Election bribery and free-conveyance rules: statutory withdrawal and proven voter transport define corrupt practice.

Bribery under the election law is confined to inducement linked to statutory withdrawal of candidature, not a mere slackening of campaigning after the withdrawal period. Free conveyance of electors is a corrupt practice where a vehicle is procured for that purpose with the candidate's consent or through an agent, and liability depends on reliable proof. On the facts discussed, the alleged payment for withdrawal and the canvassing assistance by a serviceman were treated as unproved, while the use of Truck No. HRR 7101 for transporting voters was accepted as a proved instance of corrupt practice. The commentary also notes that corrupt practice allegations must be strictly proved on trustworthy evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the alleged payment to a candidate constituted bribery under section 123(1)(A)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. (ii) Whether the hiring and use of a truck for transporting electors to and from the polling station amounted to a corrupt practice under section 123(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. (iii) Whether the alleged canvassing assistance by a member of the Armed Forces constituted a corrupt practice under section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged payment to a candidate constituted bribery under section 123(1)(A)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Analysis: The evidence regarding the alleged payment was found unreliable and insufficient. The documentary and oral material relied upon by the election petitioner was treated with caution because of hostility among witnesses and suspicious circumstances surrounding the note and register entries. On the facts, the payment was not proved to have been made with the object of inducing the candidate to withdraw from being a candidate. The expression "withdraw from being a candidate" was held to relate to withdrawal of candidature within the statutory withdrawal period and not to a mere slackening of campaign after that stage.

Conclusion: The allegation of bribery under section 123(1)(A)(a) was not established.

Issue (ii): Whether the hiring and use of a truck for transporting electors to and from the polling station amounted to a corrupt practice under section 123(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Analysis: As regards two vehicles, the evidence of hiring and free conveyance was treated as unsafe and insufficient. In respect of the truck that carried voters between Bedwa and Seman, the Court accepted the direct evidence of an elector, supported by surrounding circumstances, including the use of the truck for ferrying voters and the absence of any convincing rebuttal. The statutory requirement was satisfied where the vehicle was procured for free conveyance of electors to or from the polling station.

Conclusion: The corrupt practice under section 123(5) was proved in relation to Truck No. HRR 7101.

Issue (iii): Whether the alleged canvassing assistance by a member of the Armed Forces constituted a corrupt practice under section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Analysis: The evidence on this charge was not accepted. The statements of the petitioner's witnesses were not found reliable, and the testimony of the court witness was inconsistent and insufficient to show that the candidate had obtained or procured the assistance of the serviceman for furtherance of his election prospects in the manner alleged.

Conclusion: The allegation under section 123(7) was not proved.

Final Conclusion: The election was sustained on the solitary proved instance of corrupt practice relating to the free conveyance of electors by Truck No. HRR 7101, while the remaining charges failed. The statutory interpretation on bribery was also clarified by the separate opinion.

Concurring Opinion: Bhagwati J. agreed with the final result but held that the words "to withdraw or not to withdraw from being a candidate" in section 123(1)(A)(a) refer only to withdrawal of candidature under section 37 and do not extend to a mere retirement from contest after the last date for withdrawal has passed. On that basis, the earlier contrary view was overruled.

Ratio Decidendi: A corrupt practice must be strictly proved on reliable evidence, and under section 123(5) the vehicle must be shown to have been procured for the free conveyance of electors with the candidate's consent or through his agent; mere use of a vehicle by supporters is insufficient. For bribery under section 123(1)(A)(a), the inducement must relate to statutory withdrawal of candidature and not merely a diminished or inactive campaign.

---