{"id":132230,"date":"1969-01-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1969-01-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheodhan-singh-vs-mohan-lal-gautam-on-24-january-1969"},"modified":"2017-02-28T04:26:08","modified_gmt":"2017-02-27T22:56:08","slug":"sheodhan-singh-vs-mohan-lal-gautam-on-24-january-1969","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheodhan-singh-vs-mohan-lal-gautam-on-24-january-1969","title":{"rendered":"Sheodhan Singh vs Mohan Lal Gautam on 24 January, 1969"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sheodhan Singh vs Mohan Lal Gautam on 24 January, 1969<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1969 AIR 1024, \t\t 1969 SCR (3) 417<\/div>\n
Author: K Hegde<\/div>\n
Bench: Hegde, K.S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSHEODHAN SINGH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMOHAN LAL GAUTAM\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n24\/01\/1969\n\nBENCH:\nHEGDE, K.S.\nBENCH:\nHEGDE, K.S.\nSIKRI, S.M.\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1969 AIR 1024\t\t  1969 SCR  (3) 417\n 1969 SCC  (1) 408\n CITATOR INFO :\n E&D\t    1974 SC 505\t (4)\n E\t    1975 SC1012\t (11)\n R\t    1976 SC 744\t (34)\n R\t    1984 SC 135\t (22)\n\n\nACT:\nElection   petition-Whether   abates   on   dissolution\t  of\nlegislature-Presentation by Advocate's clerk in petitioner's\npresence-If proper presentation.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe respondent's  election to the U.P. Legislative  Assembly\nin  February,  1967, was challenged by the appellant  in  an\nelection petition ,on various grounds including\t allegations\nof corrupt practices.  The respondent raised two preliminary\nobjections before the High Court namely, (i) the    petition\nwas  not maintainable as it was not properly presented;\t and\n(ii) the  petition ceased to be maintainable as a result  of\ndissolution  of the U.P. Legislative Assembly by  virtue  of\nthe  President's  proclamation\tof  April  15,\t1968,  under\narticle\t 356  (1)  of the  Constitution\t issued\t during\t the\npendency  of  the election petition before the\tHigh  Court.\nThese  preliminary  objections\twere rejected  by  the\tHigh\nCourt, which also dismissed the petition on the merits.\nOn an appeal to this Court,\nHELD  :\t (i) The High Court was right in  holding  that\t the\nrequirements  of  law as to the presentation of\t a  petition\nwere fully satisfied as the election petition was  presented\nto  the Registry by an Advocate's Clerk in the\tpresence  of\nthe petitioner.\t The petitioner in substance, though not  in\nform,  himself\tpresented the petition. (ii)  There  was  no\nforce  in  the\tcontention  that  the  petition\t had  become\ninfructuous  in view of the dissolution of  the\t Legislative\nAssembly. [418H]\nThe question for consideration was not only the validity  of\nthe  election but also the allegation of  corrupt  practices\nwhich,\t if  established,  would  involve   the\t  respondent\nincurring certain electoral disqualifications.\nIt  is clear from the provisions of Chapters III and  IV  of\nPart VI of the Representation of the People Act, 1951,\tthat\nthe  contest in an election petition is really\tbetween\t the\nconstituency and the person or persons complained of.\tOnce\nthe  machinery\tof  the Act is moved by a  candidate  or  an\nelector,  the  carriage of the case does not  entirely\trest\nwith the petitioner.  The reason for these provisions is  to\nensure\tto the extent possible that the persons\t who  offend\nthe election law, are not allowed to avoid the\tconsequences\nof their misdeeds. [421G] .\nThe  law  relating to withdrawal and abatement\tof  election\npetitions  is exhaustively dealt with in Chapter IV of\tPart\nVI of the Act.\tIn deciding whether a petition has abated or\nnot  it\t was not possible to travel outside  the  provisions\ncontained in that Chapter.  The Act does not provide for the\nabatement  of an election petition either when the  returned\ncandidate  whose election is challenged resigns or when\t the\nassembly is dissolved. [42 1 D]\nCarter\t and  Anr.  v.\tMills  9,  Common  Pleas   p.\t117;\ndistinguished;\tGhasi Ram V. Dal Singh and Others<\/a>  [1968]  3\nS.C.R. 102; followed.\n(iii)\t  On the facts, the High Court had rightly dismissed\nthe petition.\n418\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  1564  of
\n1968.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tunder s. 116-A of the Representation of\t the  People
\nAct, 1951 from the judgment and order dated May 23,  1968-of
\nthe  Allahabad\tHigh Court in Election Petition\t No.  40  of
\n1967.\n<\/p>\n
Danial\tLatifi,\t S.  J.\t Hyder, Rajindra  Singh\t and  M.  I.
