D. Venkata Reddy Vs. R. Sultan & Ors [1976] INSC 36 (24 February 1976)
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA GOSWAMI, P.K.
CITATION: 1976 AIR 1599 1976 SCR (3) 445 1976 SCC (2) 455
CITATOR INFO :
R 1976 SC1866 (4) R 1978 SC1162 (8) R 1979 SC 154 (37) R 1980 SC1347 (3) R 1985 SC 89 (20,25)
ACT:
Representation of the People Act (43 of 1951), ss. 81 and 86(S)-Application for amendment of petition for giving material particulars-To what extent may be allowed Amendment allowed in violation of s. 86(S) without objection-If could be challenged in appeal to Supreme Court.
Election petition-Approach of court to evidence regarding corrupt practices-Tained and interested evidence- Necessily for corroboration Attitude of court to poll verdict-Material particulars and evidence, scope.
HEADNOTE:
The respondent, who was a Muslim, was the Congress candidate for election to the State Legislative Assembly. He challenged the appellant's election and the High Court allowed the election petition on three grounds (1) that the appellant committed a corrupt practice under a 123(1), Representation of the People Act, 1951 in that he offered a bribe to the respondent to induce him not to contest the election; (2) that the appellant committed corrupt practice under s. 123(3A) in that he issued and personally distributed a pamphlet containing communal allegations with a view to create ill-feeling among the voters; and (3) that the appellant's agents distributed that pamphlet with the appellant's contest.
Allowing the appeal to this Court,
HELD :(1)(a) While it is necessary to protect the purity of elections by ensuring that the candidate do not secure the valuable votes of the people by undue influence, fraud, communal porpaganda. bribery or other corrupt practices, the valuable verdict of the people at 'the polls must be given due respect and should not be disregarded or set at naught on vague, frivolous or fanciful allegations, or on evidence which is of a shaky or pre-varicating character. [450F-G, H] (b) Tho onus lies heavily on the election-petitioner to make out a strong case for setting aside the election. He must, in order to succeed. plead all material particulars and prove them by clear and Cogent evidence. [450G; 451K] (c) The allegations of corrupt practice being in the nature of a quasi criminal charge must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. When the election petitioner seeks to drove the charge by purely partisan evidence of his workers;
agents. supporters and friends the court would have to approach the evidence with great care and caution, and would, as a matter of prudence, though not as a rule of law, require corroboration of such evidence from independent quarters, unless the court in fully satisfied that the evidence is so creditworthy and true, that no corroboration to lend further assurance Is necessary. [451A] (d) The attempt of the agents or supporters of the defeated candidate is always to get the election set aside by fair means or foul and the evidence of such witnesses, must, therefore, be regarded as highly interested and tainted evidence. [451C-D] (e) When, the evidence led by the election-petitioner, even though consistent, is fraught with inherent improbabilities and replete with unnatural tendencies, the court may refuse to accept such evidence, because consistency alone h not the conclusive test of truth. It is, however, difficult to lay down any rule of universal application and each case will have to be decided on its facts. [451D-E], Bhanu Kumar Shastri v. Mohan Lal Sukhadia & Ors. [1971] 1 S.C.C 370; Rahim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed & Ors. [1974] 2 S.C.C. 660; Abdul Hussain Mir v. Shamsul Huda and another, [1975] 4 S.C.C. 533 and Ghasi Ram v. Dal Singh & Ors. [1968] 3 S.C.R. 102, followed.
14-L522SCI/76 446 (2) In the present case, the High Court correctly adumbrated the legal propositions but had not correctly applied them to the facts and evidence. It also applied different standards in appreciating the evidence. It readily accepted ll the evidence of two witnesses on one issue while rejecting as partisan and interested on another issue.
[453A-D] (3) The cumulative effect of the inherent improbabilities and the intrinsic infirmities of the evidence for the respondent, and the unnatural conduct of the respondent and his witnesses, lead to the conclusion that the respondent had failed to prove the allegation of the offer of bribe. [465B-C] (a) The respondent bore a serious animus against the appellant and yet it was alleged that the appellant offered him a bribe even though they were not well-acquainted with each other. [458G. 460D] .
(b) The offer was alleged to have been made in the presence of two witnesses,' in a crowded` place' and pressed upon the respondent even though he spurned it. The High Court is not right in its view that an offer could have been made as alleged, and that only for actual payment a secluded place could be chosen. [458F-H; 459B-C] (c) The High Court is also not right in its view that because the appellant was. at the Taluk Office when- the respondent went there the appellant would have offered the bribe. On the contrary, the respondent, for that very reason, might have concocted this story of the offer of bribe. [457E-F] (d) The High Court failed to consider, (i) that while it is easy to make an allegation of offer of bribe, it is very difficult for the person against whom it is made to rebut it; [457G-E] (ii) that the allegation was sought to be proved by the respondent, by the partisan and highly interested testimony of two witnesses and was sought to be corroborated by the equally interested testimony of two others to whom the incident was alleged to have been narrated shortly thereafter. and that t-he respondent had not examined any independent witness, even though such witness were available; [457H-458A] (iii) that the appellant would not have attempted to bribe the respondent because, the respondent had the, support of the Congress, and even if he with- drew, the Congress would have put up another candidate. [461B-CI (iv) that the respondent had not complained about the bribe either to the local Congress committee or to the police; and [461F-G; 464D-E] (v) that there was no reference either to the corroborating witnesses or to the narration of the incident of the offer of the bribe to those witnesses, in the petition. If it were true it is unlikely that the respondent would have omitted a reference to it. [464A-B] (e) Further. the fact of repetition of the story of the offer of bribe to the two corroborating witnesses was a material particular or an additional fact pertaining to the averments In the petition and not a mere matter of evidence.
Since it was nob mentioned in though petition it has to be excluded from consideration. [464B-C] (f) As the alleged offer is an electoral offence of a quasi-criminal nature, the onus of proving it was initially on the respondent, but he failed to discharge the onus.
[464A-H] (g) If such a serious allegation is allowed to be proved against a successful. Candidate by partisan, interested and improbable evidence, without any independent corroboration, it would give an easy handle to the defeated candidates to destroy the sanctity of the electoral process.
