day. It is admitted by him that one is his real younger brother and he is a ward member of Municipal Board Karauli from BJP. In the last elections for Municipal Board, he was a candidate on BJP ticket but was defeated. Railing was fixed about 3 or 4 days prior to the polling day. It is admitted by him that one is his real younger brother and he is a ward member of Municipal Board Karauli from BJP. In the last elections for Municipal Board, he was a candidate on BJP ticket but was defeated. He is unable to give the date when the meeting was held in Ambedkar park, According to him, there were 100-125 persons present in the meeting. There was neither mike nor speeches. He does not know if there were office bearers of the Samiti. He states that he does not know if his brother Phoosi Ram in the earlier election petition against Shiv Charan Singh had appeared as a witness for Sbiv Charan Singh. He has net seen the pitta granted by the Municipal Board in favour of 'the Samiti. He is unable to say as to how many days it took to fix the railing. He does not know if the railing was provided by the PWD. PW. 21 is Jamunalal and he states that about a year ago elections to Assembly Constituency took place in which Shiv Charan Singh and Shri Gehlot were candidates besides others. According to his statement a demand was put to Shri Gehlot that in case he gets the railing fixed in Ambedkar park, they will vote for him. Shri Gehlot said " vkidk jsfyax dk dke gkd tkosxkA " According to him, railing was fixed about 6 days prior to the polling day. According to him, the meeting lasted for 15 to 20 minutes. He is real brother of Ramswaroop PW. 19. He is unable to say that railing was provided by the PWD or anybody else. 22. Out of the above witnesses on this case of the petitioner, expect Jamunalal PW. 21 and Prakash Chand, no other was the office bearer of the Samiti at the relevant time and as said earlier, the proceedings were not even recorded. DW 22 is Prakash Chand. He was President of the Ambedkar Samiti from March, 1989 to March 13, 1990. He states that the polling for Karauli Assembly Constituency took place on February 27, 1990, and before that no meeting in the month of February, 1990 or any earlier date in that month had taken place and no decision was taken that in exchange of votes Mr. He states that the polling for Karauli Assembly Constituency took place on February 27, 1990, and before that no meeting in the month of February, 1990 or any earlier date in that month had taken place and no decision was taken that in exchange of votes Mr. Gehlot promised that he will see the railing fixed. According to him, when the meeting was not held, there is no question of Gehlot being present in the meeting and Shri Gehlot had never given any assurance that railing will be fixed in Ambedkar Park. No proceedings in the meeting register were recorded on March 1, 1990 or any date up to March 13, 1990 thanking Shri Gehlot for getting the railing fixed in Ambedkar park. He states that Pyarelal was not General Secretary of Ambedkar Samiti. When he was President, Arjun Lal was Chief Pattron. Bhagwan Das son of Arjunlal was the General Secretary. He states that Murari-Lal had succeeded him a President of Ambedkar Samiti and the register of proceedings was handed over to him. When he handed over the charge of register, the pages were not torn and no proceedings of March 1, 1990 were recorded therein. He states that boundary wall of the park was constructed by the PWD. Heeralal Deppura, the then PWD Minister had come to inaugurate it and Jatav Samaj had installed the statue of Ambedkar in the park in 1987 after obtaining permission from the Collector, Sawai Madhopur. He states that the work of fixing railings in Ambedkar park had not been started before February 27, 1990, the polling day for Assembly Elections. He handed over charg on March 14, 1990 and thereafter the railings were got fixed. Arjunlal DW 21 states that he has been Chief Pattron of Ambedkar Samiti Karauli during the time when Prakash Chand was President of the Samiti in the year 1990. At no point of time during the 1990 February Assembly Elections at Karuli, Shri Gehlot had any meeting in Ambedkar park. There was no occasion when Shri Gehlot gave any assurance that in case they caste their votes in his favour, he will see that railing is fixed around the Ambedkar park. He states that Pyarelal was not the General Secretary of the Samiti in February, 1990 or during the period, he was Chief Pattron as aforesaid and Prakash Chand was the President. He states that Pyarelal was not the General Secretary of the Samiti in February, 1990 or during the period, he was Chief Pattron as aforesaid and Prakash Chand was the President. Ramswarup, Jamuna, Mool Chand, Shiv Charan, Phool Chand, Manchari, Mangilal, Lallu, Phoosi, and Dwarka are known to