Baldev Singh Mann versus Surjit Singh Dhiman

Representation of People Act, 1951: s.123(7) - Charge of corrup{practice - Burden to prove - Held: Is on the election c petitioner - Mere preponderance of probabilities not enough - Allegation of corrupt practice should be clear and precise and charge should be proved to hilt as. criminal trial, by clear, cogent and credible evidence - On facts, .election petitioner ·tailed to prove basic ingredients of corrupt practice ·under D s.123(7) - Election petition ·rightly dismissed - Election laws - Election of elected candidate - Interference with.

¶12

The appellant filed an election petition before the High Court challenging the election of respondent on the E^{ground that respondent had committed corrupt practices} under s.123(7) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 by obtaining and procuring assistance from ga~etted officers in the service of government for the furtherance of the prospects of his election.

¶13

F The High C.ourt held that the appellant failed to prove the ingredients of corrupt practice contained in s.123(7) of the Act; and that the evidence of cdrrupt practice was not strong enough to upset the.people's verdict in favour of the respondent. Hence the instant appeal.

¶14

G

¶15

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

-I-

t- "

•f J. .

HELD: 1. The appellant failed to prove the basic inQredients of corrupt practices under s.123(7) of the

¶20

540

¶21

H

¶22

BALDEV SINGH MANN v. SURJIT SINGH DHIMAN

¶23

541

¶24

Representation of People Act, 1951. [Para 36] [599-8-C]

¶25

A

¶26

2.1. The law is well-settled that charge of a corrupt practice in an election petition should be proved almost . like the criminal charge. The standard of proof is high and , the burden of proof is on the election petitioner. Mere · 8 preponderance of probabilities is not enough, as may be the case in a civil dispute. Allegations of corrupt practices f should be clear and precise and the charge should be · proved to the hilt as in a criminal trial by clear, cogent and credible evidence. [Para 24] [554-G-H; 555-A] · ·

¶27

c

¶28

Jeet Mohinder Singh v. Harminder Singh Jassi (1999) 9 , SCC 386; Jagan Nath v. Jaswant Singh & Ors. 1954 SCR 892, Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat & Anr. v. Dattaji Raghobaji Meghe & Ors. (1995) 5 SCC 347; Quamarul Islam v. S.K. Kanta & Ors. (1994) Supp (3) SCC 5 F.A. Sapa & Ors. v. o Singora & Ors. (1991) 3 SCC 375, Manohar Joshi v. Damodar Tatyaba & Ors. (1991) 2 SCC 342;.Ram Singh & Ors. v. Col. Ram Singh (1985) Supp SCC 611; Kripa Shankar Chatterjee v. Gurudas Chatterjee & Ors. (1995) 5 SCC 1 and Ram Phal Kundu v. Kamal Sharma (2004) 2 SCC 759, relied on.

¶29

,E

¶30

2.2. Charge of corrupt practice, if substantiated leads not only to the setting aside of the election of the successful candidate, but also of his being disqualified to contest an election for a certain period. It may entail extinction of a person's public life and political career. A f trial of an election petition though within the realm of civil law is akin to trial on a criminal charge. [Para 27) [555-GH] .

¶31

The candidate who narrowly lost ordinarily makes all efforts and gather all kind of material against the G elected candidate and level all kinds of allegations of corrupt practices whether substantiated or not.- In the instant case, this seemed to have happened. The respondent won by less than 1000 votes out of nearly 70000 polled votes. (Para 32) (558-A-B] H

¶32

H

¶33

SUPREME, COURT REPORTS

¶34

. [2008) 16 S.C.R.

¶35

542

¶36

A 4. The will of the people is paramount in a democratic country an'd the election of elected candidate should not be lightly interfered with. At the same time, it is also ithe bounden ·duty and obligation of the court to ensure that purity of election process is fully safeguarded and s maintained. [Para 37] [559-C-D]

c

D

E

Case Law Reference:

(1999) 9 sec 386 relied on Para·25 1954 SCR 892 r!i!lied on .P~re1 .25 -<1995) 5 sec 347 relied on Para 25 (1994) Supp (3) sec 5 relied on Para 28 . (1991) 3 sec 375 · relied on Para 28 (1991) 2 sec 342 . relied on. Para 28 (1985) Supp sec 611 relied on Para· 28 (1995) 5 sec 1 relied on Para 28 (2004) 2 sec 759 relied on Para 28

¶42

f

¶43

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3700 of 2007.

