Razik Ram vs Jaswant Singh Chouhan

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1975 Supreme(SC) 56

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A. ALAGIRISWAMI AND R.S. SARKARIA, JJ.
Ch. Razik Ram, Appellant
Versus
Ch. J. S. Chouhan and others, Respondents,
Civil Appeal No. 947 of 1973, D/-11-2-1975.*
Advocates appeared
Mr. L M. Singhvi, Senior Advocate, (M/s. K. C. Dua, D. D. Varma, A. Gupta, Advocates, and K. J. Joshi, D. J. Mishra Ravinder Narain and J. B. Dadachanji "Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., with him), for Appellant: Mr. B. R. L. Iyengar, Senior Advocate, (M/s, Bishamber Lal, S. K. Gupta. Gaje Singh end Miss Sushma Sharma., Advocates, with him), for Respondents.

Advocates:
A.Gupta, B.R.L.Iyengar, Bishambar Lal Khanna, D.D.VARMA, D.J.MISHRA, GAJE SINGH, J.B.DADACHAN, K.C.DUA, K.J.JOHN, L.M.SINGHVI, Ravindra Narayan, S.C.GUPTA, Sushma Sharma

Headnote:standard of proof — charge of corrupt practice - evidence act — applicability in respect of election petitions - burden of proof in election petitions - appreciation of evidence - Hiring - procuring and use of the vehicle — scope of clause (5)
       –Clause (5) of Section 123 falls into two parts. The requirements of the first para are:(i) The hiring or procuring whether on payment or otherwise, of any vehicle or vessel for the free conveyance of voters (ii) Such hiring or procuring must be by a candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidte or of his election agent. The second part envisages the “use of such vehicle or vessel for the free conveyance of any elector (other than the candidate himself, the members of his family, or his election agent) to or from any pollng station”. The two parts are connected by the conjunction “or” which is capable of two constructions. In one sense, it is a particle creating an alternative between them. In the other sense-which is a kin to the sense of “and” – it can be construed as conjoining and combining the first part of the clause with the second. The latter construction appers to comfort better with the aim and object of the Amendment of 1966, as held in Razik Ram v. J.S. Chouhan, AIR 1975 SC 667. In this connetion it is noteworthy that even before the amendment, the Supreme Court in Balwan Singh v. Lakshmi Narain, AIR 1960 SC 770, held that in considering whether a corrupt practice described in Section 123(5) is committed conveying of electors cannot be dissociated from the hiring of a vehicle. Even if the word “or” is understood as a co-ordinating conjunction introducing alternatives, then also a petitioner in order to succeed on the ground of a corrupt practice under the second part of the clause, must prove, in addition to the use of the vehicle or vessel for the free conveyance of any elector to or from any polling station, the hiring or procuring of that vehicle or vessel. This is so because the word “such” in the phrase introduced by the 1966 amendment, expressly imports these elements of the first into the second part of the clause. This view is fortified by the dictum of the Supreme Court in Jashibhai Chunibhai Patel v. Anwar Beg Mirza, AIR 1969 SC 586, where it was held that it will be noticed that this section also speaks of the use of such vehicle which connects the two parts, namely, hiring or procuring of vehicle and its use. The requirement of law therefore is that in addition to proving the hiring or procuring and the carriage of electors to and from the polling station, it should also be proved that the electors used the vehicle free of cost to themselves.
       In the case of Smt. Om Prabha Jain v. Charan Das, AIR 1975 SC 1417, the charge of incurring or authorising of expenditure in contravention of Section 77, was held not proved beyond reasonable doubt. As held in Jashibhai Chunibhai’s case AIR 1969 SC 586, it requires three things, (1) hiring or procuring of a vehicle, (2) by a candidate or his agent etc. and (3) for the free conveyance of an elector. In Dadasahib Dattatraya Pawar v. Pandurang Rooji Jagtap, AIR 1978 SC 351 = (1978) 2 SCR 524, it was held that in regard to Section 123(5) and in considering whether a corrupt practice described in this section was committed, conveying of electors cannot be dissociated from the hiring of the vehcile. All these decisions were considered with approval in the case of Dharmesh Prasad Verma v. Faiyazal Alam, AIR 1984 SC 1516 and held tht the appellant proved satisfactorily all three requirements of clause (5) of Section 123 and therefore he was guilty of corrupt practice.