\nKhowaja, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
Veda  Vyasa,  K. K. Jain, H. K. Puri, G. N. Dikshit,  R.  N.
\nDikshit,  S. N. Sinha, K. C. Sharma and M. K. Garg, for\t the
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nHegde,\tJ. This appeal under s. 116A of the  Representation,
\nof the People Act, 1951 arises from the decision in Election
\nPetition  No.  40 of 1967 on the file of the High  Court  of
\nJudicature  at\tAllahabad.  In that petition  the  appellant
\nchallenged  the\t election  of the  respondent  to  the\tU.P.
\nLegislative Assembly from Iglas Constituency in the  general
\nelection  held\tin  February 1967.   In\t that  election\t the
\nappellant,  the respondent and four others  contested.\t The
\nrespondent  secured  10,705 votes more than  the  appellant.
\nOther candidates secured less votes than the appellant.\t The
\nappellant  challenged  the  election of\t the  respondent  on
\nvarious\t grounds, most of which were given up either in\t the
\ntrial court or in this Court.  The High Court dismissed\t the
\nelection  petition.   Against that order the  appellant\t has
\ncome up in appeal.\n<\/p>\n
Before going into the merits of the appeal, it is  necessary
\nto deal with the preliminary objections to the appeal, taken
\nby  the respondent.  The first objection taken was that\t the
\npetition  was  not  maintainable  as  it  was  not  properly
\npresented.   The  second  objection was\t that  the  petition
\nceased to be maintainable as a result of the dissolution  of
\nthe  U.P.  Legislative\tAssembly  as  per  the\t President’s
\nProclamation  of  April 15, 1968 under Art.  356(1)  of\t the
\nConstitution.\tThat  Proclamation  was\t issued\t during\t the
\npendency of this election petition before the High Court.
\nThe  High  Court rejected both those contentions  but  those
\ncontentions were again pressed for acceptance at the hearing
\nof this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
The  High  Court  has  found as a  fact\t that  the  election
\npetition  was  presented to the registry  by  an  advocate’s
\nclerk\tin  the\t immediate  presence  of   the\t petitioner.
\nTherefore, in substance though not in form, it was presented
\nby the petitioner himself.  Hence the requirement of the law
\nwas fully satisfied.\n<\/p>\n
We  are unable to accept the  contention of Mr. Veda  Vyasa,
\nlearned Counsel for the respondent that the petition must be
\nheld
\n419<\/span>
\nto have become infructuous in view of the dissolution of the
\nassembly.   In\tthis  proceeding  we  are  considering\t the
\nvalidity  of the election of the respondent and not  whether
\nhe  is\tcontinuing as a member.\t If the\t contention  of\t the
\nappellant   that  the  respondent  was\tguilty\tof   corrupt
\npractices  during the election is found to be true then\t not
\nonly  his election will be declared void, he is also  liable
\nto incur certain electoral disqualifications.  The purity of
\nelections  is of utmost importance in a\t democratic  set-up.
\nNo  one can be allowed to corrupt the course of an  election
\nand  get away with it either by resigning his membership  or
\nbecause\t of  the  fortuitous circumstance  of  the  assembly
\nhaving been dissolved.\tThe public are interested in  seeing
\nthat  those who had corrupted the course of an election\t are
\ndealt with in accordance with law.  That purpose will  stand
\ndefeated if we accept the contention of Mr. Veda Vyasa.
