PETITIONER:
LAKSHMI RAMAN ACHARYA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
CHANDAN SINGH & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT13/12/1976
BENCH:
GUPTA, A.C.
CHANDRACHUD, Y.V.
GOSWAMI, P.K.
CITATION:
1977 AIR 587 1977 SCR (2) 412
1977 SCC (1) 423
ACT
Representation of the People Act, 1951--S. 123(2) (3) and
(3.4)---Corrupt practice--Vague denials in written state-
ments--If could be taken as admissions--
HEADNOTE
In the election to the State Assembly the first respond-
ent was declared elected. The appellant, who was one of the
defeated candidates, impugned the election on the ground
that the first respondent was guilty of adopting corrupt
practices within the meaning of s. 123(2), (3) and (3A) of
the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It was alleged
that (i) to get support of the Muslim voters of a village,
the first respondent offered a bribe for the construction of
a school building for Muslim boys in the village and (ii) in
another village with predominant Muslim voters, he paid a
big sum of money for the construction of a mosque. The
first respondent in his written statement denied the allega-
tions as absurd and baseless and denied in toto the allega-
tion of bribery. The High Court dismissed the petition.
On appeal to this Court it was contended that the alle-
gations against the respondent must be taken to have been
admitted in view of his vague and evasive denial.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD: The well settled principles governing election dis-
putes are:
(1) proceedings arising out of election petitions are
quasi-criminal in character and the allegations made in the
petition must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; (2) in
an appeal under s. 116A of the Act the Supreme Court will
not interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the
trial court except for very strong and cogent reasons; and
(3) it is unsafe in an election case to accept oral evidence
at its face value without looking for assurances from some
surer circumstances or unimpeachable documents. [413F]
Rahim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 643, 656,
followed.
(i) In the instant case the contention that donation to
public or charitable institutions could not amount to
bribery is a legal plea asserting that even on the state-
ments made in the election petition the allegation of brib-
ery was not sustainable. The allegation of bribery was
denied by the first respondent in toto and as false and
baseless. [418G]
(ii) The story that the first respondent visited the
village at midnight and doled out money to a crowd of Muslim
voters could not be true. The central figures in the dis-
pute over the money had not been examined by the appellant
and the letters produced by him to strengthen oral evidence
relating to the incidents were clearly brought into exist-
ence for the purpose of election petition.
[419G]
(iii) As regards the amount alleged to have been paid
for the construction of a mosque one of the witnesses exam-
ined deposed without receiving any summons from the court.
The appellant had no personal knowledge of the facts alleged
in support of the case of bribery. The High Court rightly
held that the letter which the appellant addressed to the
District Magistrate containing vague references to the
allegations had been written "with a view to create some
sort of evidence in case the election petition was necessi-
tated to be filed’’. [420C]
413
JUDGMENT
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 128 of 1976.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10-12-1975 of the
Allahabad High Court in Election Petition No. 35/74).
G.N. Dikshit, M.V. Goswami, S.V. Goswami and Ambrish
Kumar, for the Appellant.
L.M. Shinghvi, Pratnod Swarup and S.K. Verma, for Re-
spondent No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
GUPTA, J.--The appellant was one of the eight contest-
ants from Mat Constituency No. 365 in District Mathura in
the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly elections held in
1974. February 24 and 26, 1974 were the dates when poll was
taken and the result was declared on February 28, 1974. The
first respondent who was sponsored by Bhartiya Kranti Dal,
it will be referred to as B.D. hereinafter, was elected
securing 33565 votes. The appellant who came next was a
nominee of the Congress party; he polled 20731 votes, 12,834
votes less than the successful candidate. On April 14, 1974
the appellant presented an election petition in the Allaha-
bad High Court calling in question the election of the first
respondent alleging that he was guilty of adopting corrupt
practice within the meaning of sub-sections (2), (3) and
(3A) of section 123 of the Representation of the People Act,
1951. The first respondent in his written statement denied
all the allegations. The High Court held that the election
petitioner had failed to prove the charge of corrupt prac-
tice alleged against the successful candidate and dismissed
the election petition. The election petitioner challenges
the correctness of the decision in this appeal under section
116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Certain principles governing election disputes are now
well settled. One such principle is that proceedings arising
out of election petitions are quasi-criminal in character
and the allegations made in the petition must be proved
beyond reasonable doubt. ’Another is that in an appeal under
section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
this Court will not interfere with the findings of fact
recorded by the trial court except for very strong and
cogent reasons. A third is that it is unsafe in an election
case to accept oral evidence at its face value without
looking for assurance from some surer circumstances or
unimpeachable documents. [see Rahim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed
(1975) 1 S.C.R. 643 (656)].