[464A-465B] (4) The respondent has not 'adduced any satisfactory evidence that the r offending pamphlet was printed by the appellant or distributed by him personally, whereas, the appellant has, through his evidence, Though of a 447 negative character, shown that the probabilities are that the appellant did not A have it printed and that he did not distribute it. [491E-F] (a ) Distribution of an objectionable pamphlet is a corrupt practice under s. 123(4) and the pamphlet in the present case, containing communal propaganda comes under s. 123(3A) as well. [471G-H; 474E] (b) The allegation of publishing such an objectionable pamphlet is easy to make and difficult to rebut. The court must subject the tainted and interested evidence regarding its publication to the strictest scrutiny because it-can be printed by the defeated candidate in any press with secrecy.
circulated among his supporters and he can make them say that it was printed, published and circulated by the successful candidate. [471H-472B] Baburao Bagaji Karemoga and ors. v. Govind & Ors., [1974] 3 S.C.R. 719, followed.
(c) The appellant had denied the printing or publication of the pamphlet and' the respondent failed to discharge his initial onus of proving that the appellant printed and distributed it. [472D-E] (d) Since there were a considerable number of Muslim voters in the constituency, the appellant' would not have taken the risk of 'offending them by circulating such a pamphlet. The respondent, on the other hand, had a strong motive to reverse the appellant's election by any possible means, and he had his own press. [472H; 474F-G, H] (e) The High Court was wrong in its approach that since the pamphlet contained anti-Muslim propaganda it would not have been printed by the respondent. An unsuccessful candidate, motivated by the desire to unseat a successful candidate, would stood to any device to show that the successful candidate was guilt of a corrupt practice. [472G] (f) Merely because the respondent disclosed the name of the press where he got some other pamphlets printed, it could not be contended by him that he would have disclosed the name of the press which printed the offending pamphlet if he got it printed. The contents of the pamphlet were so offensive that the printer would not have taken the risk of disclosing the name of the press and expose it to legal action. [491B-C] (g) Most of the witnesses for the respondent who stated that the pamphlet was given to them before or during the election were of the turn coat type, that is. persons who claimed to have worked for the appellant but gave evidence for the respondent; and though others were in some way or the other totally interested in the respondent or connected with him. [479F] Rahim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed and others, [1974] 2 SCC 660. followed. F (h) one witness gave evidence that he received the pamphlet from his wife during the election. but since she was not examined, the evidence was rightly rejected by the High Court. [490H-491A] (i) The High Court held that the pamphlet was in existence before or during the election, applying the test that the pamphlet was produced by the witness who stated that it was given to him by the appellant. But that cannot be a safe criterion because, the respondent could have handed it over to the witness before he have evidence.
Further. the probabilities are that it was not then in existence. [471C-E] (i) Respectable witness of the appellant gave evidence that no such pamphlet was circulated, for then they would have known about it. Also considering its provocative language, it is unlikely that the Government officials posted to prevent any communal propaganda by the candidates would have failed to notice it. [473B: 474G-H] (ii) Further, the respondent would not have failed to give in the petition or in the material particulars furnished by him later, the name of the persons from whom he came to know about the pamphlet. The respondent collected materials for filing the election petition soon after the appellant was declared 448 elected and more than a month before filing it. In spite of such a full and complete opportunity before filing the petition, and later when the appellant applied for further particulars regarding the distribution of the pamphlet, the respondent merely gave the names of certain villages and the dates on which the pamphlet was alleged to have been distributed; but he did not mention the name of a single person to whom the pamphlet had been distributed by the appellant personally, even though, according to the led by the respondent, he. was in possession of such damaging evidence against the appellant. [470B-471B; 475A-B; 490C-E] (iii) The respondent had made several complaints to the police about various matters but did not complain about the pamphlet either to the police or the local Congress committee. If his silence was due to legal advice, as contended, he should have given the explanation in The petition or examined the lawyer who gave such an advice [487E-F; 490E-E] (5) (a) Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, provides that the election petition shall be filed within 45 days From the date of the election of the returned candidate. Therefore, any allegation of corrupt practice which is not made in the election petition filed within the time allowed by the statute cannot be allowed by way of an amendment under s. 86(5) because, that would amount to extending the period of limitation peremptorily fled by the A. The ambit of s. 86(5) is extremely narrow. It requires three essential conditions which arc the sire qua non to be fulfilled before an amendment could be allowed, namely (i) that the amendment seeks merely to amplify the particulars, of a corrupt practice; (ii) that the corrupt practice, whoso particulars are to be given, must have been previously alleged in the election petition itself, and (iii) that the amendment is, in the opinion of the court necessary for ensuring a fair and effective trial of the petition. The power of amendment or amplification is thus restricted only to amplify the material particulars of any corrupt practice which had been previously alleged in the election petition, and the court has no power to allow an amendment by permitting the election petitioner to amplify the material particulars of a corrupt practice which was specifically pleaded In the petition; for, that would amount to introducing a new corrupt practice after the expiry of the period of limitation-a result which was never envisaged by the statute. [466H; 467B-C, E-Hl Samant N. Balakrishna etc. v. George Fernandez & Ors., etc., [1969] 3 S.C.R. 603, followed.
(b) In the present case, reading the averments in election petition as a whole, however broadly or liberally they are construed, the irresistible inference is that the respondent had laid special stress on the fact of distribution of the pamphlet by the appellant alone.
Wherever the averment of distribution of the pamphlet is made in the petition, it is stated that it was done by the appellant. There is absolutely no averment that the pamphlet was distributed by the agent, workers or supporters or friends of the appellant. Hence, it could not be con tended by the respondent that though averments include not merely distribution by the appellant, but also by his agents and workers. Since there was no pleading at all by the respondent that the pamphlet was distributed by his agents, etc., particulars supplied by the respondent in his application for amendment of his. petition on the point of distribution by agents, etc., must be completely disregarded. The court also has no jurisdiction to allow such particular to be given with respect to tho fact that the pamphlets were distributed by the agents and supporters of the appellant. Therefore, the amendment, in respect of the third ground on which the judgment of the High Court was based, should not have been allowed, the particulars mentioned by the respondent on this item. must be disregarded, the evidence given by him should be excluded from consideration, and the finding of the High Court should be set aside. [468H-469D, E-F] (c) The attention of tho High Court was not drawn by the appellant to this aspect but, as it is a pure question of law and amounts to violation of the statutory mandate in s. 86(5) this Court can decide on the correctness of the order of the High Court, allowing particulars regarding distribution of pamphlet by the agents etc., of the appellant. [469D-E] 449
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1170 of 1973.