¶44

From the final Judgment and Order dated 8.12.2006.of the F High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Election Petition No. 16 of 2002.

¶45

P.S. Patwalia, Tushar Bakshi, D.K. Tripathi, Amanpreet Singh Rahi and Naresh Bakshi for the Appellant.

¶46

G Satpal Jain, Bhupinder Yadav and. R.C. Kohli for the - Respondent. . The J'udgment of the Co1;1rt was d~-frv·ereq by · ' . . .. ,

¶47

H DALVEER BHANDARI,· J. 1. This· appeal has been

¶48

.:

¶49

BALDEV SINGH MANN v. SURJIT SINGH DHIMAN [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

543

~

t

E

F

preferred under section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to ~s the said Act) against the judgment dated 8.12.2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Election Petition No. 16 of 2002.

¶56

A

¶57

B

¶58

The facts which are necessary to dispose of the appeal are recapitulated as under:

¶59

The Election Petition No. 16 of 2002 was filed by the defeated candidate appellant BaldAv Singh Mann who lost the , election from 87-Dirba (Punjab) Assembly Constituency which^c was held on 13.2.2002.

¶60

The appellant Baldev Singh Mann filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Shiromani Akali Dal (B) (for short "SAD")~--whereas respondent Surjit Singh Dhiman filed his nomination papers as.an independent candidate. In the election, respondent Surjit Singh Dhiman got 35,099 votes and appellant Baldev Singh Mann got 34,103 votes and consequently, the respondent was declared elected.

¶61

D

¶62

The appellant filed this election petition under sections 80 and 81 read with sections 98, 99 and 100 of the said Act before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. By a comprehensive judgment, the election petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

¶63

A_ -t

¶64

The appellant pleaded that the respondent's election was liable to be declared void as the respondent h~d committed corrupt practices by obtaining and procuring assistance, for the furtherance of the prospects of his election, from Gurbachan Singh Bachhi (hereinafter referred to as "Bachhi") and B.S. Shergill (hereinafter referred to as "Shergill") who were in the service of the government and were gazetted officers .

¶65

According to the appellant, Bachhi was Administrative· Member of the Punjab State Electricity Board. He was appointed on 24.12.2001 and belonged to Bhattiwal Khurd, a

I

G I

~

545

BALDEV SINGH MANN v. SURJIT SINGH DHIMAN [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

t

'"-

A

Bachhi was expelled from the primary membership of SAD for anti-party activities.

¶75

(8) Bachhi alongwith Dhiman visited Rajpura on 3.2.2002 at 11 a.m. and held a meeting at the house of Jarnail Singh where Ram Karan, Sukhdev Singh B and others had also assembled. All these persons were voters of Dirba Constituency. Bachhi had taken N.S. Bhullar, an Assistant Engineer (PSEB) with him. The said Bhullar was a relative of Jarnail Singh. Bachhi threatended Jarnail Singh's relatives c that in case they did not vote and support the respondent he would create problems for their I relative Bhullar.

¶76

(C) On 4.2.2002, the appellant was informed by Naranjan Singh and Mehar Singh of Kala Jhar that a day earlier at about 2 p.m. Bachhi along with the respondent had met them and asked for support and vote. Later, the appellant was also informed by Jasbir Singh, Dhanvir Singh and Gogi Singh that Bachhi had contacted them in their village on 3.2.2002 at 3.30 p.m. and canvassed for votes in favour of the respondent. The appellant in his complaint to the Election Commission had also complained that Bachhi had been canvassing for votes in favour of the respondent at Channa and Kala Jhar.

D

E

I

F

"'

A ~

.(D) On 5.2.2002, at 5 p.m. a meeting was convened at Chandani Tourist Complex in Nadampur of the voters belonging to Nadampur, Salad Kalan, Phuymanali and Turi. The respondent was present at this meeting. Some officers of .the PSEB were also present. Names of some of the persons who were present there at that time were mentioned in the petition and names of the PSEB employees '

¶84

G

¶85

H

¶86

546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2ooa116 s~c.R.

~·.