him and they are all Jatavs by caste and live in karauli but at that point of time none of them was office bearers of Ambedkar Samiti. Ambedkar Samiti had not taken any decision nor any such decision was reduced in writing b) that Samiti that they shall vote to Shri Gehlot in case the railing is fixed in Ambedkar park. He also states that railing was not fixed in Ambadkar Park during the Assembly Election 1990 and were fixed during the course of election to the Parliament, which election had taken place after the creations to the Assembly. DW. I Janardan Singh Gehlot has denied having held any meeting on February 12, 1990, in Ambedkar park or at any time during the Assembly Elections of 1990 and making promise to get the railing fixed around the said park. He states that all of them who have appeared against him are BJP workers and as far as known to him, none of them was office bearer of the Samiti at that moment. 23. DW 5 is Harish Chand Jain. He states that boundary wall of the Ambedkar park had been constructed by the PWD in 1987 at the cost of Rs. 14,016/- and the entire expenses were met by the PWD, and at the time when boundary was constructed, no railing was fixed. 24. It may be stated that the scrutiny of the aforesaid evidence led on behalf of the petitioner will show that as said earlier, one office bearer Jamunalal has been examined and the other office bearers of the Samiti in 1990, have not been examined. The evidence led about the date February 12, 1990, is not reliable and no proceedings were recorded and none has been produced. That apart, the evidence is not consistent. Some of the witnesses have stated that Shri Gehlot of his own promised to get the railing fixed, whereas the others stated that a demand for getting the railings fixed was made to him and then Shri Gehlot agreed for the same. That apart, the evidence is not consistent. Some of the witnesses have stated that Shri Gehlot of his own promised to get the railing fixed, whereas the others stated that a demand for getting the railings fixed was made to him and then Shri Gehlot agreed for the same. The evidence on the point as to whether the railings were fixed before or after the polling is also not consistent. Some have said that it was fixed before 3 to 4 days whereas the others have stated that it was fixed 7 days after the polling. Prakash Chand who was the President of the Samiti and Arjunlal who was Chief Pattron would have been present, if any meeting would have been held. Prakash Chand has categorically stated that no such meeting was ever held nor Shri Gehlot promised about the railings to be fixed. He states that railings were fixed 7 days after the election. It was in the year 1987 that the boundary wall was constructed at the cost of Rs. 14,016/-. This part of issue No. 2 based on the contents of para No. 7 of the Election Petition cannot be said to have been proved. 25. In conclusion, the petitioner has failed to discharge the burden of issue No. 2 and the issue No. 2 is decided against the petitioner and for the respondent. 26. Issue No. 3 "Whether the respondent committed corrupt practice of false publication of statement of fact in relation to personal character and conduct of petitioner which is false and which he believed to be false as mentioned in para No. 8 and 9 of election petition along with Schedule III of election petition." This issue relates to the holding of the meeting held in Prem Kotia School (Saladi Rawal). There is no dispute that a meeting was held on February 12, 1990 in Prem Kotia School, but the only dispute is about the delivery or publication of speech by Shri Gehlot in respect of alleged character assassination by the respondent against the petitioner. There is no dispute that a meeting was held on February 12, 1990 in Prem Kotia School, but the only dispute is about the delivery or publication of speech by Shri Gehlot in respect of alleged character assassination by the respondent against the petitioner. The relevant pleadings are contained in para 8 of the Election Petition and it will appear from its perusal that the case of the petitioner is that in that meeting Shri Gehlot had declared that if the petitioner is elected in the Assembly Election, then as before four mails were murdered, there will be similar terror and decoits Ram Singh and Bhagw to Singh will create terror and propogate for the petitioner. Some portion of the said speech which was published in news paper 'Prajajan' Hindi daily, from Gangapur District Sawai Madhopur dated February 15, 1990 has been reproduced by the petitioner which reads as under : " tuknZu flag xgyksr us dgk fd vxj pqukoksa esa f'kopj.k flag xqtZj thrrs gS rks iwoZ esa pkj ekfy;ks dh gqbZ gR;k dh rjQ vkSj Hkh vkard gksxk rFkk Mdsr Hkxokuflag o jkeflag xkaoksa esa budk izpkj dj yksxksa dks vafdr djsxsA " Copy of the News