(From the judgment and order dated the 25-4-1973 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Election Petition No. 4 of 1972) P. Basi Reddy, C. Sadasiva Reddy, G. Narayana Rao and Mrs. Vimala Markendeyulu, for the appellant.
B. Shiv Shankar, A. V. Rangam, Miss A. Subhashini and K. Venkata Ramiah, for the residents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI,J.- This is an appeal under s. 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by Venkata Reddy who was Respondent No. 1 in the election petition filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The appeal arises out of the general elections held to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly in March 1972 from Gooty Assembly Constituency. The appellant Venkata Reddy, T. Papa Sab and R. Sultan (the election petitioner before the High Court) applied for Congress ticket for the Gooty Assembly Constituency seat. The District Congress Committee, Anantapur recommended the names of R. Sultan, Papa Sab and Ramachandra Goud but did not recommend the name of the appellant The Andhra Pradesh Provincial Congress Committee, however; recommended. the name of R. Sultan the first respondent alone. This recommendation appears to have been accepted by the All lndia Congress Committee which gave the Congress ticket to the first respondent R. Sultan oh February 1, 1972 as a result thereof the other candidates, namely, the appellant Venkata Reddy, T. Papa Sab and Venkata Subbayya decided to contest the election as independent candidates, whereas Venkata Naidu got the Congress (O) ticket. The polling to the aforesaid constituency was held on March 8, 1972 and counting was done on March 12, 1972 on which date the result was also declared. The appellant was declared elected having secured 19,974 votes polled in the constituency. Respondent No. 1 R. Sultan lost by a narrow margin of 471 votes having polled 19,503 votes. The other respondents were accordingly defeated and we are not at all concerned with their cases.
Respondent No. 1 R. Sultan filed an election petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court on April 20, 1972 which was assigned to Sriramulu, J., who tried the election petition. For the sake of convenience we shall refer to Venkata Reddy as the appellant and R. Sultan who was the election petitioner before the High Court as the contesting respondent. The contesting respondent sought to challenge the election of the appellant on various grounds and alleged that the appellant had indulged in a large number of corrupt practices as envisaged by s. 123 of the Act. namely, bribery, corruption, communal propaganda, impersonation of voters, excessive expenses, improper rejection and reception of ballot papers etc. The contesting respondent also filed an application before the Trial Judge that as number of irregularities were committed in tho rejection and acceptance of the ballot paper, the Court should allow scrutiny 450 and recounting of the votes. The Court, after considering the evidence of the parties on this point, eventually allowed the application, but ultimately it held that even if there was any irregularity it had not caused any material .
change in the election. The petition was resisted by the appellant who emphatically denied all the allegations made by the contesting respondent and submitted that the elections were free and fair and that the appellant had not indulged in any corrupt practice at all. The appellant further pleaded that all the allegations made by the contesting respondent were figment of his imagination and were totally untrue. On the question of corrupt practices, particularly the distribution of objectionable pamphlets, as the contesting respondent had not given full and material particulars in his election petition the appellant filed an application on July 7, 1972 praying that the Court may direct the contesting respondent to file better particulars by way of amendment. The Court directed the contesting respondent to supply fresh particulars and accordingly the contesting respondent filed his application for amendment by incorporating material particulars on August 29, 1972. On the pleadings of the parties the High Court framed as many as 35 issues in the present case. After taking the evidence of the parties the Court decided all the issues against the contesting respondent except issues Nos. 7, 26 and 27 which were decided in favour of the con testing respondent. In view of the findings given by the learned Judge the election of the appellant was set aside, but the learned Judge refused to grant the relief to the contesting respondent for being declared as duly elected to the seat in question. It is against this decision that the appellant has come up to this Court in appeal.
Mr. P. Basi Reddy learned counsel for the appellant has assailed before us the findings of the High Court on issues Nos. 7, 26 and 27 as these were the only issues which affected the appellant. Mr. B. Shiv Sankar, learned counsel for the contesting respondent has endeavoured to support the judgment of the High Court by submitting that the findings arrived at by the High Court were based on a correct and proper appreciation of the evidence and the facts and circumstances or the record. In a democracy such as ours, the purity and sanctity of elections, the sacrosanct and sacred nature of the electoral process must be preserved and maintained. The valuable verdict of the people at the polls must be given due respect and candour and should not be disregarded or set at naught on vague, indefinite, frivolous or fanciful allegations or on evidence which is of a shaky or prevaricating character. It is well settled that the onus lies heavily on the election petitioner to make out a strong case for setting aside an election. In our country election is a fairly costly and expensive venture and the Representation of the People Act has provided sufficient safeguards to make the elections fair and free. In these circumstances. therefore, election results cannot be lightly brushed aside in election disputes. At the same time it is necessary to protect the purity and sobriety of the elections by ensuring that the candidates do not secure the valuable votes of the People by undue influence. fraud, communal propaganda, bribery or other corrupt practices as laid down in the Act.
451 Another principle that is equally well settled is that the election A petitioner in order to succeed must plead all. material particulars' and prove-them by clear and cogent evidence. The allegations of corrupt practices being in the nature of a quasi-criminal charge the same must be proved beyond any shadow of doubt. Where the election petitioner seeks to prove the charge by purely partisan evidence ? consisting of his workers, agents, supporters and friends, the Court would have to approach the evidence with great care and caution, scrutiny and circumspection, and would, as a matter of prudence r though not as a rule of law, require corroboration of such evidence from independent quarters, unless the Court is fully satisfied that the evidence is so credit-worthy and true, spotless and blemishless, cogent and consistent, that no corroboration to lend further assurance is necessary. It has to be borne in mind that the attempt of the agents or supporters of the defeated candidate is always to get the election set aside by means fair or foul and the evidence of such witnesses, therefore, must be regarded as highly interested and tainted evidence which should be acted upon only if the Court is satisfied that the evidence is true and does not suffer from any infirmity. Where, however, the evidence led by the election petitioner even though consistent is fraught with inherent improbabilities and replete with unnatural tendencies, the Court may refuse to accept such evidence, because consistency alone is not the conclusive test of truth Judicial experience shows that sometimes even r a tutored or parrot' like evidence can be consistent and free from discrepancies and yet not worthy of credence. It is, however, difficult to lay down a rule of universal application because each case will have to be decided on its own facts, but in appreciating the evidence the broad features mentioned above must be borne in mind and have been emphasised by this Court in a large catena of decisions-a few of them may be refer red to here.