A

't

x

A were also mentioned. At this meeting, Bachhi asked the persons present to vote and support the respondent. The ·respondent also thanked Bachhi

¶93

.. and others for supporting him. The appellant came to know about this meeting on. 9.2.2002 from

¶94

B · Gurmeet Singh and Ha~am Singh of Nadampur · and Labh Singh of Phumanwali and he immediately .. . sent a fax message to the Chief Election Commissioner. At the said meeting, the respondent

¶95

·had introduced some persons of Chatha Nanhera

¶96

c to Bachhi and asked him to help them in getting outof-turn power connection from the Board. The respondent told Bachhi that if he is able to release the connection, that would advance his prospects in the elections not only in his own village but also in the surrounding villages. Bachhi asked Thilu

¶97

0 Singh to meet him in the office of SDO (Sub Urban) Suman on 6.2.2002 at 10 a.m.

¶98

0

¶99

(E) The above meeting was held at the scheduled time and Bachhi directed the PSEB official to supply

¶100

E material out of turn for· giving connections to the villagers of Chatha Nanhera. He also asked Thilu Singh and others of that village to vote and support the respondent. In the evening at,S_p.m. Bachhi visited Dirba and in the presence of Karnail Singh,

¶101

F Ruldu Singh of Chatha Nanhera informed the respondent that Thilu Singh's work had been done. The appellant came to know about this information from Karnail Singh and Ruldu Singh on 8.2.2002 at s·p.m. at an election rally·addressed by Sukhbir

¶102

G Singh Badal at Dirba. Consequently, the appellant· sent a complaint in this regard to the Chief Election Commissioner~

¶103

1-- _,.

¶104

Similarly, Shergill's. role which attracted the provisions of the said Act is as under: H

¶105

547

¶106

BALDEV SINGH MANN v. SURJIT SINGH DHIMAN [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

~

~-

;..

,.._ ~

As regards Shergill, the appellant pleaded that on A 3.2.2002, the respondent and Bachhi had visited Rajpura where they held a meeting in Jarnail Sfngh's tiouse~ They ~lso went to Shergill's house who at that time was posted . as Deputy Director, Panchayats at Chandigarh. They· met Shergill at 12 noon in the presence of Joginder Singh, B Nachhattar Singh and Chand Singh of Rajpura. The respondent requested ·Shergill to spare some time for helping him in the election as he had sufficient influence in the area. Initially Shergill showed reluctance to do so but the respondent with the help of Bachhi succeeded in c persuading Shergill to render help in the elections. Thereafter, on 4.2.2002 at 9 a.m. both Shergill and Bachhi went to Barroh and met Amarjeet Singh and asked him to .collect prominent persons of the village, whereupon several persons came there and Shergill requested them 0 to vote for the respondent. Shergill also reminded them of the favours he had been doing for them when he was posted as ADC (Development) at Sangrur. The appellant learnt about these details from Amarjeet Singh of Barroh on 6.2.2002. Similarly, Bachhi and Shergill went to Noorpur E on 4.2.2002 and at Mastaan Singh's house, a number of persons of Noorpur arrived. Shergill impressed upon those persons to. vote and support for the respondent. The appellant learnt about this from Jagjit Singh and Jasbir Singh when he went to Noorpur on 6.2.2002 about 2 p.m. F The appellant immediately filed a complaint through fax before the Chief Election Commissioner.

¶112

The appellant pleaded in the election petition that when Bachhi came to know about the complaints lodged by the appellant, he destroyed the log book of his car to conceal the fact that he was touring Dirba during the assembly elections to canvass for votes for the respondent. After the result was declared, the respondent toured the villages falling in Dirba Constituency to congratulate and thank his voters and supporters. On 4.4.2002 and 5.4.2002, Bachhi also

G:

H

549

BALDEV SINGH MANN v. SURJIT SINGH DHIMAN [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

..( ....(

"

' . ~

'

:1

.....,..< ' ..

A

did not disclose the date, time and place when the appellant's statement was recorded by Avtar Singh and thus did not disclose any cause of action.

¶125

That the respondent submitted on merit that he was not aware of the details of appointment of Bachhi as B Administrative Member of the Punjab State Electricity Board as copy of the gazette notification has not been placed on record. However, Bachhi was not in the employment of the Punjab Government as Punjab State Electricity Board was an autonomous body created under the Electricity (Supply) Act, c 1948 and its employees are not in the service of the Punjab Government.

¶126

According to the respondent, Shergill is not a gazetted officer as Deputy Director in any of the departments of the Punjab Government.

¶127

D

¶128

The respondent specifically pleaded that he had neither sought nor got any assistance for any purpose, much less for the furtherance of the prospects of his election either from Bachhi or Shergill.

¶129

E,

¶130

In the written statement, other allegations of taking assistance or help from Bachhi or Shergill were specifically denied. The allegations regarding destruction of car's log book have been made on the basis of the information received from Varinder Singh, Assistant, Punjab State Electricity Board . According to the respondent, Varinder Singh was an ardeht supporter of the appellant. The allegations lacked material particulars as regards date, place and time of the alleged destruction of the log book. Allegations that Bach hi addressed meetings after the eletion were also denied. It was submitted that these activitie cannot be taken into consideration. Under election law only activities of the returned candidate from the date of filing of the nomination since declaration of the results were not relevant. The High Court after completion of the pleadings framed the following issues:-

F

G

H

55b SUPREME COURT REPORTS~,, [2008] 16 S:C.R.

'---,. \

j

. .. ,·;·

A .' · ·· ''.1. Whether the Election Retition and the affidavit in support ot the: election petition are not properly verified,) if,so, its effect? · ,·:· '" .... ·2. ·· Whether the 'Election Petition lacks· in: material facts, if- so·, its ·effect? · • · ', · 3... . Whther th.~ copy of -lection ·Pet,iti9n .upple''to '-· - - · · the an_swering.respondent is n.ot a complete.copy ·. of:th~. election -petition, if so, it?ieffct? ·"· c 4. .;Vvhetfier'the Eiectj9n Ptitidn does.not disclose any . cause of action as mentioned in prelimi'nary objections nos.4 and 5 of the written statement, if :.,_ .so, its -effect? 5. Whether the retum'ed candidate obta,ried th· D assistance of Mr. Gurbacha'n ·Singh Bachhi Adrnir;iistrative Member of.P.$.E.B. for the furtherane of te prospects of his election i!J the. ·.way and m.anner alleged .in paragraph 4 and paragraphs 6-A to E and 7 of the election petition E and thereby respondent committed corrupt practice as defined under section 123(7) of Representation of People Act, 1951? If so, its effect." - .· 1}. On Octob.er 17, . 2oo3, ' an additional issue was trained . . F which reads as under:..

¶139

"Whether the returned candidates obtained assistance of Shri B.S. Shergill,'· Deputy Director, ·Parichayats, Punjab for . th'e furtherance of his prospeds of his election in the way: .and manner .. alleged in'para'n6s.~ and.7 ofthe election . petiiOI) .and thereby committed corrupt practice aS ·defined undef sec!ioii" ~ 23(7.l 9f th Representation. of People ..... :.·· ' . ' Atc.'^?" .... ·.

¶140

i

¶141

· ·' ··· 1 a'.: Issues· 1 to' 4 ·were treated as preliminary issues.

¶142

BALDEV SINGH MANN v. SURJIT SINGHDHIMAN 551 [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

¶143

·· 19. Ort January 13, 2004, issues 1 to 4 were decided .A against the respondent."

¶144

~: '..

¶145

·' 20. The appellant in support of his case submitted a list of 54, witnesses, but examined only 15.

¶146

Sum:it fyluherjee,_ . ' ·under , Secretary to the Election Commission of India appeared as PW1 and testified in respect of th GOmplaints receive9 by the Chief Election Commissioner of.India from the appellant during the process of election to the Dirba Assembly Constituency. The four c.omplaints were dated February 4, 6 and 9, 2002 marked as PW1/A to PW1/D respectively. The said complaints were inquired into by the Chief Electoral Officer, Punjab and the report of the Chief Electoral Officer including reports of the Department of Rural Development and Panchayats and Additional Secretary, Department of Power are marked as PW1 /E to PW1 /G. The four complaints (Exhibits PW1-/A to PW1/D) were in respect of the incidents already referred to in the pleadings.

B

C

D

The appellant appeared as PW2 and submitted his affidavit dated March 5, 2004 Exhibit PW2/1. The appellant produced· 15 witnesses and the respondent produced 9 witnesses ..

¶151

E

¶152

The High Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the relevant cases came to the conclusion that it is difficult to hold that Bachhi was a gazetted officer though F he was in the service of the Government. In this view of the matter it is ·necessary to examine the specific allegations of corrupt practice and after enumerating these incidents try and see if proof of allegations either through direct, circumstantial or corroborative evidence was forthcoming. There are allegations . G that on several occasions· Bach hi had agreed to support the respondent. These are extracted from the examination-in-chief ofth~ , . appeliant's ·,· sworn affidavit PW2/1.

¶153

...

¶154

· ''(i) January 23, 7 p.m. : On Dhiman's persuation H

¶155

552

¶156

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶157

[2008] 16 S.C.R.

¶158

· ..

¶159

A Bachhi agreed to support him in· the const.ituency. This incident had taken place in the presence of Kirpal Singh (PW3). Mann was informed; about B. this at Dirba by Karnail ·Singh (PW-4) and others:

¶160

· (ii) BetweenDhiman and Bachhi personally January 24-26 contacted prominent persons of Dirba constituency for c soliciting support for Dhiman. (iii) They joined campaign for Dhiman. They were seen by Karnail Singh (PW4), Upiilder D Singh, Teja Singh. Ti~ana, Kashmira Singh, Darshan Singh, Nazam Singh and Labh Singh.

¶161

.(iv) Bachhi and Dhiman-contacted E Shamsher Singh and Harnek Singh. These persons had told Mann about this fact. · (v) JanuarY 27-12 noon Parkash Singh Badal, F President (SAD) came to . ,,, l Dirba t6 address an election rally in Man's support and Mann informed Badal about Bachhi's anti-party activities. This led to G Bachhi's expulsion from the party. (vi) February 3 : · Bachhi and Dhiman v1sited Rajpura and met in Jarnail Singh's house in the presence

¶162

H

¶163

BALDEV SINGH MANN v. SURJIT SINGH DHIMAN [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.)

¶164

553

¶165

>

¶166

ofRamKaran (PW 5). Jarnail	A
Singh wasthebrother-in-law of
N.S. Bhullar, AEE, P.S.E.B.
Bhullar was also present there.
Persons presentinthemeeting
were askedtovote for Dhiman.	~
Bachhi even threatened Jarnail
Singh thatincasehisrelatives
didnotvote andsupport
Dhiman, then Bhullar couldbe
introuble. Mann was informed	c
about thisonthe following day
byRamKaran (PW5).

¶167

• ~

¶168

(vii) February 4 at 2 p.m.:	Bach hi andDhimanmet Niranjan Singh (PW 6) and Mehar Singhattheir houses at Kala Jhar and asked themto vote and support Dhiman.	D
(viii)February3at3.30p.m.:	Bachhi had contacted Jasbir Singh (PW7),Dhanvir Singh, Gogi Singh in the houseof Jasbir Singhandasked them to voteinfavourofDhiman. Mann was.informed about this	E
	byJasbirSingh on the followingday.	F
(ix) February 5 at 5 p.m. :	Bachhiheld a meeting of voters ofvarious villagers fallingin
	Dirbaconstituency. The meeting was also attended by Dhiman. Many employees of the Board were also present at that meeting. Bachhi with the	G
	consentofDhimanhad

¶169

H

¶170

554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ,·"·

¶171

[2008]· 16 S:C.R.

¶172

requested the persons present in the meeting to vote for Dhiman. The meeting was also addressed by Surjit Singh.

¶173

A

¶174

, - . . · (x) February 6 at 10 a.m.: Bach hi asked PSEB employees to supply material out of turn for releasing connection to the villagers of Chatha Nanhera and asked Thilu Singh to vote for Dhiman. On February 6 itself Bachhi visited Dirba and in the present of Karnail Singh and Ruldu ir;ifbrmed about the work done by him for Thilu and others. Mann learnt about this from Karnail Singh and Ruldu . i' Singh at a rally addressed by Sukhbir Singh 13adal at Dirba."

¶175

c

¶176

D

¶177

E 24. The mah question before the High Court was whether the aforementioned instances constituted corrupt practice as defined under section 123(7) of the said Act. In the impugned judgment the High Court came to the conclusion under subsection (7) of 123 of the said Act, it is obtaining or procuring F of assistance for the furtherance of the prospects of the candidate which- constitutes main ing~edients of corrupt practice. The_ assistance has to be procured from a pers_on who is in the government service and who additionally is a gazetted officer. In the impugned judgment the High Court had also G discussed the legal position in detail. The law is now well-settled that charge of a co-rrupt practice in an election petition should

¶178

be proved almost like the criminal charge. The standard of proof is high and the burden of proof is on the election petitioner. Mere preponderance of probabilities are not enough, as maybe the case in a civil dispute. Allegations of corrupt

H

t

~

-~·

¶183

BALDEV SINGH MANN v. SURJIT SINGH DHIMAN [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

555

•

..

~

practices should be clear and precise and the charge ·should A be proved to the hilt as in a criminal trial by clear, cogent and credible evidence.

¶189

~ 25. A three-Judge Bench of this court in Je;et Mohinder Singh v. Harminder Singh Jassi ( 1999) 9 SCC 86 has held 'B that the success of a candidate who has won at an election should not be lightly interfered with. Any petition seeking such interference must strictly conform to the requirements of the law. Though the purity of the election process hs to be safeguarded and the court shall be vigilant to see tha.t people do not get ;C elected by flagrant breaches of law or by committing corrupt practices, the setting aside of an election involves serious consequences not only for the returned candidate and the constituency, but also for the public at large inasmuch as reelection involves an enormous load on the public funds and administration. Similar opinion has been expressed in Jagan^-o Nath v. Jaswant Singh & Others 1954 SCR 892, Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat & Another v. Dattaji Raghobaji Meghe & Others (1995) 5 SCC 347. The will of the people who have exercised their franchise in an election in favour of a returned candidate must be respected to protect the interest of the ·E returned candidate.

¶190

;C

¶191

The court in.a.number of cases held :that charge of corrupt practice is a quasi-criminal in character and it has to be proved as a criminal charge and proved 'in the court.

¶192

F

¶193

In Jeet Mohinder Singh's ca$e (supra), the court observed as under:'

¶194

... --i

¶195

"Charge of corrupt practice is quasi-criminal in character. If substantiated it leads not only to the setting aside of the, election of the successful candidate, but also.of his being disqualified to contest an election for a certain period. It may entail extinction of a person's public life and political career. A trial of a.n election petition though within.the realm of civil law is akin to trial on a criminal charge. Two

¶196

G

¶197

H

¶198

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶199

[2008] 16 S.C.R.

¶200

556

¶201

A consequences follow. Firstly, the allegations relating to commission of a corrupt practice should be sufficiently clear and stated precisely so as to afford the person charg~d a full opportunity of meeting the same. Secondly, the charg_es when put to issue should be proved by clear, B cogent and credible evidence. To prove charge of corrupt practice a mere preponderance of probabilities would not be enough. There would be a presumption of innocence available to the person charged. the charge shafl have to be proved to the hilt, the standard of proof being the same as in a criminal trial."

¶202

A

¶203

c

¶204

The court has expressed similar opinion in the cases Quamarul Islam v. S.K. Kanta & Others (1994) Supp (3) SCC 5 F.A. Sapa & Others v. Singora & Others (1991) 3 SCC 375, Manohar Joshi v. Damodar Tatyaba & Others (1991) 2 SCC D 342, Ram Singh & Ors. v. Col. Ram Singh (1985) Supp SCC 611 and Kripa Shankar Chatterjee v. Gurudas Chatterjee & Others (1995) 5 sec 1.

¶205

In Ram Phal Kundu v. Kamal Sharma (2004) 2 SCC E 759, the court reiterated the principle of election jurisprudence and observed that the election of the returned candidate should not be lightly interfered with though at the same time the purity of the election process has to be maintained.

¶206

Now the crucial question arises for consideration is F whether the evidence of the appellant on record is adequate to constitute corrupt practice within the meaning of secti on· 123 (7) of the said Act. 31. Section 123 (7) of the Ac reads as under:-

¶207

G "(7) The obtaining or procuring of abetting or attempting to obtain Qr procure by a candidate or his agent or, by any other person [with the consent .of a candidate or his election.agent]', any assistance (other than the giving of vote) for the furtherance of the prospects of that candidate's election, from any person in the service of the H

¶208

H

¶209

557

¶210

BALDEV SINGH MANN v. SURJIT SINGH DHIMAN [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

:...A

c

E

~

Government and belonging to any of the following classes,

¶216

A

¶217

namely:-

¶218

(a) gazetted officers;

¶219

~,

¶220

(b) stipendiary judges and magistrates;

¶221

(c) members of the armed forces of the Union; (d) members of the police forces;

¶222

B

¶223

(e) excise officers;