Paper has been attached with the Election Petition. Shri Gehlot has denied that he gave any such speech. The case of the respondent is that the meeting was strictly confined to the Congress (I) workers and the entry to the said meeting was regulated through passes. PW. I Shiv Charan Singh stated that on February 12, 1990 at about 5 or 6 p. m. Shri Gehlot had convened a meeting at Saladiwala Rawal Prem Kotia School in which there were about 500 to 600 persons including some Press Reporters representing certain News Papers. He was not present in that meeting and therefore I will exclude his statement so far as this point is concerned, because he has no personal knowledge. However, he admits is that for the meeting cards were issued to the Congress (I) workers, but voluntered that the cards were issued to other workers also and the time and place of the meeting were announced on the loud-speaker in Karauli. He admits that the card which was issued is Ex. PW.. 1/D. 1. PW. 2 is Gordhanlal Garg who claims to be the editor of Hindi daily 'Prajajan' published from Gangapur. He admits that the card which was issued is Ex. PW.. 1/D. 1. PW. 2 is Gordhanlal Garg who claims to be the editor of Hindi daily 'Prajajan' published from Gangapur. It was weekly paper from 1971 to 1980 and thereafter it is Hindi daily paper. According to him, one Arun Kumar Jindal is correspondent of that paper at Karauli for last about 6 to 7 years. Having looked at a daily paper `Prajijan' dated February 15, 1990, the witness said that the news item 'A' to 'B' was published on the basis of the report received from Arun Kumar Jindal, correspondent. In cross-examination, he admits that in Karauli one Ram Swaroop Singh Yadav was his correspondent for his paper, but he does not remember if he had sent any information about the meeting held by Shri Gehlot, but according to the witness if they are received f om more than one, the news item received earlier, is published. He received the news item from Arun Jindal by post on February 14, 1990 and it was composed on the same day and was published on February 15, 1990. The witness was given time to search and produce the news item received by him from Arun Jindal, but when he came to the court on the next date he gave out that he could not trace it and as per practice they do not retain it after 3 or 4 months. They do not keep any record of appointment of anybody as their correspondent. He issued telegraphic authority for appointment of Arun Jindal as his correspondent. No remuneration is paid to the correspondents and therefore no record is keep and the correspondents do.it without any charge. It is also stated by him that they change the date of the news item as given by the correspondent and the date is given on which the news is. composed. No amount in cash is paid to the correspondent to send the news and they give only envelopes in which the new, are sent. According to him, his partner K. I. Bajaj is managing editor and he deals with these matters. He must be keeping record as to how many envelope; with stamps of as how many value of stamps were given to Arun Jindal. According to him, his partner K. I. Bajaj is managing editor and he deals with these matters. He must be keeping record as to how many envelope; with stamps of as how many value of stamps were given to Arun Jindal. As and when the correspondent comes and asks that the earlier stamps and envelopes had finished without asking for account, they give envelopes duly stamp . According to him. news are also sent by telephone. Arun Jindal also used to give news on telephone or telegram. PW. 3 is Arun Kumar Jindal and he states that a meeting was held in Prem Kotia School which was addressed by Shri Gehlot and he was present in that meeting. According to him in the meeting Shri Gehlot gave out that if Shiv Charan wins there will be reign of terror and that four malis were murdered by the dacoits Bhagwan Singh and Ram Singh and if Shiv Charan Singh "ins such incidents will be respected. He sent the report on February 13, 1990 by post to Gangapur to the paper `Prajajan'. He denied that he is worker of BJP and works for Shiv Charan Singh. His father is a reputed correspondent of Karauli. He is also a correspondent of Rajasthan Patrika. According to him, he had prepared the report on February 12, 1990 after the meeting of Shri Gehlot and posted it on February 13, 1990 and he had given the date on it as February 13, 1990. The 'Prajajan' news paper owners give him Rs. 15/- for posting. He does not maintain the account. He does not keep copy of any news which is sent to `Prajajan'. According to him, in the meeting at times they only remember what ever has been said, and on some occasions notes are taken by them. According to him, a teacher was there and he had taken a proper from him. He has torn that paper containing