In Bhanu Kumar Shastri v. Mohan Lal Sukhadia and others,(l) this Court observed as follows:
"Allegation of corrupt practice is a charge of criminal nature. The provisions in the Representation of the People Act are intended to preserve the purity of the election, but at the same time these provisions should not be subverted for the impure purposes of maligning candidates who happen to be in the Government on the eve of the election, X X X The Court is always vigilant to watch not only the conduct of the candidates and to protect their character from being defamed hut also to see that the character and conduct of the public is not corroded by corrupt motive or evil purposes of candidates. The genuine and bona fide aims and aspirations of candidates have to be protected on the one hand and mala fide abuse and arrogance of power will have to be censured on the other." (1) 119711 I S.C.C. 370.
452 Similarly in Rahim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed & ors.(l) Krishna Iyer, J., speaking for the Court most lucidly and aptly observed as follows:
"An election once held is not to be treated in a light hearted manner and defeated candidates or disgruntled electors should' not get away with it by filing election petitions on unsubstantial grounds and irresponsible evidence, there by introducing a serious element of uncertainty in the verdict already rendered by the electorate. An election is a , politically sacred public act, not of one person or of one official, but of the collective will of the whole constituency. Courts naturally must respect this public expression secretly written and show extreme reluctance to set aside or declare void an election which has already been held unless clear and cogent testimony compelling the court to uphold the corrupt practice allege against the returned candidate is adduced.
Indeed election petitions where corrupt practices are imputed must be regarded as proceedings of a quasi- criminal nature wherein strict proof is necessary. The burden is therefore heavy on him who assails an election which has been concluded." To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Abdul Hussain Mir v. Shamsul huda and Another(2) where this Court observed as fol lows:
"Even so, certain basic legal guidelines cannot be lost sight of while adjudging an election dispute. The verdict at the polls wears a protective mantle in a democratic polity. The Court will vacate such ballot count return only on proof beyond reasonable doubt of corrupt practices. Charges, such as have been imputed here, are viewed as quasi-criminal, carrying other penalties from losing a seat, and strong testimony is needed to subvert a Returning officer's declaration. x x x x x When elections are challenged on grounds with a criminal taint the benefit of doubt in testimonial matters be longs to the returned candidate.
Similarly in Ghasi Ram v. Dal Singh & others(3) while emphasizing the standard of proof in an election case for a corrupt practice of bribery, Hidayatullah, J., as he then was, speaking for the Court observed thus:
"In Anjaneya Reddy v. Gangi Reddy and others-21 E.L.R. 247-it was held that the proof required to establish a corrupt practice must be almost of the character required to establish a criminal charge.
In our opinion the law requires that a corrupt practice involving bribery must be fully established.
The evidence must show clearly that the promise or gift directly or (1) [1974] 2 S.C.C. 660. (2) [1975] 4 S.C.C. 533.
(3) [1968] 3 S.C.R. 102.
453 indirectly was made to an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an election." A We have gone through the judgment of the High Court, particularly on issue Nos. 7, 26 and 27 and find that although in his prelude to the discussion on issue No. 7 the learned Judge has referred to the various authorities and has correctly adumbrated the legal propositions he does not appear to have applied the principles enunciated in the decisions correctly to the facts or the evidence covered by this issue. It also appears that the learned Judge has applied two different standards in appreciating the evidence with respect to issues Nos. 7, 26 & 27 and other issues on which he has given findings against the contesting respondent. For instance, while he has refused to accept the evidence of a partisan or an interested witness being staunch supporters of the contesting respondent on other issues, particularly issue No. 8, he has, while dealing with the evidence of the witnesses on issue No. 7 which suffers.
from the self-same infirmity, readily accepted their evidence without even noticing the deep interest that these witnesses had in supporting or bolstering up the case of the contesting respondent. We shall, however, refer to this aspect of the matter after we have dealt with the evidence led by the parties on these issues.
In the light of the principles enunciated by us we shall now proceed to discuss and examine the findings of the High Court on issue No. 7 and the evidence led thereon by the parties. Issue No. 7 was cast by the Trial Judge thus:
"Did the 1st respondent (the appellant) commit a corrupt practice under s. 123(1) of the Representation of the People Act by making an offer to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the petitioner and trying to induce him not to contest the election ?" To begin with we would like to refer to the pleadings of the contesting respondent in order to show the exact material particulars averred in the election petition itself. The allegation which is the subject-matter of issue No. 7 is to be found in paragraph-12 of the election petition appearing at p. 23 of the Paper Book (Vol. I). R. Sultan the contesting respondent had alleged that he had applied for a Congress ticket for Gooty Assembly constituency and. was ultimately granted the said ticket by the Central Election Committee, Delhi on February 1, 1972. Although the D.C.C.
ad-hoc Congress Committee, Anantapur, had recommended the name of the contesting respondent and others, the Provincial Congress Committee `recommended the name of the contesting respondent alone which was finally accepted by the Central Election Committee at Delhi. After having been given the Congress ticket the contesting respondent returned to Hyderabad on February 2, 1972 and a day later he was contacted on telephone by Mustafa of Guntakal one of his supporters and had a talk with him regarding the filing of his nomination paper. The contesting respondent told Mustafa that he would be reaching Gooty on February 4, 1972, for filing his nomination papers for the Gooty Assembly constituency and that Mustafa also should reach Gooty on the morning of February 4, 1972. We might pause for a little while 454 here and notice two important averments. In the first place it was the definite case of the contesting respondent that his visit to Gooty on February 4, 1972, was for the purpose of filing his nomination papers, but it appears from the evidence that he did not file his nomination on this date but some time later. Secondly during his talk with Mustafa on the telephone the contesting respondent did not ask him to bring P.W. 29 Nabi Saheb and P.W. 33 Chinna Bhemanna with him to Gooty. Resuming the thread of averments in the election petition, the further facts are that the contesting respondent reached Gooty on February 4, 1972 at about 10-00 A.M. and proceeded to Bharat Sewak Samaj-hereafter referred to as 'B.S.S.'-Building which is sometimes described as an office and sometimes as a Guest House in the evidence. P.Ws. 29 and 33 and some others were waiting for the contesting respondent at the B.S.S. Building. The contesting respondent then, along with P.Ws. 29 and 33 went to Taluk office for obtaining a copy of the voters list for the Gooty Assembly constituency and reached the Taluk office at about 11-00 A.M. While he was returning from the Taluk office the appellant met the contesting respondent and wished him and after talking for some time he made an offer of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to the contesting respondent if he agreed to withdraw from the election and help the appellant. This offer is said to have been made in the presence of P.Ws. 29 and 33. Even after the contesting respondent refused the offer he was again persuaded by the appellant to consider the same and on his final refusal the appellant threatened that the contesting respondent was bound to face defeat in the elections. It was also alleged that the appellant took the refusal of the offer as a challenge and spent money lavishly to win the election. The last part of the averment which forms the subject-matter of issue No. 8 and certain other issues has not been accepted by the High Court. These are the only particulars mentioned in the petition with respect to the offer of bribe which is the subject-matter of issue No. 7. In the course of the evidence. however, a new fact was sought to be introduced by the contesting respondent, namely, that P Ws. 29 & 33 returned to the B.S.S. Building after the contesting respondent refused the offer of the appellant and then the two witnesses P.Ws. 29 & 33 narrated the entire incident to P.W. 34 Mustafa and P.W. 22 Ramachandraiah and others. This fact was introduced in order to lend corroboration to the evidence of the contesting respondent and that of P.Ws. 29 and 32. But as this was undoubtedly a material particular or an additional fact pertaining to the averments in paragraph 12 of the election petition and the same not having been mentioned has to be completely excluded from consideration. We shall.