Of the issues framed upon the pleading of the parties,
issues 1, 2, 3 and 4 only are relevant for the purposes of
the present appeal. These issues are as follows:
(1) Whether the respondent No. 1, his agents,
workers and supporters, with his consent,
promoted feeling of hatred between different
classes of the citizens of India, particularly
between fats and Thakurs of the Constituency
on the one side and other Castes and
414
communities on the other, for furtherance
of the prospects of his election and
thereby committed corrupt practice as defined
in section 123 (3-A) of the Act ?
(2) Whether the respondent No. 1, his agents
workers and supporters, with his consent,
promoted caste feeling and appealed to the
voters to vote or refrain from voting on the
basis of caste and community for furtherance
of the prospects of his election and thereby
committed corrupt practice as defined in
section 123(3) of the Act?
(3) Whether the respondent No. 1, his agents
and workers, with his consent, directly or
indirectly interfered with free exercise of
electoral rights of the voters and committed
corrupt practice of undue influence as defined
in section 123(2) of the Act?
(4) Whether the respondent No. 1, his agents
and workers, with his consent, committed
corrupt practice of bribery for inducing
Muslim voters to vote for the respondent No.
1, by paying several thousands of rupees for
construction of a school building and a
mosque, as alleged in para 13(i), (ii) and
(IV) of the petition ?
The first two issues are interconnected The allegations
relating to these issues are based on three pamphlets,
Exhibits P. 20, P. 21 and P. 22, and oral evidence of meet-
ings where speeches were delivered appealing to voters on
the ground of caste and attempting to promote hatred between
different castes. There is no reference, however, to these
pamphlets in the election petition. Of the pamphlets,
exhibits P. 20 and P. 22 contain an appeal to all the resi-
dents of the constituency to vote for the first respondent,
and the High Court rightly held that these two pamphlets
cannot be called objectionable. Exhibits P. 21 appeals to
the voters not to vote for outsiders such as, the appellant
but to one who belonged to the constituency like the first
respondent. It is difficult to say that this is an appeal
on the ground of caste or community. But it is not neces-
sary to pursue this matter further because there is no
evidence to connect the first respondent with this pamphlet
and, as the High Court has found it is not "proved as to at
whose instance this pamphlet was printed or distributed".
The oral evidence on these two issues seeks to prove that
meetings were held at three villages, Bajna, Neemgaon and
Surir Kalan where speeches were made asking the votes to
vote on the basis of caste and community and attempting to
promote feelings of enmity between different castes and
communities in the constituency. At Bajna two meetings are
said to have been held on February 5, 1974, one at 12.30
P.M. at the canal inspection house and the other at 8 P.M.
at the local B.K.D. office. P.W. 6 Ganga Sahai, P.W. 8
Gandalal, and P.W. 22 Jaipal Singh are the witnesses who
were examined by the
415
election petitioner to prove this allegation. From the
evidence of P.W. 8 it does not appear that any appeal was
made to the voters on the ground of caste or community in
either of the two meetings. P.W. 6 and P.W. 22 wanted the
court to believe that though they had heard offending
speeches being delivered at the meetings, they did not
report the matter to anyone earlier but disclosed what they
heard for the first time in court. If the High Court found
their. testimony unbelievable, we do not think any exception
can be taken to it. The High Court also. found that neither
P.W. 8 nor P.W. 22 was a disinterested witness, P.W. 8 being
an active member of the Congress and P.W. 22 was a polling
agent of the appellant.
At Neemgaon a meeting is alleged to have been held on
February 19, 1974 at 12 noon in the primary school premises.
Of the two witnesses who speak about this meeting, P.W. 16
Lotan appears to have admitted on cross-examination that he
had not attended the meeting and P.W. 15 Raghubir says, like
P.Ws. 6 and 22, that what he heard in the meeting he was
disclosing for the first time in court. The High Court
further finds that P.W. 15 was a man in the confidence of
the appellant and P.W. 16 was admittedly a "man of
Congress". If in these circumstances the High Court refused
to rely on the evidence of these two witnesses, no interfer-
ence is called for.
