Ramanbhai Nagjibhai Patel vs Jashvantsingh Udesingh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1978 Supreme(SC) 84

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.L. UNTWALIA AND V.D. TULZAPURKAR, JJ.
Ramanbhai Nagjibhai Patel, Appellant
Versus
Jasvantsingh Udesingh Dabhi and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 670 of 1976
Decided on 28-2-1978.
Advocates appeared
Mr. V. M. Tarkunde, Sr. Advocate (Miss Manik Tarkunde, M/s I. N. Shroff, H. S. Parihar and R. P. Kapur, Advocates with him), for Appellant; Mr. M .K. Ramamurthi, Sr. Advocate (Mr. . J. Ramamurthi and Miss R. Vaigal, Advocates with him),for Respondents Nos. 1 & 3.

Headnote:
Representation of the People Act , 1951 – Section 116-A - Evidence merely – Clam of compensation – Jurisdiction - There were several allegations in the election petition alleging commission of several corrupt practices by the appellant. But all were decided in his favor except the one which will be alluded to hereinafter. On behalf of the first respondent, the judgment of the High Court was also endeavored to be supported by attacking its finding in regard to the incurring or authorizing of expenditure by the appellant in contravention of S. 77 of Act - Respondent combated the argument of the appellant on the point decided against him High Court and further submitted that the finding of High Court in respect of the election expenses was erroneous; the appellant has also committed a corrupt practice within the meaning of S. 123 (6) of Act by incurring an excess expenditure permissible limit Court shall therefore deal with these two points only in this appeal – Held, Endorsement became a disputed one when in cross-examination the appellant did not admit that it was there from before. The cross-examining lawyer was not instructed with certainty as to in whose handwriting the endorsement was. First the suggestion was that it was in the handwriting of the appellant himself. Then the suggestion was that it was in the handwriting of son of the appellant. The appellant denied both the suggestions. There was no proof or any evidence on behalf of the election petitioner as to in whose handwriting the disputed endorsement was. In our opinion, therefore, the endorsement remained unproved, and not only that, it was a suspicious one also. The Petrol Voucher showed that petrol was taken in a car which belonged to the appellant himself. But the evidence of P. W. 1 was that the appellant had gone to a taxi - Evidence on the question of actual payment of the money consists only of P. W. 10. Support was lent to his evidence by that of P. W. 9 who had proved - High Court says that apparently there was no reason as to why these two persons would come to depose against the appellant and in of respondent submitted that both belong to caste to which caste the real person behind this election dispute, namely, respondent 3, belonged. Majority of voters in belong to this caste. Counsel, therefore, submitted that P. Ws. 9 and 10 were highly interested in respondent No. 3. Although the explanation so given seems to be plausible, howsoever unfortunate it may be to take notice of such facts, we have thought it better not to find the interestedness of P. Ws. 9 and 10 on the basis of the caste. But the very nature of their evidence, and when read as a whole; leaves an impression in our mind that they were out to support the interest of respondent No. 3 and hence deposed against the appellant. Any way, the question of their specific interest is not very vital when their intrinsic evidence is not reliable. Out of the 15 persons said to be present in including some voters of village none has been examined to prove the payment of the money or the talk which preceded it - Appeal allowed Appeal allowed Appeal allowed

JUDGMENT

UNTWALIA, J.:— This is an appeal under S. 116-A of the Representation of the People Act , 1951 - hereinafter called the Act , by a person who was elected from Mehemadabad Constituency, District Kaira at the general elections held in June, 1975 to the Gujarat Legislative Assembly. The first respondent in this appeal is the election petitioner at whose instance the election of the appellant was set aside by the Gujarat High Court. Respondents 2 to 6 are the unsuccessful candidates at the said election. The appellant was impleaded as respondent No. 1 in the election petition. Respondents 2 to 6 were respondents 2 to 6 in the election petition also. The appellant contested the election as an Independent candidate and out of the unsuccessful candidates, respondent No. 3 was a candidate set up by the Congress Party then known as the Ruling Congress. The election petition to all intents and purposes seems to have been filed at the instance and for the benefit of respondent No.3.

2. The polling took place on the 8th of June, 1975. The results were declared on the 12th June, 1975. The appellant was declared elected to the Gujarat Assembly from the Constituency aforesaid. Election Petition No. 7 of 1975 was filed by one Ramabhai Punjabhai. But this election petition was not proceeded with. Respondent No. 1 filed Election Petition No. 8 of 1975 on the 28th of July, 1975. The High Court, by its judgment under appeal, allowed the said election petition and set aside the election of the appellant finding him guilty of having committed a corrupt practice within the meaning of S. 123 (1) (A) (b) of the Act . There were several allegations in the election petition alleging commission of several corrupt practices by the appellant. But all were decided in his favour except the one which will be alluded to hereinafter. On behalf of the first respondent, the judgment of the High Court was also endeavoured to be supported by attacking its finding in regard to the incurring or authorising of expenditure by the appellant in contravention of S. 77 of the Act. The respondent combated the argument of the appellant on the point decided against him (appellant) by the High Court and further submitted that the finding of the High Court in respect of the election expenses was erroneous; the appellant has also committed a corrupt practice within the meaning of S. 123 (6) of the Act by incurring an excess expenditure of Rs. 15/- over the permissible limit. We shall, therefore, deal with these two points only in this appeal.

3. The allegation of corrupt practice which has been found against the appellant is contained in para. 9 of the election petition which reads as follows:

"The petitioner further states that the 1st respondent and/or his election agent and/or his son Somabhai Ramanbhai Patel with the consent of his election agent had paid Rs. 500/-, by way of gift or gratification to the Sarpanch and/or the Gram Panchayat of Moti Abdoli with the object of inducing the Sarpanch, the members of the Gram Panchayat and other voters of the said village under their influence to vote for the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent and/or his election agent and/or his son above-named with the consent of the 1st respondent and/or his election agent has committed corrupt practice within the meaning of S. 123 (1) of the Act ."

The extra expenditure alleged to have been incurred by the appellant in paragraph 6 of the election petition consisted of 21 items - the total of which was Rs. 14,269/-. Item 20 was the sum of Rs. 500/- mentioned in paragraph 9 as having been paid for inducing the voters of Moti Abdoli. This sum was alleged to have been paid on 4-6-1975. The election petitioner filed an affidavit in support of the allegations made in the election petition and vis-a-vis the statement in para, 9 the assertion was that the particulars of corrupt practice given in para, 9 "are true to my information."

4. In evidence, it was sought to be proved that the appellant visit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document