however. dilate on this matter when we deal with the evidence led by the contesting respondent on this point.
In short, therefore, the story regarding the offer of bribery and the occasion for it may be conveniently divided into three stages:
Stage No. 1.
This stage starts with the decision of the Central Election Committee, Delhi, in giving the Congress ticket to the contesting respondent and as consequence there of his arrival at Hyderabad on February 2, 1972. On reaching Hyderabad the contesting respondent 455 who is P.W. 16 received a telephone call from Mustafa who was asked to go to Gooty on February 4, 1972 in order to meet the contesting respondent. Accordingly the contesting respondent reached Gooty on February 4, 1972 and accompanied by P.Ws. 29 and 33 left for the Taluk office. This is the end of the drama enacted in Stage No. I. The facts are proved by P.W. 16 the contesting respondent himself, by Mustafa P.W. 34 and by P.Ws. 29 and 33. It may be mentioned here that all the witnesses examined to prove the facts covered by this stage are interested witnesses who are staunch supporters of the contesting respondent and there appears to be a serious discrepancy in the evidence led on this point. It appears from the evidence that when the contesting respondent reached B.S.S. Building apart from P.Ws. 29 and 33, P.Ws. 34 and 22 were also present. P.Ws. 34 and 22 however did not accompany the contesting respondent to the Taluk office. P.W. 22 Ramachandraiah says that he did not go tor the Taluk office because of ill health and P.W. 34 Mustafa says that he did not go as he had some work at the Railway Station. It may 'also be noticed that in paragraph-12 of the election petition where the material particulars are given by the contesting respondent, while it is clearly mentioned that when the contesting respondent reached Gooty P.Ws. 29 & 33 were there, the name of P.W. 22 is not specifically mentioned as being present at Gooty. It would appear from the evidence of P.W. 22 that he was a great friend and supporter of the contesting respondent and even the learned Judge has commented on the deep interest which P.W. 22 had shown in order to support the case of the contesting respondent. It is, therefore, difficult to believe that if P.W. 22 would have been present at the B.S.S. Building how could the contesting respondent have omitted to mention the name of his most confident friend and supporter in paragraph-12 of his election petition. This taken together with the fact that P.W. 22 had given a lame excuse for not having accompanied the contesting respondent to the Taluk office clearly throws a considerable amount of suspicion on the presence of P.W. 22 at Gooty on February 4, 1972. Similarly, while P.W. 34 Mustafa gives a specific reason why he had not accompanied the contesting respondent to the Taluk office. namely, that he had some work at the Railway Station, which is also deposed to by P.W. 16 himself, yet this fact which was within the knowledge of the contesting respondent at that very time is not mentioned in the election petition. Another important circumstance that has to be noticed is that whereas in the election petition it is the definite case of the contesting respondent that he had to go to Gooty on February 4, 1972 for filing his nomination papers the evidence shows that the did not file the nomination papers at all on that date but he merely applied for the voters list of the constituency. This is important, because, while it may have been relevant for P.Ws. 29 & 33 to accompany the contesting respondent to the Taluk office if it was the question of his filing nomination papers, their presence at the Taluk office was not at all necessary if the contesting respondent had merely to take a copy of the voters list which could have been done by him alone.
P.W. 16 the contesting respondent has no doubt proved the facts mentioned above. Similarly P.W. 34 has supported the contesting 456 respondent regarding his having a talk with the contesting respondent on the telephone and his being asked to go to Gooty on February 4, 1972. P.Ws. 29 and 33 have also said that they were asked by P.W. 34 Mustafa to accompany him to Gooty in order to meet the contesting respondent. Thus so far as the facts in stage No. I are concerned, whether they are true or not, they do not appear to be very relevant for the purpose of issue No. 7.
Stage No. 11 This brings us to stage No. 2 which is the bulwark and the bedrock of the case of the contesting respondent regarding the offer of bribe said to have been made by the appellant to him. So as this stage is concerned the only evidence that the contesting respondent has given consists of the testimony of P.Ws. 29 and 33 apart from his own evidence. We would first deal with the evidence of P.Ws. 29 and 33 before coming to the evidence of the contesting respondent himself. P.W. 29 Nabi Saheb appears to be one of the most interested witnesses and a great friend and supporter of the contesting respondent. He admits at p. 498 of the Paper Book (Vol. Ill) that both the witness and Mustafa P.W. 34 worked for the contesting respondent during the recent general elections. He then says that Mustafa approached him on February 3, 1972 and requested him and W.
33 Chinna Bhemanna to accompany him to Gooty. The witness further admits that the contesting respondent R. Sultan and he had been friends for the last ten years. A suggestion was given by the appellant that his younger brother Khaja Hussain was godown keeper of the B.S.S. at Guntakal and he was arrested on the charge of sling goods and that the contesting respondent Sultan had helped him. The witness admits at p. 501 of the Paper Book (Vol. III) that the police had no doubt arrested his younger brother who was a Godown Keeper of the B.S.S. and he further admits that the case was later shown out. He, however, denied the suggestion that Sultan helped his brother. It is, however, admitted by Sultan P.W. 16 at p. 307 of the Paper Book (Vol. II) that he was the Secretary of the B.S S. and was, therefore, obviously in a position to help the brother of the witness.
