Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H.R. KHANNA, N.L. UNTWALIA AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.
Nongthombam Ibomcha Singh, Appellant
Versus
Leisangthem Chandramani Singh and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 799 of 1975,
D/- 13-9-1976.
Advocates appeared
M/s. Janardhan Sharma and Jitendra Sharma, Advocates for Appellant; Mr. S. V. Gupte, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. Naunit Lal & Miss Lalita Kohli, Advocates with him), for Respondent No. 1
Manipur Legislature Act, 1975 - Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 77 - Purpose of election - Challenge election of respondent - Election expenses - Whether his expenses exceeded prescribed limit – Respondent who was a candidate sponsored by Manipur Peoples Party secured votes while appellant who was his nearest rival secured votes - There were some other candidates but we are not concerned with them - Respondent was Speaker of Manipur Legislative Assembly at relevant time - Assembly was dissolved - Respondent however continued to hold the office of the Speaker till March - Appellant challenged election of respondent on two main grounds - One of grounds was that respondent being ex-Speaker of Assembly held an office of profit in State Government and as such was disqualified to seek election - Other ground was that the election expenses of the respondent exceeded the prescribed limit - It was also stated that some of the expenses incurred by the respondent for the purpose of election had not been shown by him in the return filed by him and as such he was guilty of corrupt practice - High Court repelled all grounds and in the result dismissed election petition – Held, it has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the respondent also used jeep in addition to jeep - It is stated that the expenses incurred by respondent on account of petrol and Mobil oil for jeep were not shown by him in his return - In this respect we find there was no allegation in election petition as originally filed regarding the use of jeep by the respondent - This allegation was introduced by appellant only as a result of amendment of the election petition - No documentary evidence was placed on the file by the appellant to show that the respondent used jeep for purpose of his election - Oral evidence was however adduced by appellant for this purpose - High Court found the evidence adduced in this connection by the appellant to be wholly unreliable - After hearing court find no cogent reason to take a contrary view - It is well established that this Court should not normally interfere in an election appeal with High Courts appraisement of oral evidence of witnesses unless such appraisement is vitiated by some glaring infirmity - No such infirmity has been brought to our notice - Reference has been made to first information report dated February which was alleged to have been made by respondent to the police - No attempt was made by appellant to bring on record original first information report or to prove the same - High Court in the circumstances held that appellant could not rely upon a copy of the said first information report - Then contends that the appellant in any case can rely upon oral deposition of respondent when he came into the witness box - Court have been taken through that deposition and court find no warrant for the conclusion that jeep was used by the respondent in connection with his election - All that has been stated by respondent in the course of his deposition is that on February he came to know of some untoward incident at a distance of a few hundred yards away from the place of his residence - He went in jeep towards that spot and thereafter returned in that jeep from that spot - Such stray and solitary use of the jeep for visiting place of incident a few hundred yards away from residence of respondent cannot in court opinion be held to tantamount to use of the jeep for election purpose - There is no cogent evidence to show that jeep was used otherwise by respondent for attending his election meetings or for other election purposes - Appeal dismissed
Judgment
KHANNA, J.:- In the mid-term poll to Manipur Legislative Assembly held in February 1974, respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) was declared elected from the Patsoi Assembly constituency. The appellant, who was one of the rival candidates, filed an election petition to challenge the election of the respondent. The election petition was dismissed by the Gauhati High Court. The appellant has now come up in appeal against the judgment of the High Court.
2. The respondent, who was a candidate sponsored by the Manipur Peoples Party secured 5,033 votes, while the appellant who was his nearest rival secured 2,473 votes. There were some other candidates, but we are not concerned with them. The respondent was the Speaker of Manipur Legislative Assembly at the relevant time. The Assembly was dissolved in 1973. The respondent, however, continued to hold the office of the Speaker till March 8, 1974. The appellant challenged the election of the respondent on two main grounds. One of the grounds was that the respondent being ex-Speaker of the Assembly held an office of profit in the State Government and as such was disqualified to seek election. The other ground was that the election expenses of the respondent exceeded the prescribed limit of Rs. 2,500. It was also stated that some of the expenses incurred by the respondent for the purpose of election had not been shown by him in the return filed by him, and as such, he was guilty of corrupt practice. The High Court repelled all the grounds, and in the result dismissed the election petition.
3. In appeal before us Mr. Sharma on behalf of the appellant has not challenged the finding of the High Court insofar as it has held that the respondent was not disqualified from seeking election because of the fact that he held the office of the Speaker. The appellant indeed could not challenge this finding as we find that the Manipur legislaure has now passed the Manipur Legislature (Removal of Disqualifications) (Amendment) Act, 1975 (Manipur Act 1 of 1975). As a result of this amendment, a person holding the office of Speaker of Manipur Legislative Assembly shall not be disqualified from seeking election to the Legislative Assembly of that State because of his holding that office. The amending Act, according to clause (2) of Section 1, shall be deemed to have come into force on February 6, 1973. The fact that the legislature is competent to enact such a law with retrospective operation is now well established (see Kanta Kathuria v. Manak Chand Surana, (1970) 2 SCR 835 and Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain, (1976) 2 SCR 347. In view of the above amending Act, the respondent cannot be held to be disqualified from seeking election to the Legislative Assembly of Manipur on account of his having held the office of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly.
4. Mr. Sharma has assailed the finding of the High Court insofar as it has held that the election expenses of the respondent did not exceed the prescribed limit of Rupees 2,500. According to the return filed by the respondent, he incurred a total expense of Rs. 2,160 in connection with his election. It is urged by Mr. Sharma that though the respondent paid Rs. 500 to the Manipur Peoples party for securing a ticket of the party, he did not show that amount in the return filed by him. Adding that sum of Rs. 500 to the amount of Rs. 2,160 would take the expenses beyond the prescribed limit of Rs. 2,500. The said amount of Rs. 500, we find, was paid by the respondent to Manipur Peoples party on December 5, 1973. According to an amendment made in Section 77 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 by Act 40 of 1975, every candidate at an election will either by himself or by his election agent, keen a separate and correct account of all the expenditure in connection with the election, incurred or authorised by him or by his election agent between the date on which he has been nominated and the date of the declarati
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