The meeting at Surir Kalan is said to have been held at
2 P.M. on the Ramlila platform in the village. P.W. 4 Harpal
Singh and P.W. 5 Badan Singh are the two witnesses for the
petitioner as to what happened at this meeting. From the
testimony of P.W. 4 Harpal Singh it seems extremely unlikely
that he was present at the meeting. P.W. 4 is the Head
Master of a junior high school. The school was open on that
day. The schools hours were from 10 A.M. to 4 P.M. The
witness says that he was able to attend the meeting as it
was held during the "interval period". He admits that there
are eight periods of forty minutes duration each and the
interval is after the fourth period for about forty-five
minutes. It is dear therefore that he could not possibly
attend the meeting at 2 P.M. The witness however attempts
to prove his presence at the meeting by saying that the
meeting started at about 1 P.M., thus contradicting his
earlier statement. The attempt to shift the time makes. his
evidence more suspect. He also states that he does not know
who ultimately won the election. This apparent unconcern
suggesting that he was an impartial witness which is hardly
believable marks him out as thoroughly unreliable. The other
witness P.W. 5 Badan Singh says that the meeting was held at
2 P.M. According to him a pamphlet (Exhibit A) was distrib-
uted at the meeting. This pamphlet which contains the
description "Decision of Kashatriya Mahasabha" contains an
appeal to all the members of the Kashatriya caste to attend
the meeting to be held on February 8, at 2 P.M. at Surir
Kalan. The pamphlet does not disclose the .name of the
place where it was printed. There is no evidence to connect
it with the first respondent. There is also no mention of
this pamphlet in the election petition. P.W. 5 does not make
any secret that he was opposed to Chandan Singh being elect-
ed a member of the assembly. Further, he admits that he did
not complain of what happened at the meeting to the authori-
ties or to the petitioner. If the High
416
Court did not find it possible to rely on P.W. 4 and P.W. 5,
we do not think any legitimate grievance can be made. We
therefore find no reason to interfere with the findings
recorded by the High Court on issues 1 and 2 that no corrupt
practice within the meaning of section 123(3A) or section
123(3) has been proved against the first respondent.
Issue No. 3 relates to the alleged undue influence
exercised by the successful candidate or with his consent by
his agents and workers within the meaning of section 123(2)
of the Act. The allegations relating to this issue are
contained in paragraph 12 of the election petition and the
particulars are in schedule III and IX thereto. The evi-
dence adduced on this issue falls into three categories; (1)
evidence of witnesses who speak about the threats at the
meetings held in support of the first respondent, (2) wit-
nesses who speak about the actual interference and (3 )
circumstantial evidence of a corroborative nature. As re-
gards the first category, these witnesses have been found
unreliable by the High Court while dealing with issues Nos.
1 and 2. No further reference therefore need be made to
their evidence. As regards the second category of witnesses
who speak of actual interference by the agents and workers
of the first respondent, the High Court after a detailed
examination of the evidence adduced found that many of these
witnesses were interested witnesses and that their testimony
did not inspire confidence. No presiding officer of the
polling stations where such undue influence is alleged to
have been used has been examined. One of the witnesses
examined by the election petitioner, P.W. 37 Rajendra Kumar
Pathak, who was Sector Magistrate in Neemgaon which includes
five polling stations says that he was making a continuous
round of the polling stations staying for about 15 minutes
at each and that whenever any complaint was made to him
about any difficulty felt by the voters in the matter of the
free exercise of their right to vote, he saw that the cause
for complaint was removed. His evidence is that he did not
receive any complaint about anyone being prevented from
casting his vote. He adds that instructions were given to
the Sector Magistrates by the Government that voters should
be allowed to cast their votes freely; no Sector Magistrate
was examined by the election petitioner to prove that this
was not done. The High Court therefore did not place any
reliance, and in our view rightly, on these witnesses. The
circumstantial evidence which is claimed as corroborative of
the oral evidence on this issue consists of certain let-
ters, namely Exhibits P.7, P.8, P.9, P. 10, and P.14 Exhib-
its P.7 and P.8 are two letters sent to the appellant by
P.W. 14 Habura and P.W. 29 Brij Mohan Bhardwaj respectively
complaining about the various irregularities at the
polling stations. On a scrutiny of their testimony the High
Court found both of them unreliable witnesses and was of the
view that these two letters were brought into existence for
the purpose of this case after the result of the election
had been declared. Exhibit P.9 is a copy of a letter dated
February 23, 1974 addressed to the Superintendent of Police,
Mathura. by the District Magistrate, Mathura. The copy was
proved by P.W. 30 Was-ud-din Quareshi who was a Stenographer
to the District Magistrate at the relevant time. The High
Court doubted the authenticity of this copy as the date,
February 23 appearing on the letter was admittedly not in
the hand-
417
writing of the District Magistrate nor of the witness.