In these circumstances, therefore, to begin with, the Court has to approach the evidence of this witness with great care and caution because be was not only a close friend of the contesting respondent, but was also his supporter and worker and he was interested in giving evidence which may result in the election of the appellant being set aside He states that when the contesting respondent decided to go to the Taluk office on February 4, 1972, P.W. 34 Mustafa did not accompany the party because he had some work at the Railway Station with the result that P.W. 33 and the witness only accompanied the contesting respondent. The witness further stated that he accompanied the contesting respondent to the Taluk office but P.W. 33 Ramachandraiah stayed behind as he was not keeping good health. Thereafter when the contesting respondent came out of the Taluk office the party went towards the place where the car was parked when on the way the appellant met them and greeted the contesting respondent. There the appellant is said to have offered Rs.
25,000/- if the contesting respondent agreed not to contest the election. Sultan laughed and 457 spurned the offer. The witness as also P.W. 33 Chinna Bheemanna told the appellant that Sultan the contesting respondent did not require the money, when the appellant repeated the offer which was again refused. Thereafter the party returned to the B.S.S. Building where P.W. 22 Ramachandraiah and P.W. 34 Mustafa and others were waiting in the office of the B.S.S. Both the witness and P.W. 33 narrated the incident relating to the offer of bribe to Mustafa P.W. 33 and Ramachandraiah P.W. 22.
P.W. 33 Chinna Bheemanna who is the other witness has narrated more or less the same facts regarding their reaching the B.S.S. Building at Gooty, their accompanying the contesting respondent to the Taluk office, the offer of bribe made by the appellant and the narration of the facts to P.Ws. 22 and 34. P.W. 16 the contesting respondent had also deposed to these facts. C The learned Judge has accepted the evidence of these witnesses because he thought that there was no major discrepancy in the testimony of these witnesses. Furthermore, the learned Judge, has, on a consideration of the evidence of P.Ws. 23, 38, 39 and 41, held that both the contesting respondent and the appellant were present at Taluk office on February 4 1972 near about 12 Noon and from their presence he appears to Lave presumed that the offer of bribe must have been made. We are, however, unable to agree with this somewhat unusual process of reasoning. The mere fact that the contesting respondent and the appellant happened to be present at the Taluk office on February 4, 1972, at about the same time does not necessarily lead to the inference that the appellant must have made the offer of bribe which is quite a different fact and has to be proved separately and independently. Indeed if one has to wander in the domain of conjectures, then it can be equally said of the contesting respondent that the presence of the appellant at the same day and time at the Taluk office furnished him an occasion to concoct and bolster up a case of the alleged offer of bribe by the appellant to the contesting respondent and in order to prove this allegation the contesting respondent had no difficulty by enlisting the support not of any independent witness but his own stooges hirelings or friends and supporters. While, therefore, we agree with the finding of the learned Judge that the appellant and the contesting respondent were no doubt present at the Taluk office on February 4, 1972 it by no means follow that the story of the offer of bribe is true on this ground alone. In fact the learned counsel for the appellant also has not disputed the fact that the contesting respondent or the appellant were actually present in the Taluk office on February 4, 1972 at the relevant time- a fact which is proved by independent witnesses and documentary evidence.
What the learned Judge has overlooked is the fact that while it is-very easy to make an allegation of an offer of bribe, it is very difficult for the person against whom the allegation is made to rebut the same. The learned Judge also failed to consider that the actual offer alleged to have been made by the appellant to the contesting respondent has been proved only by the partisan and highly interested testimony of P.Ws. 29 and 33 which was sought to be corroborated by equally interested testimony of P.Ws. 22 and 34, and no attempt was made to examine any independent witness even 458 though the evidence was that at the B.S.S. Building, apart from P.Ws. 22 and 34 other persons were also present. So far as P.W. 29 is concerned we have shown that he is a thoroughly interest ed witness being a close friend of the contesting respondent. P.W. 33 Chinna Bheemanna is also a partisan witness. He admits that he was a worker of Sultan during the last elections. He further admits at p. 536 of the Paper Book (Vol. III) that he tried to procure the B' evidence of one Sunkanna for the contesting respondent in this respect. The witness deposed thus:
"Sultan asked Sunkanna to come and give evidence in this case. Yesterday when I was coming here I approached Sunkanna. But at that time he was not in his house. Then I sent another person to Sunkanna asking him to come to Hyderabad to give evidence." This shows the extent to which the witness could go in order to support the case of the contesting respondent. The witness further admits that he was a member of the B.S.S.
and therefore a colleague of Sultan. It seems to us that the evidence of P.Ws. 16, 29 and 33 regarding the offer of bribe in the circumstances mentioned by them is inherently improbable. In the first place it would appear from the topography of the spot where the talk between the contesting respondent and the appellant took place that the place was a crowded one and was situated in the heart of the Taluk office surrounded by the District Munsif Court. According to P.W. 16 apart from the District Munsif's Court there were four other offices in that compound and that there was a crowd near the District Munsif's Court. He also admits that there was a canteen in between the Taluk office and the District Munsif's court where people were sitting. Similarly P.W. 29 has admitted that the canteen was situated only at a distance of 10 to 15 yards from the place where the talk regarding the offer of bribe took place and that the District Munsif's Court was at some distance from the canteen. He also admits that the litigant public sit under the trees near the Munsif's Court. The distance between the Munsif's Court and the place where Sultan's car was parked would be about 30 to 40 yards. In view of these surroundings it is most unlikely that the appellant would make an offer of bribe to the contesting respondent in such an open and crowded place where he could be exposed by Sultan at any time. The offer of bribe was undoubtedly a criminal act and the Munsif's Court being near at hand , the appellant would have faced a grave risk in making such an offer. Further more,' it appears that the appellant was not fully acquainted with Sultan the contesting` respondent though he may have seen him once or twice. No one makes an offer of bribe to strangers without knowing their reaction. Further more, it is impossible to believe that even if the offer of the bribe is made it would be made in the presence of the witnesses who were accompanying Sultan so that the person who makes the offer of bribe would be a party to the creation of clear evidence against him. It is absolutely against the normal and prudent human conduct to make such an offer at a crowded place in the presence of the two witnesses who were known to be the supporters of the contesting respondent and persist in making the offer in site of the blunt refusal of the same by the contesting respondent. On the other hand the natural conduct of the appellant would have 459 been to take the contesting respondent to a secluded spot where he A would not be seen or heard by anybody' and then make the offer. In fact P.W. 16 clearly suggests that the appellant had taken him aside but he says that the other witnesses did not part with his company and also came' there and yet the appellant did not object to their presence. We find it difficult to believe that the offer of bribe would be made by the appellant in these circumstances. The learned Judge, however, has tried to draw an artificial distinction between an offer of bribe and a payment of actual bribe. He seems to think that whereas an offer of bribe could be made in a crowded place in the presence of the witnesses as no money was to be passed, yet when actual payment of bribe was to be made it should have been done in a secluded place.