\nThe election petitions in this country are solely  regulated
\nby statutory provisions.  Hence unless it is shown that some
\nstatutory  provision  directly or by  necessary\t implication
\nprescribes that the pending election petitions stand  abated
\nbecause\t of the dissolution of the Assembly, the  contention
\nof the respondent cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
Section\t 80 provides that no election shall- be\t called in
\nquestion  except  by  an  election  petition  presented\t  in
\naccordance  with the provisions of the Act.  Section 81\t (1)
\nsays  that  an\telection petition calling  in  question\t any
\nelection  may  be presented on one or more  of\tthe  grounds
\nspecified  in  sub-s. (1) of S. 100 and s. 101 to  the\tHigh
\nCourt,\tby  any candidate at such election or  any  elector.
\nSection 84 prescribes that a petitioner may, in addition  to
\nclaiming  a declaration that the election of all or  any  of
\nthe returned candidate is void, claim a further\t declaration
\nthat  he  himself  or  any other  candidate  has  been\tduly
\nelected.   Chapter  III of Part VI deals with the  trial  of
\nelection petitions.  Section 86(1) prescribes that the\tHigh
\nCourt  shall  dismiss an election petition  which  does\t not
\ncomply\twith  the provisions of s. 81 or s. 82\tor  s.\t117.
\nSection 87(1) says that subject to the provisions of the Act
\nand  of any rules made thereunder, every  election  petition
\nshall  be tried by the High Court, as nearly as may  be,  in
\naccordance  with the procedure applicable under the Code  of
\nCivil Procedure, 1908 to the trial of suits.  Section 97 (1)
\nprovides for filing recrimination.\n<\/p>\n
Section 98 reads :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “At the conclusion of the trial of an election
\n\t      petition the High Court shall make an order\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   dismissing the election petition; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   declaring the election of all or any  of
\n\t      the returned candidates to be void; or
\n\t      420<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c)   declaring  ‘ the election of all or\t any
\n\t      of the returned candidates to be void and\t the
\n\t      petitioner or any other candidate to have been
\n\t      duly elected.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section 99(1) is important for our present purpose.  It says
\n“At  the time of making an order under s. 98 the High  Court
\nshall also make an order :\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)   where any charge is made in the petition
\n\t      of any corrupt practice having been  committed
\n\t      at the election, recording-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i)   a  finding whether any corrupt  practice
\n\t      has  or  has  not been  proved  to  have\tbeen
\n\t      committed\t at the election and the  nature  of
\n\t      that corrupt practice; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)  the\t names of all persons, if  any,\t who
\n\t      have  been  proved at the trial to  have\tbeen
\n\t      guilty of any corrupt practice and the  nature
\n\t      of   that\t practice   …………   (emphasis
\n\t      supplied).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Chapter IV of Part VI deals with withdrawal and abatement of
\nelection petitions.  Section 109 stipulates that an election
\npetition  may  be withdrawn only by the leave  of  the\tHigh
\nCourt and where an application for withdrawal is made notice
\nthereof\t fixing\t a date for the hearing of  the\t application
\nshall  be  given to all other parties to  the  petition\t and
\nshall  be  published in the official gazette.\tSection\t 112
\nsays :\n<\/p>\n
\t      (1)  An election petition shall abate only  on
\n\t      ‘the  death  of a sole petitioner\t or  of\t the
\n\t      survivor of several petitioners.