Exhibit 14 is another letter dated February 23, 1974 ad-
dressed to the District Magistrate, Mathura, by the appel-
lant. In this letter the petitioner expressed his general
apprehension about the irregularities likely to be committed
at some polling stations on the day of poll and requested
the District Magistrate to. make necessary arrangements to
prevent the same.Exhibit P. 10 dated February 25, 1974
was also addressed to the District Magistrate Mathura by the
petitioner. This letter of course contains reference to a
number of specific cases of irregularities in certain poll-
ing stations. The oral evidence adduced to prove these
irregularities, we have found already, is not creditworthy.
That the election petitioner did not examine any of the
Sector Magistrates within whose jurisdiction such irregular-
ities had taken place has already been mentioned. The only
Sector Magistrate examined on behalf of the election peti-
tioner, P.W. 37 Rajendra Kumar Pathak, does not support the
petitioner’s case. Having considered the two letters
Exhibits P. 14 and P. 10 the High Court observed:
"If the two letters are read and consid-
ered together an
inference may well be drawn that the former
was sent as a precautionary measure advance to
give support to the latter one with a view to
create some sort of an evidence in case an
election petition was necessitated to be
filed."
These letters put in evidence to corroborate the oral testi-
mony on the issue of undue influence have themselves no
intrinsic merit and are far from reliable and therefore do
not advance the petitioner’s case any further than what the
oral testimony does. We therefore affirm the finding of the
High Court on issue No. 3 that the petitioner has failed to
prove the allegation of undue influence.
This leaves only issue No. 4 concerning the allegation
of bribery. This is the issue which was pressed before us as
the main ground in support of the appeal. The allegations
relating to the corrupt practice of bribery are contained in
paragraph 13(ii) and (iv) of the election petition and the
particulars are set out in schedule X thereto. Paragraphs
13(ii) and (iv) state:
"13. That the material facts relating
to corrupt practice of bribery committed by
respondent No. 1, his workers and agents with
his consent are given hereinafter.
(i) * * *
(ii) That Sri Chandan Singh in order to get
the support of the Muslim voters of village
Naujhil offered a bribe Rs.1200/- ostensibly
for the erection of the building for Islamia
school to Sri Aijaz Hussain, Ida and Idris The
order was made to induce the Muslim voters to
vote for respondent No. 1.
(iii) * *
*
(iv) That village Bishambara is also a Muslim
dominated village in which there are about
2000 Muslim voters belonging to Meo community.
Respondent No. 1 paid a sum of Rs. 3000/- to
the Pradhan of the said village Sri Niamat
418
Khan, for inducing the voters of Meo community
to vote in his favour. The said amount was
paid for constructing a mosque for use of this
community of this village. Full particulars
of this corrupt practices are given in Sched-
ule X to this petition."
The allegations are denied in paragraph 13 of the written
statement. Before turning to the evidence on this issue it
is necessary to dispose of a contention raised in the High
Court and also before us that the allegations must be taken
to have been admitted by the first respondent in view of the
vague evasive denial given by him in his written statement.
This is how the allegations have been denied in the written
statement.
"13. That the averments made in para-
graph 13 of the petition ...... are vague,
absurd, wrong and baseless. No person can be
stopped in donating certain amount in public
institution or the charitable one. Donation
to an institution does not amount to bribery.
The construction of the part 6 indicate igno-
rance of the petitioner who is not aware in
spite the legal advice. The alleged allega-
tion of bribery is denied in toto and is
liable to be dismissed.
13(ii) That the averments made in para
l3(ii) are wrong, baseless, hence denied.
The same being repetition of foregoing sub-
clause (i), no need of saying much whatever is
said in the previous paragraph (i).
13(iii) * * *
13(ii) That the averments made in para
13(ii) are wrong, false and baseless as if the
same is denied. The schedule enclosed
marked Annexure X is general in nature and
wrong, hence denied and the petition is liable
to be dismissed."
In paragraph 13(iii) of the written statement the first
respondent refers to the contents in schedule X of the
election petition as "too vague and incorrect, false and
baseless". Counsel for the appellant contended that the
denial amounted to this only that donation to a public or
charitable institution could not constitute bribery. We
think that a correct and complete reading of paragraph 13 of
the written statement the construction put on it on behalf
of the appellant would not be justified. It cannot be
overlooked that the allegation of bribery is also denied
’’in toto" and as false and baseless. The additional con-
tention that donation to public or charitable institutions
could not amount to bribery appears to be a legal plea
asserting that even on the statements made in paragraph 13
of the election petition the allegation of bribery was not
sustainable.