the notes and he does not have the same now. According to him, he received a card for that meeting which card was sent by Shri Gehlot through somebody. Besides him, Mukesh Chaturvedi, correspondent of 'Gremwani' a paper published from Hindaun, was also there. There were 400 to 500 persons in that meeting. His father was also present in that meeting as correspondent of Rajasthan Patrika. According to him, he received a card for that meeting which card was sent by Shri Gehlot through somebody. Besides him, Mukesh Chaturvedi, correspondent of 'Gremwani' a paper published from Hindaun, was also there. There were 400 to 500 persons in that meeting. His father was also present in that meeting as correspondent of Rajasthan Patrika. His father also sent the same news item to Rajasthan Patrika which was written by him and which he sent to the news-paper Prajajan'. He admits that We news item sent by his father to Rajasthan Patrika was not published in that news paper. He denied that no meeting was held and in collusion with the petitioner he has drafted it later on to create a ground for election petition. He is unable to give the name of the person who had given him invitation card. Ram swaroop Yadav is also a correspondent of Prajajan alongwith him at Karauli and he was also present in that meeting. The meeting was in open and it was not held in the Hall. Brij Mohanlal PW. 5 is the father of Arun Kumar Jindal PW. 3. He states that he too was present in Prem Kotia School which was convened by Shri Gehlot on February 12, 1990. According to him, no invitation card is extended to the correspondent and the correspondent go of their own in such meetings. He had not received any invitation card for that meeting, but he attended that meeting as a correspondent. There were about 400 to 500 persons in the meeting and there was publicity of the meeting through announcement by Loudspeakers. Shri Gehlot had given speech in that meeting and said : " xqtZj tkfr ds MdSr lfdz; gSA Hkxokuflag] jkeflag nks MdSr ukeh gSA vkSj vxj geus f'kopj.kflag dks ftrk;k ;k oksV fn;k rks bl {ks= esa vkardokn O;kisxk vkSj mlds izek.k esa tks ,d efgus igys pkj ekyh ekjs x;s Fks oSlh fLFkfr gks tkosxhA " He states that he sent a report written by hand in that connection to Rajasthan Patrika on February 13. 1990. 1990. His son Arun Kumar had written the news item and he had signed it and sent it on February 13, 1990, He admits that Rajasthan Patrika had extended him the facility to send the message by telegram but on February 13, 1990, the telegraph line was out of order so he sent the message by post. He states that he lost his right hand in an accident and therefore, he cannot write easily the reports & therefore his son writs them on his behalf. He admits that he is a regular attendant of RSS Sakhas for last about 20 years. He does not remember if in 1976 Municipal Elections were held on party basis and that Jagannath Palladia had distributed the tickets. He is unable to say as to who had presided over the meeting on February. 12, 1990 at Prem Kotia School. According to him, the school was closed being holiday but one lady-teacher was sitting in the school. He is unable to say whether his news item sent to Rajasthan Patrika was published or not. 27. PW. 7 is Girraj Sharma. He states that he too attended the meeting in Prem Kotia School on. February, 12, 1990. According to him, Shri Gehlot had given a speech in that meeting, and said that -- " vxj f'kopkj.k flag pquko thr tkrs gS rks vkard dk jkt gksxkA foxr esa ftl rjg ls ekfy;ksa dh gR;k gqbZ Fkh mlh rjg ls MdSr ;gka yksxksa dks Mjk;saxs] vkarfdr djsaxsA eSa vxj nw/k nsus okyh xk; lkfcr gksm rks j[kuk ojuk ckgj fudky nsukA " He said that the effect of the speech on him was that who will vote for Shiv Charan Singh. He states that he did not receive any invitation and he does not know if' any invitation cards were issued or not. He admits that he had gone to Sawai Madhopur and to the place where the counting was going on, but he denied that he was the counting agent of Shiv Charan Singh. According to him, he had gone there, because he was interested in the result of the election. He is unable to say as to who presided over the meeting. According to him he reached only when Shri Gehlot was last speaker in the meeting and he does not know, who earlier had spoken. According to him, he had gone there, because he was interested in the result of the election. He is unable to say as to who presided over the meeting. According to him he reached only when Shri Gehlot was last speaker in the meeting and he does not know, who earlier had spoken. So far as Gordhan Lal Garg, PW.2 is concerned, he has no personal knowledge about the speech delivered by Shri Gehlot. He is the editor of 'Prajajan' and he published the news sent by Arun Kumar Jindal. Arun Kumar Jindal claims to