Rajendra Singh Yadav vs Chandra Sen

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1978 Supreme(SC) 330

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., P.S. KAILASAM AND A.D. KOSHAL, JJ.
Rajendra Singh Yadav, Appellant
Versus
Chandra Sen and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1929 of 1975, D/- 26-10-1978.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Y. S. Chitale, Sr. Advocate (Mrs. A. K. Varma, Mr. K. J. John, M/s J.B. Dadachanji and Co., Advocates with him), for Appellant; Yogeshwar Prasad Sr. Advocate (Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, Mrs. Rani Chabbra and Miss Meera Bali, Advocates with him), for Respondents.

Headnote:
Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Sections 116, 123, 81 – Guilty of commission of corrupt practice – This is an appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 against judgment of a single Judge of Allahabad High court declaring election of appellant who was returned candidate from Uttar Pradesh Assembly Constituency held in year 1974, to be void on sole ground that he had been guilty of commission of corrupt practice specified in clause (5) of Section 123 of Act, and further holding that "he is disqualified for a period of six years". – Held, Single Judge appears to have been impressed by the two written complaints, exhibits P-3 and P-5 in forming the opinion that oral evidence produced in support of transportation of voters to Khinmini Polling Station was reliable. – However, it further appears that he did not closely scrutinise the other connected documentary evidence, of which diary exhibit P-4 is enough shatter case propounded against the appellant. – Court have extracted above contents of item No. 22 forming part of that diary. – Item states that a complaint regarding transportation of voters by Smt. Vidyawati Rathore had been made to Presiding Officer. – Relevant entry in item however is very suspicious and appears to have been made by way of an over-writing, original entry most probably being None which means that by time the diary was prepared in first instance, no complaint had been made to Presiding Officer. – Naturally, word None must have been inserted after poll was over and if that be so, overwriting must be deemed to have been made later on and behind back of appellants polling agents which would not only constitute a serious irregularity on part of Presiding Officer but also indicate that all is not well with complaint in entry which furnishes a circumstance pointing to an attempt on the part of Congress candidate and Presiding Officer to concoct evidence and circumstance which casts a thick cloud of suspicion on veracity of entire oral evidence produced on point. – Court conclude that transportation of voters to Khinmini Polling Station also remains unproved. – Court reverse finding of single Judge of Allahabad High Court on point of commission of corrupt practice described in clause (5) of Section 123 of the Act. – Consequently appeal succeeds and is accepted and impugned judgment is set aside. – In the result petition under Section 81 of Act is dismissed. – Appellant shall have his costs in both courts from contesting respondents. – Appeal Allowed

Judgment

KOSHAL, J.:- This is an appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment of a single Judge of the Allahabad High court declaring the election of the appellant named Rajendra Singh Yadav, who was the returned candidate from the Uttar Pradesh Assembly Constituency No. 314 (Mohammadabad, District Farrukhabad), held in the year 1974, to be void on the sole ground that he had been guilty of the commission of the corrupt practice specified in clause (5) of Section 123 of the Act, and further holding that "he is disqualified for a period of six years".

2. Seven candidates took part in the election contest, the appellants nearest rival being the Congress candidate Smt. Vidyavati Rathore (respondent No. 3) who secured 25736 votes as against 43844 polled in favour of the appellant who fought the battle as an independent candidate.

3. The petition under Section 81 of the Act was instituted in the High Court by two electors other than the candidates on various grounds including the commission by the returned candidate of different types of corrupt practices. The only ground found by the High to have been established is, as already stated, the commission of the corrupt practice detailed in clause (5) of Sections 123 of the Act which states:

"123. The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purpose of this Act:-

(1) to (4).......

(5) The hiring or procuring, whether on payment or otherwise, of any vehicle or vessel by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent, or 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 agent) to or from any polling station provided under Section 25 or a place fixed under sub-section (1) of Section 29 for the poll.

(6) & (7) .......

The allegations made in the petition, in so far as they are relevant for the purpose of the present appeal, were stated in paragraph 12 thereof and are reproduced below:

"(a) That respondent No. 1 himself, his workers, agents and supporters, with the consent of respondent No. 1, hired and procured vehicles, tractors with trolleys, trucks, jeeps and cars for free conveyance of electors from their houses to the polling stations on the date of poll, i.e., 26-2-74.

"(b) That the persons who were transporting the voters were the workers, agents and supporters of respondent No. 1 and were so doing with the consent of respondent No. 1 inasmuch as they had put badges depicting the name of respondent No. 1 with his election symbol (cycle). Some of them were carrying banners in which the symbol of cycle was depicted. The persons who used to carry the voters to the polling stations on the vehicles dropped the voters in the camps set up by respondent No. 1 nearing the polling stations. After these voters had cast their votes, they were brought back to their respective villages on the aforesaid vehicles. Respondent No. 1 himself, his workers, agents and supporters with the consent of respondent No. 1, were carrying a large number of female voters also.

"(c) That in most of the vehicles, a poster bearing cycle symbol was carried and the workers, agents and supporters of respondent No. 1 with his consent were wearing badges with cycle symbol and as such throughout the polling day, i.e., 26-2-74, the voters were carried,"

Clause (e) of the same paragraph stated that full particulars of various vehicles hired, procured and used along with the places and the polling stations at which and the person by whom they were used were given in Sch. III in the petition, to which was later on added by amendment Schedule III-A . Items-2 and 5 of Schedule III and the whole of Schedule III-A contain full particulars of the corrupt practice and found to have been proved and are extracted below for facility of reference.

SCHEDULE III

"Particulars of hiring and procuring of the