The case of bribery rests on two incidents, one relating
to payment of Rs. 1200/- to the Muslim voters in village
Naujhil for the reconstruction of a Muslim school in that
village and the other relating to the payment of Rs. 3000/-
to the Pradhan of village Bishambara, which is a Muslim
dominated village, for the construction of a mosque in the
419
village. The allegation regarding the payment of Rs.
1200/- for Islamia school in Naujhil is sought to be proved
by P.W.1 Alia Noor, who has a motor cycle repairing shop,
P.W. 2 Chandra Pal Sharma, P.W. 3 Ashraf Ali, P.W. 7 Fiaz
Khan, P.W. 17 Kadhera and some correspondence that passed
between some of these witnesses. What is alleged to have
happened is like this. Near about midnight between the 23rd
and the 24th February, 1974, the first respondent Chandan
Singh along with Chatur Singh and several others drove in a
jeep to Naujhil at a place where about 200 Muslims were
sitting around a fire. Some from the crowd went upto the
jeep, had a talk with Chandan Singh and told him that
whoever would donate money for Islamia school, the Muslim
votes would be cast in his favour, Chandan Singh Offered to
pay and gave twelve currency notes of Rs. 100/- each to
Chatur Singh who made them over to one Ida who is said to be
the president of the school. P.W. 1 Alla Noor, P.W. 3
Ashraf Ali and P.W. 7 Fiaz Khan are witnesses to this inci-
dent. About half an hour later, two persons named Nanhey
and Habib informed P.W. 2 Chandra Pal Sharma, who was the
pradhan of village Naujhil, of the incident. On being sum-
moned the appellant arrived there within a few minutes and
Nanhey and Habib repeated the story in his presence. At the
instance of the appellant the Station Officer, Naujhil, was
also summoned there, but he declined to take any step. The
appellant then came to the place visited by the first re-
spondent earlier and remonstrated with the Muslims crowd
still present there for having accepted the money from the
first respondent. Certain letters were produced on behalf
of the appellant to strengthen the oral evidence relating to
the incident. Exhibit P.2 appears to be a notice given by
Fiaz Khan, who is a member of the school committee, to Ida
accusing him of not utilising for the school the money
taken by him from the first respondent, asking him to take
early steps in the matter, and warning him that in default
action would be taken against him. Exhibit P.I is a letter
written by P.W.3 Ashraf Ali, who was a teacher of the
school, to P.W. 1 All Noor saying that he had taken the sum
of Rs. 1200/from Ida in the presence of witnesses and pur-
chased some building material for the school. This letter
bears no date. Exhibit P.5 is another letter sent by P.W.
1 Alla Noor to P.W. 7 Fiaz Khan assuring him that the sum of
Rs. 1200/- taken from the first respondent would be utilised
for the benefit of the school. The High Court has disbe-
lieved the entire story finding that neither the witnesses
were believable nor the letters reliable. The story of the
midnight visit of the first respondent doling out money to a
crowd of Muslim voters who happened to be present would
strike anyone as ridiculous and we agree with the High Court
that it cannot be true. Besides, neither Ida who is made to
appear as a central figure in the dispute over the money,
nor Nanhey or Habib who conveyed the information to P.W.
Chandra Pal Sharma, has been examined. About the letters
the High Court’s finding is that from their tenor it was
clear that these were brought into existence for the purpose
of the election petition. We find nothing to justify a
different view.
The other allegation with regard to the issue of bribery
is that a sum of Rs. 3000/- was paid to Niamat Khan, Pradhan
of village Bishambara, for constructing a mosque to induce
the Muslim voters of that
420
village to vote in favour of the first respondent. The only
witness examined to prove this allegation is P.W. 24, Usman.
According to him on the evening previous to the date of
poll, grand-father of the first respondent came to Niamat
Khan and paid Rs. 3000/- to him ;n return for his promise
that he would see that all the Muslim votes were cast in
favour of the first respondent. On cross-examination the
witness admits that he does not know what happened to that
money and that he was disclosing this fact for the first
time in court. He is not named either in the election
petition or on the schedule thereto. He came to depose
without receiving any summons. Niamat Khan has been exam-
ined by the respondent as his witness and he denies the
allegation as totally false. The High Court therefore did
not rightly put any reliance on the evidence of this wit-
ness. The appellant had no personal knowledge of the facts
alleged in support of the case of bribery. Exhibit P. 10,
the letter he addressed to the District Magistrate on Febru-
ary 25, 1974 of course contains a vague reference to these
allegations, but this, as the High Court has said, seems to
have been written "with a view to create some sort of an
evidence in case. election petition was necessitated to be
filed".
We find no merit in this appeal which we dismiss with costs.
P.B.R. Appeal
dismissed.
421