have gone to the meeting. He is son of PW. 5 Brij Mohanlal, who has attended RSS Sakhas for last 20 years. Even assuming that some news item was sent by him which was given to 'Prajajan' the question is as, to whether it was correct or not ? The mere publication of a news in the news paper does not lead to the correctness of the news item. The news item was also sent to Rajasthan Patrika but it was not published. I will not attach any importance to the statement of Arun Kumar Jindal and Brij Mohanlal, as Brij Mohanlal belongs to RSS and Arun Kumar Jindal is his son. Even Shiv Charan Singh petitioner admits that the entry in the meeting was regulated through cards and an invitation card has been produced, Whereas, Arun Kumar Jindal admits that he received an invitation card, his father Brij Mohanlal states that correspondent does not need any invitation card & he has not received any such card. So far as Girraj Sharma is concerned, he also states that he has not received any invitation card. In the later part of this judgment, the evidence led by the respondent shall be dealt with but suffice it to say for the present that entry to the meeting was regulated through passes and one who was having invitation card was allowed to go in the meeting and the invitation cards were checked on the gate itself. That apart, it will appear that the words attributed by the correspondent Arun Kumar Jindal and Brij Mohanlal and Girraj Sharma are not the same. Not only, they were not the same, but their substance is also not the same. 28. PW. 8 is Naresh Kumar. That apart, it will appear that the words attributed by the correspondent Arun Kumar Jindal and Brij Mohanlal and Girraj Sharma are not the same. Not only, they were not the same, but their substance is also not the same. 28. PW. 8 is Naresh Kumar. He too states about the meeting in the Prem Kotia School on February 12, 1990 and he states that Shri Gehlot said- " vxj f'kopj.k flag dks thrk;k rks vkard QsysxkA Hkxokuflag] jkeflag MdSr buls feys gq, gSaA ;g vkard dks c<+k;sxsA " According to him, the effect of it on his mind was that who will vote for a man like Shri Shiv Charan Singh. He states that besides this meeting, he did not attend any meeting, except one held by Shri Hardeo Jodhi, on February 25, 1990. He admits that Angoori Devi is his mother and she is a councilor in Municipal Board Karauli from BJP. According to him, one Lakkhi Bajaj had presided over the meeting on February 12, 1490 held in Prem Kotia School. No reliance can be placed on his statement. 29. PW. 9 is Nathua Singh. He states that he attended the meeting on February 12, 1990 held by Shri Gehlot in Prem Kotia School. He states that Shri Gehlot said in that meeting that " nks jkeflag] Hkxokuflag uke ds MdSr gSA tks ;fn f'kopj.k flag thr tkosaxs rks mlh rjg tSls nks efgus igys pkj ekfy;ksa dh gR;k gqbZ mlh rjg ls vkard Qsyk;saxsA " He also states that Shri Gehlot said that he should be considered as a 'Katndhenu' cow and he will see Karauli as a district and the people should vote for him, a statement not made by any other witness. He states that in 1989 Parliamentary Elections, Shri Bhairon Singh Shekiiawat had addressed a meeting and he had garlanded him with a garland of notes of Rs. 500/-. He states that he does not remember as to who presided over the said meeting. He only heard Shri Gehlot and does not know how many others addressed the meeting. He had left the place of the meeting a few minutes earlier & before his departure only Shri Gehlot spoke and none-else had spoken. He reached the school before the meeting started. No reliance can be placed on his statement as it is contrary to the earlier statements of the witnesses for the petitioner. He had left the place of the meeting a few minutes earlier & before his departure only Shri Gehlot spoke and none-else had spoken. He reached the school before the meeting started. No reliance can be placed on his statement as it is contrary to the earlier statements of the witnesses for the petitioner. PW. 16 is Ganga Charan Sharma. He states having attended the meeting on February 12, 1990. He had retired from the Government service in the police department, in 1984. According to him, he had received an invitation card for the meeting and he attended the same., According to him, in that meeting Shri Gehlot said that " vxj f'kopj.k flag dks thrk;k rks tSls ekfy;ksa dh gR;k gqbZ oSls gh Hkxokuflag] jkeflag izpkj djrs jgsaxs vkSj vkard epkrs jgsaxsA " He also states that Shri Gehlot said so many things in the meeting and the meeting lasted about two hours. He states that he does not remember if Mukand Ram had filed Election Petition against Shiv Charan Singh in 1985 and he appeared as a witness for Shiv Charan Singh. According to him, School was closed and no teacher was available. though one witness said that a lady-teacher was sitting. He is unable to say who spoke besides Shri Gehlot, 5 to 7 persons spoke in the meeting. He has been in police for last about 35 years and he can say that as and when public meetings are held, constables & head-constables age, are deputed. He admits that Babulal Head Constable was present. I do not place any, reliance on his statement. He is unable to say who-else besides Gehlot spoke in that meeting and there after his presence in that meeting is doubtful. This is all the evidence for the petitioner. 