\n\t      (2)   Where an election petition abates  under
\n\t      sub-s.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (1)   the\t High Court shall cause the fact  to
\n\t      be  published  in such manner as it  may\tdeem
\n\t      fit.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (3)   Any person who might himself have been a
\n\t      petitioner  may, within fourteen days of\tsuch
\n\t      publication,   apply  to\tbe  substituted\t  as
\n\t      petitioner   and\tupon  compliance  with\t the
\n\t      conditions,  if any, as to security, shall  be
\n\t      entitled to be so substituted and to  continue
\n\t      the  proceedings upon such terms as  the\tHigh
\n\t      Court may deem fit.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Section 1 1 6  reads:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “If  before the conclusion of the trial of  an
\n\t      election petition, the sole respondent dies or
\n\t      gives notice that he does not intend to oppose
\n\t      the petition or any of the respondents dies or
\n\t      gives  such  notice  and\tthere  is  no  other
\n\t      respondent  who is opposing the petition,\t the
\n\t      High Court
\n\t      421<\/span>
\n\t      shall  cause  notice  of\tsuch  event  to\t  be
\n\t      published\t  in  the  Official   Gazette,\t and
\n\t      thereupon\t any  person who might have  been  a
\n\t      petitioner  may, within fourteen days of\tsuch
\n\t      publication, apply to be substituted in  place
\n\t      of such respondent to oppose the petition, and
\n\t      shall be entitled to continue the\t proceedings
\n\t      upon  such terms as the High Court  may  think
\n\t      fit.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
From  the  above provisions it is seen that in\tan  election
\npetition, the contest is really between the constituency  on
\nthe one side and the person or persons complained of on\t the
\nother.\t Once  the  machinery  of the  Act  is\tmoved  by  a
\ncandidate  or an elector, the carriage of the case does\t not
\nentirely  rest\twith  the petitioner.  The  reason  for\t the
\nelaborate  provisions noticed by us earlier is to ensure  to
\nthe extent possible that the persons who offend the election
\nlaw  are  not  allowed to avoid the  consequences  of  their
\nmisdeeds.\n<\/p>\n
The  law  relating to withdrawal and abatement\tof  election
\npetitions  is exhaustively dealt with in Chapter IV of\tPart
\nVI of the Act.\tIn deciding whether a petition has abated or
\nnot  we\t cannot travel outside the provisions  contained  in
\nthat  Chapter.\t There\tis no provision\t providing  for\t the
\ndropping  of an election petition for any reason other\tthan
\nthose  mentioned therein.  The act does not provide for\t the
\nabatement  of an election petition either when the  returned
\ncandidate  whose election is challenged resigns or when\t the
\nassembly  is dissolved.\t As the law relating  to  abatements
\nand withdrawal is exhaustively dealt with in the Act  itself
\nno  reliance  can be placed on the provisions of  the  Civil
\nProcedure   Code  nor  did  the\t learned  Counsel  for\t the
\nrespondent  bring to our notice any provision in  the  Civil
\nProcedure  Code\t under which the election petition  clan  be
\nheld to have abated.\n<\/p>\n
In  support of his contention that the petition\t has  abated
\ngreat  deal of reliance was placed by Mr. Veda Vyasa on\t the
\ndecision in ,Carter and Anr. v. Mills(1).  Therein a pending
\nelection  petition  was\t allowed  to  be  withdrawn  on\t the
\ndissolution of the Parliament.\tIn doing so Coleridge,\tC.J.
\nobserved thus :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “I am of opinion that this application  should
\n\t      be ‘granted.  The Queen having been pleased to
\n\t      dissolve\tParliament, of which fact the  Court
\n\t      must  take  judicial cognizance,\ta  case\t has
\n\t      arisen not expressly provided for in the\tAct;
\n\t      and  under these circumstances we\t must  guide
\n\t      our  proceedings\tby  the\t old   parliamentary
\n\t      practice\t on  the  subject.   It\t is   common
\n\t      knowledge, that according to the old  practice
\n\t      the petition abated or dropped in such a case.
\n\t      We think the result is the same now, and\tthat
\n\t      we therefore have authority, and ought to make
\n\t      an order for the return of the deposit.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(1)  9, Common Pleas p. 117.\n<\/p>\n
422<\/span><\/p>\n
Keating,  J., the other judge agreed with the learned  Chief
\njustice.  We do not know the facts of that case. It is\tnot
\nknown  whether\tthe election of the returned  candidate\t was
\nchallenged  on\tthe  ground of any  corrupt  practice.\t The
\ndecision   in\tthat  case  rested  solely   on\t  ‘the\t old
\nparliamentary  practice\t on the subject’.  We have  no\tsuch
\npractice in this country.  That being so that decision is of
\nno assistance for our present purpose.\tIn Ghasi Ram v.\t Dal
\nSingh  and Others<\/a>(1) this Court proceeded on the basis\tthat
\nthe  dissolution of the assembly does not put an end to\t the
\nelection  petition.   For the reasons already  mentioned  we
\nthink  that the High Court was right in its conclusion\tthat
\nthe election petition had not abated.\n<\/p>\n
This  takes  us\t to the merits of the  case.   As  mentioned
\nearlier\t the  election of the respondent was  challenged  on
\nnumerous  grounds.   On the pleadings as many as  10  issues
\nwere  raised.  At present we are concerned only with  issues
\nNos. 7, 8 and 10.\n<\/p>\n
The only question arising under issue No. 7 is whether\tExh.