This reasoning of the learned Judge is not at all intelligible to us. Under the provisions of s. 123(1)(A) of the Act an offer of bribe or payment of actual bribe are both electoral offences amounting to corrupt practices which are to be visited with similar consequences. The offences of an offer of bribe or of actual payment of bribe were of the same nature and it cannot be said that one is a lesser crime and the other is a graver one. Neither the criminal law nor the election statute seek to draw any distinction between an offer of bribe or actual payment of bribe. In these circumstances, therefore, whether it is an offer of bribe or it is a payment of actual bribe, normal human conduct requires that if a person intends to commit such an offence he would not do so in a crowded place but would try to find out a secluded spot so that complete secrecy is maintained.
Another important circumstance that makes the story put forward by the witness regarding' the offer of bribe absolutely incredible is the absence of any genesis or occasion for the presence of the witnesses at the Taluk office or for that matter for accompanying the contesting respondent Sultan to the Taluk office. To begin with we have already indicated that in paragraph-12 of the election petition the main purpose of the visit of the contesting respondent Sultan to the Taluk office was to file his nomination papers. Indeed if this was the purpose of his visit one could have understood the significance of Sultan's asking his supporters accompanying him to the Taluk office because the filing of nomination papers is one of the most important and momentous steps in the electoral process. From the evidence of the witnesses as also that of Sultan the contesting respondent it is clear that Sultan did not at all go to the Taluk office for the purpose of filing his nomination papers but had only applied for a copy of the voters list: For this purpose the presence of P.Ws. 29 and 33 was not at all necessary. Even P.W. 29 says at p. 502 of the Paper Book (Vol. III) that Sultan had told the witness that he was going to the Taluk office to purchase the voters list. Furthermore, even though the witnesses accompanied Sultan they do not appear to have given him any worthwhile assistance Both P.Ws. 29 and 33 categorically state that they did nothing at all at the Taluk office except sitting in the verandah. P.W. 29 states as follows:
"We sat in the front verandah of the Taluk office along with Sultan. With whom Sultan spoke and what he did in the Taluk office, I do not know." 460 It would, therefore, be clear from the evidence of this witness that except for sitting in the verandah there was absolutely no occasion for their presence at the Taluk office, nor there was any earthly reason why Sultan should have taken them to the Taluk office except for the fact that he- wanted them to witness the offer of bribe. This, however, could not be possible, because there was nothing to show that Sultan knew before hand that he would meet the appellant at the Taluk office and that the appellant would make an offer of bribe to him. This circumstance, therefore, which is in some variance from the allegation made in the pleadings smacks of a concoction and throws a good deal of doubt on the presence of these two witnesses at the Taluk office. We have already indicated' that both P.Ws. 29 and 33 are thoroughly interested witnesses. P.W. 33 apart from being a worker of Sultan is a member of the B.S.S. Of which the contesting respondent Sultan is the Secretary.
The only other witness so far as the facts in Stage No. II are concerned is P.W. 16 the contesting respondent himself. P.W 16 is the most interested witness who also bears serious animus against, the appellant. It would appear from his evidence that the appellant held, at the instance of one K. Suryanarayana Reddi, filed a complaint against the contesting respondent for cheating and that the contesting respondent had filed a petition in the High Court for quashing the 3, investigation in pursuance of the complaint.
He further stated that , he had also filed a criminal complaint against Suryanarayana Reddi in the Magistrate's Court at Gooty and. P.Ws. 22 and 29 had been cited as witnesses in that case. Apart from the animus, it would also appear that P.Ws. 22 & 29 are stock witnesses of the contesting respondent to be utilised wherever and whenever necessary. Further more, P.W. 16 narrates an incident at the Travellers Bungalow at Anantapur which happened before the general elections of 1972 in the presence of Challa Subbarayudu, where again the appellant seems to have requested him not to contest the elections. This fact is not mentioned in the election petition at all and it seems to us that it has been concocted for the first time in the evidence of P.W. 16 in order to give credence to his version that the appellant had made an offer of bribe.
Another inherent improbability in the version given by P.W. 16 and P.Ws. 29 & 33 regarding the offer of bribe is that the appellant i himself was aspiring for the Congress ticket and was therefore fully conscious and aware that the influence that the Congress party wielded and the resources it possessed. He was also aware that the contenting respondent Sultan was a Congress nominee having been granted the Congress ticket by the Central Election Committee and he had, therefore, the support of such a big party behind him.
Would he, under these circumstances ever dare to think of making an offer of bribe and that too at a crowded place in the presence of the witnesses, of all persons to` the contesting respondent and persist in that offer even after the same was refused by the contesting respondent. These two circumstances appear to introduce an element of intrinsic infirmity in the evidence led by the contesting respondent on this point and the story appears to us to be too good to be true.
461 Another important circumstance that makes the story of the contesting. respondent on this point improbable and untrue is the fact that the appellant should have made an offer of bribe as early as February 4, 1972. According to the evidence the last date for filing nomination papers was February 8, 1972 and for withdrawal was February 11, 1972.
If the appellant had succeeded in persuading the contesting respondent to accept his offer and withdraw from the Contest, even then that would not have served the purpose of the appellant because with the resourcefulness that the Congress party possessed it could have set up any other nominee immediately who would have filed the nomination papers by February 8. In these circumstances if the appellant was really bent upon seeing that no Congress candidate entered the field he would have made the offer of bribe, if any, either on February 7, 1972 or February 8, 1972, so that no chance was given to any party to sponsor any other candidate.