30. In rebuttal Shri Gehlot stated that the entry in the meeting was regulated through passes and invitation cards were issued. According to him, the meeting was attended 80 to 100 persons & general public was not invited & it was a meeting of congress workers for conduct of the elections. No paper correspondent was invited by him. He says that Arun Jindal & Brij Mohanlal were not present in the meeting and he would not have invited them because they were BJP workers. He denied that he uttered the words attributed to him for Shiv Charan Singh. No paper correspondent was invited by him. He says that Arun Jindal & Brij Mohanlal were not present in the meeting and he would not have invited them because they were BJP workers. He denied that he uttered the words attributed to him for Shiv Charan Singh. In the meeting was only convened to decide which worker was to be entrusted which work and to distribute parchis in which ward. He states that there are three daily news papers from Karauli. Chambal Times, Karauli Times and one more. There are correspondents of all daily news papers, namely-Rashtradoot, Rajasthan Patrika, Navjyoti in Karauli and the above news item as published in-Prajajan' was not published in any of the aforesaid news-papers. Babulal DW 3 states that he was posted as Head Constable in District Special Branch Karauli, and the duties of that branch were to collect political informations. He had not gone to Prem Kotia School on February 12, 1990 to attend any public meeting addressed by anybody including Shri Gehlot. DW 14 is Brij Mohan Barisal who was working for Shri Gehlot. He states that the work assigned to him was to take care of the voters of his locality. He states that invitation cards were issued for the meeting in Prem Kotia School. According to him, the meeting was not a public meeting. DW 15 Kedar Lal states that he is Congress (1) worker and according to him the meeting held on February 12, 1990 in Prem Kotia School was a meeting for Congress (1) workers. There was an enclosure with the gate in the middle and the meeting was held ire id: the enclosure Hajarilal, a congress (I) worker was made to stand on the gate and the entry was regulated and restricted by passes. ]Besides, Congress-(I) workers, no other person was allowed to go in the meeting.. Arun Kumar Jindal and Brij Mohanlal were not invited and were not present in the meeting. He states that Shri Gehlot did not say anything as is published in 'Prajajan'. DW 16 is Hajarilal. He states that he was standing on the entry gate to check invitation cards which were issued. He states that Brij Mohanlal and Arun Kumar 3indal were neither invited nor were present in that meeting. There was no speech by anybody including Shri Gehlot. DW 17 Gopal Lai Sharma made a similar statement. 31. DW 16 is Hajarilal. He states that he was standing on the entry gate to check invitation cards which were issued. He states that Brij Mohanlal and Arun Kumar 3indal were neither invited nor were present in that meeting. There was no speech by anybody including Shri Gehlot. DW 17 Gopal Lai Sharma made a similar statement. 31. After having gone through the evidence, it can be said that the evidence for the petitioner that Shri Gehlot delivered any speech is not correct. That apart, I have already extracted what was published in 'Prajajan' and from a perusal of it, it will be clear that it does not amount to character-assassination. Under Section 123(4) of the Act the publication by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent of any statement of fact which is false and which he either believes to be false or does not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate, or in relation to candidature or withdrawal of any candidate being a statement reasonably calculated prejudice the prospects of that candidate's election, will amount to corrupt practice. The aforesaid publication, in my opinion, is not in relation to the personal character or conduct of the petitioner or at any rate it cannot be said to be a statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the petitioner's election.I, therefore, decide issue No. 3. against the petitioner and for the respondent. 32. Consequently, I find no force in this Election Petition. It is hereby dismissed with costs.Election Petition Dismissed. *******