Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.K.Goswami : M.Fazal Ali Syed
D.Venkata Reddy
Versus
R.Sultan
Case No. : 1170 of 1973
Date of Decision : 2/24/76
Advocates Appeared: Markandeyalu Vimla : Rangam A.V. : Rao G.Narayana : Reddy C.Sadasiva : Reddy P.Bassi : Shankar B.Shiv : Subhashini A. : Venkatramaiah K.
Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Section 116A, 123, 123 (1) (A), (4), (3), (3-A), 81, 100 (1), 101 (1), 86(5) and 123 - Election - Clumsy Pamphlet - Payment of Bribe - Appellant applied for Congress ticket - Anantapur recommended names of R. Sultan, Papa Sab and Ramachandra Goud but did not recommend name of appellant - Andhra Pradesh Provincial Congress Committee, however, recommended name of R. Sultan first respondent alone - This recommendation appears to have been accepted by All India Congress Committee which gave Congress ticket to first respondent R. Sultan as a result thereof other candidates, namely, appellant decided to contest election as independent candidates, whereas Venkata Naidu got Congress ticket - Polling to aforesaid constituency was held and counting was done result was also declared - Appellant was declared elected having secured votes polled in constituency - Respondent No. 1 lost by a narrow margin of 471 votes - Whether they are true or not, they do not appear to be very relevant for purpose of issue No. 7 - Whether it is an offer of bribe or it is a payment of actual bribe - Whether first respondent committed a corrupt practice by issuing a pamphlet to create ill-feelings among voters on religious grounds - Whether said persons distributed pamphlet with consent of first respondent - Whether publication of false statements was by candidate himself or by his agents and since what has been pleaded is only distribution of pamphlet by appellant/candidate alone and not by his agents or workers with his consent - Whether pamphlet was in existence before or during elections - Whether pamphlet had come into existence either before or during elections - Whether a person like appellant could go to extent of publishing such a clumsy pamphlet - Whether appellant could have taken risk of offending entire Muslim community and a sizable S. of Hindus also by publishing and circulating pamphlet - Whether or not appellant took out a procession - Whether appellant personally distributed any pamphlet to anybody at Yadiki as alleged by contesting respondent - Whether persons to whom pamphlets were given were Muslims or not - Whether pamphlet in question was printed by appellant or distributed by him personally – Held, This is also a matter of pure speculation - Various persons react to different circumstances in different ways and if a person is motivated or animated by a particular purpose he can go to any length to achieve his end - Therefore mere fact that contesting respondent belonged to Muslim community cannot by itself exclude possibility of his having circulated pamphlet Ext. A-1 and printing it so as to use it as a powerful instrument against appellant by putting blame on him - Contesting respondent undoubtedly owns a press and if he wanted to do such a thing there was nothing to prevent him from achieving his object - On a careful consideration of entire evidence and circumstances of case, whether Court apply standard of proof by virtue of benefit of doubt or that of preponderance of probabilities conclusion is inescapable that contesting respondent has failed to prove his allegations regarding payment of bribe contained in issue No. 7 and distribution of pamphlet by appellant personally - Learned Judge in accepting case of contesting respondent overlooked certain fundamental features, inherent improbabilities, intrinsic infirmities, weak and interested nature of evidence and other facts, which Court have fully elaborated in Court judgment - Court, therefore, hold that appellant was not guilty of any corrupt practices as alleged by contesting respondent - In these circumstances Court is not in a position to allow judgment of High court to stand - Order of Single Judge declaring election of appellant void and setting aside same is hereby quashed - Appeal allowed.
FAZAL Ali, J.
(1) THIS is an appeal under S. 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by Venkata Reddy who was respondent No. 1 in the election petition filed before the High court of Andhra Pradesh. The appeal arises out of the general elections held to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly in March 1972 from Gooty assembly constituency. The appellant Venkata Reddy, T. Papa Sab and R. Sultan (the election petitioner before the High court) applied for Congress ticket for the Gooty assembly constituency seat. The District Congress Committee, Anantapur recommended the names of R. Sultan, Papa Sab and Ramachandra Goud but did not recommend the name of the appellant. The Andhra Pradesh Provincial Congress Committee, however, recommended the name of R. Sultan the first respondent alone. This recommendation appears to have been accepted by the All India Congress Committee which gave the Congress ticket to the first respondent R. Sultan on 1/02/1972 as a result thereof the other candidates, namely, the appellant Venkata Reddy, T. Papa Sab and Venkata Subbayya decided to contest the election as independent candidates, whereas Venkata Naidu got the Congress (0) ticket. The polling to the aforesaid constituency was held on 8/03/1972 and counting was done on 12/03/1972 on which date the result was also declared. The appellant was declared elected having secured 19,974 votes polled in the constituency. Respondent No. 1 R. Sultan lost by a narrow margin of 471 votes having polled 19,503 votes. The other respondents were accordingly defeated and we are not at all concerned with their cases.
(2) RESPONDENT No. I R. Sultan filed an election petition before the Andhra Pradesh High court on 20/04/1972 which was assigned to Sriramulu, J. who tried the election petition. For the sake of convenience we shall refer Venkata Reddy as the appellant and R. Sultan who was the election petitioner before the High court as the contesting respondent. The contesting respondent sought to challenge the election of the appellant on various grounds and alleged that the appellant had indulged in a large number of corrupt practices as envisaged by S. 123 of the Act, namely, bribery, corruption, communal propaganda, impersonation of voters, excessive expenses, improper rejection and reception of ballot papers etc. The contesting respondent also filed an application before the trial Judge that as number of irregularities were committed in the rejection and acceptance of the ballot papers, the court should allow scrutiny and recounting of the votes. The court, after considering the evidence of the parties on this point, eventually allowed the application, but ultimately it held that even if there was any irregularity it had not caused any material change in the election. The petition was resisted by the appellant who emphatically denied all the allegations made by the contesting respondent and submitted that the elections were free and fair and that the appellant had not indulged in any corrupt practice at all. The appellant further pleaded that all the allegations made by the contesting respondent were figment of his imagination and were totally untrue. On the question of corrupt practices, particularly the distribution of objectionable pamphlets, as the contesting respondent had not given full and material particulars in his election petition, the appellant filed an application on 7/07/1972 praying that the court may direct the contesting respondent to file better particulars by way of amendment. The court directed the contesting respondent to supply fresh particulars and accordingly the contesting respondent filed his application for amendment by incorporating material particulars on 29/08/1972. On the pleadings of the parties the High court framed as many as 35 issues in the present case. After taking the evidence of the parties the court decided all the issues against the contesting re
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