\n7, was got printed and published by the respondent.  So\t far
\nas  the\t question  of getting it  prepared  and\t printed  is
\nconcerned,  the\t evidence principally relied on is  that  of
\nP.W.  16  Mohan Singh.\tWe are in agreement  with  the\tHigh
\nCourt  that  Mohan  Singh is a\twholly\tunreliable  witness.
\nAccording to him he was a signatory to that pamphlet and  he
\ntook  active part in getting it printed which means that  he
\nwas  a\tparty  to the publication of  false  statement.\t  He
\nappears\t to have been on the side of the respondent  at\t one
\nstage  and  walked over to the side of the  appellant  at  a
\nlater  stage,  not  uncommon  during  election\ttime.\t His
\nevidence  does not carry conviction.  On his own showing  he
\ncan be a stooge.\n<\/p>\n
In support of the evidence of P.W. 16 reliance was placed on
\nExh.  D-23, one of the vouchers submitted by the  respondent
\nalong  with his return of election expenses.   That  voucher
\nrelates\t to the printing of two pamphlets on behalf  of\t the
\nrespondent.   It  shows that one of the\t pamphlet  mentioned
\ntherein\t was printed on both sides of the paper.  Exh. 7  is
\nalso  printed  on both sides of a paper.  From that  we\t are
\nasked  to  conclude that the voucher in question  refers  to
\nprinting  of pamphlets like Exh. 7. Such an inference  would
\nbe  a  far fetched one.\t According to  the  respondent\tD-23
\nrelates to pamphlets similar to Exh.  A-154 and A-155.\t The
\nHigh  Court has not accepted that contention.  The basis  on
\nwhich  the  High  Court rejected that  contention  does\t not
\nappear to us to be correct.  It is not necessary to go\tinto
\nthat  question\tas  we\tare of\topinion\t that  there  is  no
\nsatisfactory  evidence to show that any entry in Exh.\tD-23
\nrelates\t to pamphlets similar to Exh. 7. We are also  unable
\nto  attach any weight to Exh. 3, the complaint given by\t the
\nappellant to the Returning Officer.  The appellant
\n(1)  [1968] 3S.C.R 102.\n<\/p>\n
423<\/span><\/p>\n
has  considerable experience of filing\telection  petitions.
\nThis was. the third election petition filed by him.  Even as
\nthe election was going on he appears to have been  preparing
\nfor the election petition.  The evidence of P.W. 7,  Narayan
\nSingh Bodh throws a: great deal of light on this aspect.
\nLarge number of witnesses were examined to show that  either
\nrespondent  himself distributed pamphlets like Exh. 7 or  he
\ngot  them  distributed through others.\tTheir  evidence\t has
\nbeen  considered by the High Court in detail  and  rejected.
\nWe  have  been taken through that evidence and we  were\t not
\nimpressed by the same.\tWe are satisfied that the High Court
\nhas correctly assessed, that evidence.\n<\/p>\n
Generally,  this Court accepts the findings of fact  arrived
\nat  by\tthe  High Court.  Election petitions  are  tried  by
\nexperienced’ judges of the High Court.\tThey had the benefit
\nof  observing the witnesses when they gave evidence.   Hence
\ntheir appreciation. of evidence is entitled to great weight.