Lastly the conduct of the contesting respondent is a clear pointer to the incredibility of the version propounded by him and his witnesses on this point. Assuming that the version given by the contesting respondent is true, then it was a very serious matter so far as the prestige of the Congress party was concerned. By offering bribe to a Congress nominee the appellant had sought to throw a challenge to the party itself. In his election petition P.W.
16 has also mentioned the fact that the appellant had thrown a challenge on his refusal that he would be defeated. It would appear from the evidence of P.W. 22 at p. 428 of the Paper Book (Vol. III) that after returning from the Taluk office and having lunch, the witness, Sultan and Mustafa r went to Anantapur. It would appear from paragraph-12 of the election petition that the District Congress Committee office is situated at Anantapur. P.W. 29 also states at p. 500 of the Paper Book (Vol. III) that P.W. 22, Mustafa P.W. 34 and Sultan left for Anantapur. P.W. 34 Mustafa also states at P. 548 of the Paper Book (Vol. III) that when the incident about the offer of bribe by the appellant was narrated to him he said that it was monstrous to sell away the Congress ticket. Indeed if this was the feeling of P.W. 16 and his supporters, then it is impossible to believe that had the offer been made by the appellant at Gooty either Sultan or his supporters would not make a complaint of this serious incident to any of the office bearers of the District Congress Committee at Anantapur, particularly when they went to Anantapur soon after the incident from Gooty.
The fact that no such report or information was sent to the District Congress Committee at Anantapur or anywhere else, throws a mountain of cloud of suspicion and doubt on the version put forward by the contesting respondent. The learned Judge has noticed some of the improbabilities mentioned above but not all of them and seems to have brushed them aside on trivial grounds and has readily accepted the evidence of- the P. Ws merely because there was no major discrepancy in the evidence of the witnesses. In our opinion, the approach made by the learned Judge was not correct. If the broad probabilities and the unusual conduct of the contesting respondent and the witnesses rendered the version presented by them unbelievable or doubtful, then the Court could not refuse to take notice of such 15-522SCI/76 462 circumstances. For these reasons, therefore, we find ourselves unable to agree with the learned Judge that the offer of bribe at Gutty Taluk office as alleged by P.W. 16 and P.Ws. 29 & 33 was made by the appellant to P.W. 16. We therefore disbelieve the facts sought to be proved by the contesting respondent in Stage No. II.
This bring us to the last scene of the drama, namely Stage No. Ill. According to the contesting respondent, after the offer made by the appellant to the contesting respondent was refused by him in the Taluk office, the contesting respondent along with P.Ws 29 and 33. returned to the B.S.S.
Building at Gooty.. On return to the B.S.S. Building they found P.Ws. 22 Ramachandraiah and P.W. 34 Mustafa there.
According to P.Ws 29 and 33 the witnesses were laughing and when they were asked by P.Ws. 22 & 34 they narrated the entire incident which had happened at the Taluk office.
According to P.W. 16, however, when he arrived at the B.S.S. Office after his visit to the Taluk office P.Ws 22 and 34 asked him as to what is the news, and instead of replying to them P.Ws 29 & 33 narrated the incident which happened at the Taluk Office, namely, the offer of the bribe. P.Ws 29 & 33 have, however, given a slightly different version. But what is most extraordinary in this incident is that whereas in ordinary circumstances we would have expected Sultan the contesting respondent himself who was the hero of the whole show and to whom the offer of the bribe had been made by the appellant to narrate the facts to his friends P.Ws. 22 and 34, but instead of that Sultan remained absolutely silent and P.Ws. 29 & 33 were assigned the role of doing the talking. This conduct of the contesting respondent is not at all understandable. Again there does not appear to be any good reason why P.W. 22 Ramachandraiah and P.W. 34 Mustafa were left behind and not taken to the Taluk office.
According to P W. 22 he did not go because of ill health.
This appears to us to be a figment of his imagination. If P.W. 22 in spite of his ill health could come all the way from his house to the B.S.S. Office and waited there right from morning until the afternoon, there was no reason why he should not have accompanied the contesting`respondent to the Taluk office. P.W. 34 gives a lame excuse that he had some work at the Railway station and, therefore, he could not accompany the party to the Taluk office. It seems to us that as the allegation regarding the offer of bribe was a totally untrue one and no independent witnesses would have been prepared to support this version, the contesting respondent hit upon a plan to prove this allegation through his supporters and friends by making two of them to overhear the alleged offer of bribe and the other two namely P.Ws. 22 & 34 to remain at the B.S.S. Office to hear the narration of- the said offer and thereby produce a corroborative evidence.` otherwise we do not see any earthly reason why P.W. 34 Mustafa who was playing a leading part in the drama enacted on February 4, 1972 and who was responsible for getting the programme from the contesting respondent and collecting his other friends at Gooty should not have accompanied the contesting respondent to the Taluk office in order to help him in getting the forms and stayed away on the lame excuse that he had some work at the Railway Station. It appears to us that according 463 to the evidence of P.W. 16 as also the averments made by him in the election petition P.W. 34 Mustafa was taking a very prominent part in the affairs of the contesting respondent on his return to Hyderabad. It was he who telephoned the contesting respondent, brought his companions to Gooty, stayed at Gooty and accompanied the contesting respondent and others to Anantapur, and yet he did not accompany the contesting respondent to the Taluk office. It seems to us that P.Ws. 22 & 34 were deliberately made to stay at the B.S.S. Office so 4 as to corroborate the story put forward by P.Ws. 16, 29 and 33 being persons to whom the story was immediately narrated. Apart from this there does not appear to be any object for keeping these two persons at the B.S.S. Office.
Finally the evidence shows that apart from P. Ws. 22 & 34 there were other persons present at the B.S.S. Office but none of them has been examined to support the version given by P.Ws. 22 & 34. These two witnesses were close friends and supporters of P.W. 16 and their evidence would not inspire any confidence. So far as P.W. 22 is concerned he admits that he worked for the election of Sultan at Gooty and supported the Congress party. He further admits that he toured various villages with Sultan. He was also the counting agent of Sultan having been appointed by him as per Ext. A-18. He was also an employee of the B.S.S. and had been appointed by Sultan. Sultan was the Managing Director of Brim Stone Rubber Products Ltd. The witness was a partner of the firm which had the sole agency for the products of the aforesaid firm. Apart from that the witness admitted that he was a staunch supporter of the Congress. Even the learned Judge has clearly observed that this witness was keenly interested in the future of Sultan and in this connection, while dealing with issue No. 8, the learned Judge observed as follows:
