R. M. Seshadri vs G. Vasantha Pai - 1968 Supreme(SC) 369

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1968 Supreme(SC) 369

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. M. Seshadri, Appellant
Versus
C. Vasantha Pai and others, Respondents.
District Election Officer, Madras Intervener.
Civil Appeal No. 1519 of 1968, D/-29-11-1968.
Advocates appeared
Mr. R. M. Seshadri, Advocate appellant in person; and Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan, Advocate, for Appellant; Mr. S. V. Gupte, Senior Advocate; (M/s. A. C. M.Muthanna, S. S. Javali, Mrs. Anjali K. Verma, Advocates, and Mr. O. C. Mathur, Advocate of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., with him) for Respondent No. 1. Mr. G. Ramanujam Govt.Pleader, Madras and Mr. A.V. Rangam, Advocate, for Intervener.

Headnote:BETTER PARTICULARS CAN BE GIVEN BY PARTY ONLY WHERE BETTER PARTICULARS ARE REQUIRED - ELECTION PETITIONS — PLEADINGS AND PROOF - power to summon the witnesses who can throw light on the matter of corrupt practice - application of order 16, rule 14 of the code of civil procedure in election matter - power to summon the witnesses who can throw light on the matter of corrupt practice - application under order 16, rule 14 of the code of civil procedure in election matter - hiring or procuring motor cars to carry voter — pleading and proof - ELECTION PETITIONS—APPLICATION OF THE RULE - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY—ELECTION MATTERS

       – if the Court of satisfied that a corrupt practice had in fact been perpetrated, may be one side or the other, it was absolutely necessary to find out who was the author of that corrupt practice. Section 98 of the Act itself allows the Court to name a person who is guilty of corrupt practice after giving him notice and this would be more so in the case of a candidate whose name appears to be connected with the corrupt practice, the proof whereof is not before the Court but can be so brought. In such a case, it was held in the case of R.M. Seohadri v. G. Vasantha Pai, AIR 1969 SC 692, that the Court would be , acting within its jurisdiction in using Order 16, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon the witnesses who can throw light upon the matter. In the case of Khaje Khanavar Khadar Khan Hussain Khan v. Siddavanahalli Nijalingappa, AIR 1969 SC 1054, it appeared that there were no compelling reason to examine the witness or to draw an inference against the elected candidate for his failure to examine the said witness.

       – see decision in th case of R.M. Seshadri v. G. Vasantha Pai, AIR 1969 SC 692. It is necessary to give in the pleadings the number of cars by naming the polling booths at which voters were brought and by pleading categorically that such vehicles were procured to carry the voters. Rest is matter of evidence and facts to be established by evidence.
       the power of a Civil Court to summon court witnesses is contained in this Rule of the Code. The Representation of the People Act enjoins that all the powers under the Code can be exercised and all the procedure as far as may be applicable to the trial of civil suits may be followed in the trial of election petitions. It would appear therefore that in the absence of any prohibition contained in the law, the court has the power to summon a court witness if it thinks that the ends of justice require or that the case before it needs that kind of evidence,
       -the trial should be at arms length and the court should not really enter into dispute as a third party, but it is not to be understood that the court never has the power to summon a witness or to call for a document which would throw light upon the matter, particularly of corrupt practice which is alleged and is being sought to be proved. If the court was satisfied that a corrupt practice had in fact been perpetrated, may be by one side or the other, it was absolutely necessary to find out who was the author of that corrupt practice,

Judgment

HIDAYATULLAH, C. J.: This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madras, 28th May, 1968, by which the election of the appellant Seshadri has, been set aside. The election in question was to the Madras Legislative Council from the Madras District Graduates Constituency. That constituency consisted of 19498 ,votes and the total votes polled were 12,153. Since the voting was by a single transferable vote, three out of the five candidates were eliminated at different counts with the result that their votes were transferred to the second person named by the elector on the ballot. At the final count the appellant Seshadri received ,5643 votes and and G. Vasantha Pai (his nearest rival) who is the first respondent in the appeal received 5388 votes. Seshadri was, therefore, elected by a majority of 255 votes.

2. The election petition was filed by G. Vasantha Pai to question the election of Seshadri on many grounds. Only one ground prevailed, namely, that he had employed cars which had been hired or procured for the conveyance of the voters to the polling booths which numbered 73 in this constituency. The other charges were numerous but they need not be mentioned here because in our opinion this charge has been substantiated. It may be mentioned that Seshadri filed a petition of recrimination but it was dismissed because he failed to furnish security required under the Act. Later he corrected this mistake but the petition was not accepted because it was held to be delayed.

3. The learned Judge who heard the case held that instead of Seshadri, Vasantha Pai deserved to be declared elected under the law. In this appeal, therefore, Seshadri contends that the decision in his respect was erroneous and in the alternative that in any event Vasantha Pai could not be declared as the successful candidate. We shall deal with these two points separately. It may further be mentioned that in the original order passed by the learned Judge he had not named Seshadri as guilty of corrupt practice. By a subsequent order he reviewed his previous order and gave a declaration. This point also will require to be considered in this judgment.

4. The allegation in the election petition was that a large number of motor cars were hired or procured from various sources for the conveyance of the voters to the polling booths. These were sometimes occupied by persons wearing badges which bore the name of Seshadri and sometimes were received at the polling booths by persons,who wore the same badges. From this, it is inferred that the motor cars were used for the conveyance of voters by Seshadri as one of the contesting candidates, Such conduct if it is established, amounts to a corrupt practice under Section 123 (5) of the Representation of the People Act. The short question, therefore, on the first point is whether Seshadri was guilty of this corrupt practice.

5. The appeal has been fought by Seshadri on the grounds that the plea which was included on this head in the election petition was vague and not sufficiently definite so as to give him notice of the charge he had to meet, that a charge of corrupt practice is of the nature of a criminal charge and must therefore be proved by the election petitioner himself beyond all reasonable doubt, that there exists some room for doubt and therefore he should have the benefit of it and that the learned Judge who tried the case improved both the pleading on the subject and the evidence led by the election petitioner by calling certain witnesses and looking into documents which he had procured on his own behalf. It is therefore contended that all the evidence which the learned Judge collected suo moto should not be looked at and the case of the petitioner should be confined to the bare plea which was raised in this case. If this is so, says Seshadri the election petition deserves to be dismissed because the case as found was not clear in the plea and was certainly lacking in the proof as required by la

Click Here to Read the rest of this document