\nWe  have not been shown any good reason for  departing\tfrom
\nthat rule.\n<\/p>\n
Now coming to issue No. 8 which relates to the complaint of’
\nthe  appellant that the respondent, his agents\tand  workers
\nhad  hired several vehicles for conveyance of the voters  to
\nand from the polling stations.\tIn the petition, particulars
\nof  as many as twelve vehicles which were said to have\tbeen
\nused for conveying voters. were given.\tBut the\t appellant’s
\nlearned\t Counsel  confined his arguments to  three  vehicles
\nonly  i.e.  Truck  No. USK 503, Bus.  No.  RJL\t9729  and  a
\nTractor.\n<\/p>\n
So far as Truck No. USK 503 is concerned, the witnesses. who
\nwere  examined are P.Ws. 37, 40, 41, 45 and 48.\t Among\tthem
\nthe  most  important witness is P.W. 45 Sukhbir\t Singh.\t  He
\nclaims\tto  have worked for the respondent  and\t transported
\nvoters\tto  the polling station in the\ttruck  in  question.
\nFurther he deposed’ that he hired that truck from  “Achaltar
\ntruck  operators’  Union”  Hathras.  It\t is  now  definitely
\nestablished and that evidence was. not challenged before  us
\nthat  in  Hathras there was no concern\tbearing\t that  name.
\nHence  it is obvious that the evidence of this’\t witness  is
\nwholly false.  We are unable to accept the contention of Mr.
\nLatifi,\t learned Counsel for the appellant that the name  of
\nconcern in question was wrongly mentioned by the witness due
\nto  some  confusion.   The fact that P.W. 45  at  one  stage
\nworked\tfor  the  respondent is not  of\t much  significance.
\nChanging sides during election is nothing unusual.  Once the
\nevidence of P.W. 45 is proved to be false very little  basis
\nremains\t for the evidence of’ other witnesses who  spoke  to
\nthe  user  of a truck in question.  It is  common  knowledge
\nthat  in the trial of election petitions there would  be  no
\ndearth\tof witnesses’.\tThe faction spirit generated  during
\nelection  projects  itself  during  the\t trial\tof  election
\npetition
\n424<\/span>
\nthat  follows.\t Much  value  cannot  be  attached  to\t the
\ncomplaint  given  by the appellant’s agent  to\tthe  polling
\nofficer\t (Exh.\t18).  That document has\t several  suspicious
\nfeatures which were noticed ,by the High Court.
\nNow  coming  to the tractor, its registration  No.  was\t not
\nspoken\tto by any witness.  There is no evidence  about\t its
\nhiring.\t The witnesses who- speak to its user are P.Ws.\t 33
\nand  34.   The evidence of P.W. 33 is extremely\t vague.\t  He
\ndeposed that a worker,of the respondent Sita Ram carried the
\nvoters\tfrom  the  villages to the election  booth. He\tis
\nunable\tto give the details of the tractor.  P.W. 34  is  an
\nomnibus\t witness.  The evidence relating to owner  ,of\tthat
\ntractor\t is  conflicting.  The evidence of P.Ws. 33  and  34
\ndoes not carry conviction.  It was rightly not relied on  by
\nthe High Court.\n<\/p>\n
Now  coming to the hiring of Bus RJL 9729, according to\t the
\npetition that bus was owned by one Babu Lal of Jaipur.\tThat
\nBabu  Lal has not been examined.  The evidence of P.Ws.\t 30,
\n31 and 32 who speak to the conveyance of the voters in\tthat
\nbus to the polling stations is far from satisfactory.  Their
\nevidence  did  not ,commend itself to the trial\t court.\t  We
\nagree with the High Court that it is unsafe to rely on their
\nevidence.\n<\/p>\n
This takes us to issue No. 10 which relates to the complaint
\nof the appellant that the election expenses incurred by\t the
\nrespondent  had\t exceeded  the prescribed  limit.   In\tthis
\nconnection  various  items  of expenses said  to  have\tbeen
\nomitted\t in the return were particularised in  the  petition
\nbut most of them were not pressed at the hearing.