¶224

(f) revenue officers other than village revenue officers known as lambardars, malguzars, patels, deshmukhs or by any other name, whose duty is to collect land revenue and who are remunerated by a share of, or commission on, the amount of land revenue collected by them but who do not discharge any police functions; and]

¶225

D

¶226

(g) such other class of persons in the service of the Government as may be prescribed:

¶227

•

¶228

[Provided that where any person, in the service of the Government and belonging to any of the classes aforesaid, in the discharge or purported discharge-of his official duty, makes any arrangements or provides any facilities or does any other act or thing, for, to, or in relation to, any candidate F or his agent or any other person acting with the consent of the candidate or his election agent (whether by reason of the office held by the candidate or for any other reason), such arrangements, facilities or act or thing shall not be deemed to be assistance for the furtherance of the 'G prospects of that candidate's election]."

¶229

F

¶230

..... ---f

¶231

In the instant case, the respondent won by less than 1000 votes out of nearly 70000 polled votes. In the impugned judgment, it is aptly observed that a candidate who loses by

¶232

H

¶233

.. 558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶234

: · [2008] 16 S.C:R.

¶235

A such a slight margin finds it hard to accept defeat. Therefore, the candidate who has narrowly lost would ordinarily· make all efforts and gather all kind of material ag~!nst the elected candidate and level all kinds of allegations of corrupt practices whether substantiated or not.. In the .instant case, this is what ·s^{seems to have happened. Allegatio.ns are that. the winner was} moving from village to village asking for vote and in this process he had often taken help of Bachhi ad Shrgill for canvassing for votes in his favour.

¶236

In the impugned judgment, it is aptly observed:

¶237

c

¶238

"Casting a vote or asking for it does not amount to obtaining any assistance. When a candidate meets a voter and ask him to vote, the voter may say "yes" or "no" or "may be". In any event such conversation between a D candidate and the voter would not ·amount to the voter giving assistance to the candidate. A persistent candidate or his agent may request the voters fo'r \tote and the voter may say "yes" simply to escape the candidate's persistence. Thi,s w9uld not amount to corrupt practice at E all. There must be some positive and explicit proof on the part of voters belonging·to categories mentioned in section 123(7)(a)(g) to constitute corrupt practice.

¶239

E

¶240

· 34. After carefully examining the entire evidence on record, the High Court came to the con'clusion that the appellant failed F to prove the ingredients of corrupt practice contained in section 123(7) of -th_e said Act. The High Court observed that the evidence of corrupt pr~ctice was not strong enough to upset the people's verdict in favour of the respondent. The High Court also observed that the appellant has failed to prove issue 5 and G the additional issue framed by the High Court.

¶241

G

¶242

This court in Gaja(lan Krishnaji Bapat (supra) observed tbat that the appellate court attaches great valu.e to the opiniori formed by the Trial Judg~ more so when the Trial H^{Judge recording 'findings of faCt is the.same whcihad recorded}

~

f

,.

t-- -

BALDEV SINGH MANN v. SURJIT SINGH DHIMAN [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

559

8

C

the evidence. The Appellate Court shall remember that the jurisdiction to try an election petition has been vested in a Judge of the High Court. Secondly, the trial judge had the benefit of watching the demeanour of witnesses and forming first-hand opinion of them in the process of evaluation of evidence.

¶253

A

¶254

We have carefully re-assessed and re-evaluated the entire evidence of record and we concur with the view which has been taken by the High Court. In our opinion, the appellant has failed to prove the oasic ingredients of corrupt practices under section 123(7) of the said Act. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.

¶255

Before parting with the case, we would like to reiterate that in a democratic country the will of the people is paramount and the election of elected candidate should not be lightly interfered with. At the same time, it is also the bounden duty o and obligation of the court to ensure that purity of election process is fully safeguarded and maintained.

¶256

D.G.

¶257

Appeal dismissed.

Baldev Singh Mann v. Surjit Singh Dhiman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baldev Singh Mann v. Surjit Singh Dhiman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Moorthy versus State of Tamil Nadu

Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai versus Mis. National Organic Chemical Industries Limited

Hemaji Waghaji Jat versus Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan & Others

Rajoo & Ors. versus State of M.P

Kailash Rani Dang versus Rakesh Bala Aneja & Anr.

H.P. State Forest Company Ltd. versus M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.