Judgment

SARKARIA J.:- Ch. Rizak Ram, Ch. Jaswant Singh Chouhan and three others, contested the election to the Haryana Vidhan Sabha from Rai-37 Haryana Vidhan Sabha Constituency. The poll was held on March 11, 1972. The result was announced on March 13. 1972. Ch. Rizak Ram was declared elected having secured 19631 votes as against 18072 polled by Ch. Jaswant Singh, his nearest rival.

2. Ch. Jaswant Singh, respondent (to be called the petitioner hereafter) filed an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (herein" after called the Act) challenging the election of the appellant on various grounds, of which the following only survive for the purpose of this appeal :

(a) The returned candidate hired on payment of Rs. 200/- or procured otherwise than on payment. Truck No. HRR - 5167 belonging to Lakhi Ram son of Hira, resident of Turakpur and on March 11, 1972, used that vehicle for the free conveyance of electors named in Sch. A annexed to the election petition, from village Turakpur to the Polling Station at Mandaura (vide Paras. 7 (i) and (ii) and 13 of the petition);

(b) The returned candidate or his agent Sube Singh, Jat resident of Kheri Mana and /or Om Parkash of Basantpura alias Bhera Bakipur, hired - on payment of Rs. 200/- or procured otherwise Tractor No DLL-9 make Hindustan, and Trailer No. MPE-8748 belonging to Shiv Lal son of Tirkha Ram and driven by Richhpal Singh and used the same for free conveyance of voters on March 11, 1972, from village Aurangabad alias Brahman was to Jakhauli Polling Station (Paras, 7 (vi) and 13 of the Petition)

(c) The returned candidate on the polling day paid a sum of Rs. 7,000/- to Mange Ram son of Khusi Ram of Mandaura and his daughters and sons, by way of compensation in respect of the fatal injuries received by Mange Ram in an accident, caused by the driver of Truck No. HRR-5167 while carrying the voters of village Tarakpur free of charge. The returned candidate has failed to show this amount of Rs. 7,000/- and the sum of Rs. 400/- being the total hiring charges of the aforesaid truck and tractor, in the return of election expenses submitted by him under Section 78 of the Act. On addition to these undisclosed items, the total of the election expenses incurred by him exceeds the permissible limit of Rs. 9,000/- (Paras. 7 (iii). 10, 13 and 14 of the Petition).

3. After considering the pleadings of the parties, their clrificatory statements and the abandonment of some allegations by the petitioner, the learned trial Judge condensed the controversy pertaining to the above grounds into these Issues:

Issue No. 1:

Whether Respondent No. 1 hired on payment truck No. HRR-5167 belonging to Shri Lakhi Ram son of Hira, of Turakpur, and used the same for the free conveyance of electors, named in Schedule A to the petition, on March 11. 1972 from village Turakpur to the polling station at Mandaura ?

Issue No. 2:

Whether Suba Singh of village Kheri Mana Jat was an agent of Respondent No. 1 within the meaning assigned to that expression in Explanation (1) to Section 123 of the Act ?

Issue No. 4:

Whether the respondent hired on payment tractor No. DLL-9, make Hindustan, and Trailer No.MPE-8748 belonging to Shri Shiv Lal son of Tirkha Ram, and driven by Richhpal Singh, and used the same for free conveyance of voters from village Aurangabad alias Brahman was to Jakhauli Polling Station ?

Issue No. 5:

Whether respondent No. 1 paid Rupees 200/- as hire charges for Truck No 5167 and Rs. 200/-each to the owners or drivers of the tractors for their use for free conveyance of voters. If so, has the respondent shown the said expenditure in the return of election expenses ? If not, what is its effect ?

Issue No. 7:

Whether the respondent paid a sum of Rs. 7,000/-, by way of compensation in respect of injuries and death of Mange Ram as alleged in paragraph 10 of the petition. If so, has the respondent included the said amount in the return of his election expenses ? If not, what is its effect ?

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1975 Supreme(SC) 56

Cases Referred (2)