\nThe  evidence  relating to the expenses said  to  have\tbeen
\nincurred  in  procuring and hiring  vehicles  for  conveying
\nvoters to the polling; booths has to be rejected in view  of
\nour  earlier  findings.\t Large\tnumber\tof  witnesses\twere
\nexamined to show that considerable quantity of wheat,  atta,
\nsugar  and  ghee had been purchased by\tthe  respondent\t for
\nfeeding\t his  workers and the expenses\tincurred  for that
\npurpose\t had  not been included in the return  of  expenses.
\nTheir  evidence\t has not been believed by the  trial  court.
\n‘We have been taken through the evidence and we do not think
\nit is creditworthy nor are we able to place any reliance  on
\nthe documents produced in that connection.
\nIn  the result this appeal fails and the same  is  dismissed
\nwith costs.\n<\/p>\n
R.K.P.S.\t\t\t      Appeal dismissed.\n425<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sheodhan Singh vs Mohan Lal Gautam on 24 January, 1969 Equivalent citations: 1969 AIR 1024, 1969 SCR (3) 417 Author: K Hegde Bench: Hegde, K.S. PETITIONER: SHEODHAN SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: MOHAN LAL GAUTAM DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/01\/1969 BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. SIKRI, S.M. BACHAWAT, R.S. CITATION: 1969 AIR 1024 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-132230","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSheodhan Singh vs Mohan Lal Gautam on 24 January, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheodhan-singh-vs-mohan-lal-gautam-on-24-january-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sheodhan Singh vs Mohan Lal Gautam on 24 January, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheodhan-singh-vs-mohan-lal-gautam-on-24-january-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1969-01-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-27T22:56:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheodhan-singh-vs-mohan-lal-gautam-on-24-january-1969#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheodhan-singh-vs-mohan-lal-gautam-on-24-january-1969\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sheodhan Singh vs Mohan Lal Gautam on 24 January, 1969\",\"datePublished\":\"1969-01-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-27T22:56:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheodhan-singh-vs-mohan-lal-gautam-on-24-january-1969\"},\"wordCount\":3070,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheodhan-singh-vs-mohan-lal-gautam-on-24-january-1969#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheodhan-singh-vs-mohan-lal-gautam-on-24-january-1969\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheodhan-singh-vs-mohan-lal-gautam-on-24-january-1969\",\"name\":\"Sheodhan Singh vs Mohan Lal Gautam on 24 January, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1969-01-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-27T22:56:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheodhan-singh-vs-mohan-lal-gautam-on-24-january-1969#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheodhan-singh-vs-mohan-lal-gautam-on-24-january-1969\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheodhan-singh-vs-mohan-lal-gautam-on-24-january-1969#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sheodhan Singh vs Mohan Lal Gautam on 24 January, 1969\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sheodhan Singh vs Mohan Lal Gautam on 24 January, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheodhan-singh-vs-mohan-lal-gautam-on-24-january-1969","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sheodhan Singh vs Mohan Lal Gautam on 24 January, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheodhan-singh-vs-mohan-lal-gautam-on-24-january-1969","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1969-01-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-27T22:56:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheodhan-singh-vs-mohan-lal-gautam-on-24-january-1969#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheodhan-singh-vs-mohan-lal-gautam-on-24-january-1969"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sheodhan Singh vs Mohan Lal Gautam on 24 January, 1969","datePublished":"1969-01-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-27T22:56:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheodhan-singh-vs-mohan-lal-gautam-on-24-january-1969"},"wordCount":3070,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheodhan-singh-vs-mohan-lal-gautam-on-24-january-1969#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheodhan-singh-vs-mohan-lal-gautam-on-24-january-1969","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheodhan-singh-vs-mohan-lal-gautam-on-24-january-1969","name":"Sheodhan Singh vs Mohan Lal Gautam on 24 January, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1969-01-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-27T22:56:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheodhan-singh-vs-mohan-lal-gautam-on-24-january-1969#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheodhan-singh-vs-mohan-lal-gautam-on-24-january-1969"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheodhan-singh-vs-mohan-lal-gautam-on-24-january-1969#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sheodhan Singh vs Mohan Lal Gautam on 24 January, 1969"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132230","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=132230"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132230\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=132230"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=132230"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=132230"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}