2010 Supreme(SC) 1119

2010 (8) Supreme 1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. M. Panchal and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.
Govind Singh — Appellant
versus
Harchand Kaur — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2719 of 2006
Decided on : 22-11-2010

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. The consequences flowing from the proof of corrupt practice at the election are serious and hence the onus of establishing commission of corrupt practice lies heavily on the person who alleges the same. The onus of proof is not discharged merely on preponderance of probabilities but the standard of proof required is akin to that of proving a criminal or a quasi criminal charge.
2. Allegations relating to the period anterior to the commencement of the candidature cannot be relied upon to establish corrupt practice proprio vigore.
3. Where the appellant in discharge of his official duty distributed, sanctioned, approved or permitted the grant of old age/widow/handicapped pension prior to the filing of his nomination, it could not be construed as indulgence in corrupt practice.

Headnote:Representation of People Act, 1951- Section 116A- Appeal against Judgment and Order of High Court delivered in Election petition as a consequence of which election of appellant, as MLA to Punjab Legislative Assembly was declared void and was set aside –Plea of appellant that election petition in the case at hand was fit to be rejected for want of material facts and material particulars -Respondent categorically stated date, time and place of occurrence of alleged corrupt practice at instance of the appellant and had also given out names of witnesses who were to support election petition filed by respondent- What exactly would be worth of evidence of witnesses relied upon by counsel was a matter to be considered at the appropriate stage during trial, but to contend that election petition lacked in material facts and material particulars due to which election petition filed by respondent was fit to be rejected on the ground of lack of material facts and material particulars, held not legally correct and justified- Contention of appellant that Election petition was fit to be rejected for lack of material facts and material particulars held unsustainable. (Para 40)

        Representation of People Act, 1951- Section 116A- Appeal against Judgment and Order of High Court delivered in Election petition as a consequence of which election of appellant, as MLA to Punjab Legislative Assembly was declared void and was set aside - On a careful analysis of case and counter case of returned candidate and defeated candidate – respondent , it was patently clear that allegation of corrupt practice in regard to distribution of pension could be divided into two parts , first part related to distribution of pension which pertained to the period prior to 12.1.2002 and second part pertained to three dates which was 10/11/12.2.2002 when the appellant was a candidate for the election but was no longer a Minister so as to distribute old age widow/handicapped persons- Even if plea of respondent - election petitioner with regard to allegation of distribution of pension amounting to corrupt practice which pertained prior to the period of January 12, 2002 was taken into consideration, same could not by any legal yardstick or even ordinary prudence would constitute indulgence in corrupt practice by the appellant as he was duly holding the portfolio of Social Security as Minister who had the legal authority to approve distribution of pension as part of his official duty- It was not difficult to infer that the distribution of pension to the eligible persons in the constituency or even outside constituency was part of the discharge of official duty as Minister - It was nobody’s case that this distribution did not lie within the legal domain of Minister who could order distribution of pension to the eligible persons in the area who were either old, handicapped or widow- Hence, distribution of pension to old age/widow/handicapped persons which was ordered or approved ensuring its distribution could not possibly be inferred as an action which could amount to indulgence in corrupt practice- Allegation of corrupt practice on the ground that he had distributed pension in his constituency although he was holding the portfolio of a Social Security Minister upto 12 th January, 2002 held illogical, bereft of reasoning and hence illegal. (Para 43)

        Representation of People Act, 1951- Section 116A- Appeal against Judgment and Order of High Court delivered in Election petition as a consequence of which election of appellant, as MLA to Punjab Legislative Assembly was declared void and was set aside -All the witnesses PWs 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 who could clearly be treated as non-partisan witnesses and were competent to depose as to how the pension applications were sanctioned had not supported the case of respondent that any illegality had been committed by appellant while distributing pension which started from the year 2001 and continued up to March 2002. - In spite of this, High Court had not given any weightage to depositions of these witnesses but had chosen to rely only on the evidence of PW-9 , PW-10 , PW-11 and PW-12 who could clearly be treated as interested witnesses- The depositions of these witnesses clearly stood contradicted by the evidence of PW- 1-Child Development Project Officer, Dhuri who had deposed and stated procedure and the manner in which the application for grant of pension had to be approved- The value of evidence of PW-10 definitely , could not be treated to be more weighty and worthy of credence than the evidence of PW-1-Again even if Anganwadi workers were appointed in the year 2001, same could not clearly be held to be illegal as the appellant was admittedly a Social Security Minister at the relevant time and any appointment made during this period could not be alleged to be indulgence in corrupt practice in order to impress the voters as these appointments were made in the year 2001 much before the appellant became the candidate in the election-No conclusive inference could be drawn that respondent who had secured only third position in election had succeeded in proving the charge of corrupt practice against returned candidate-Impugned judgment and order of High Court set aside-Appeal allowed (Paras 49 to 67)

       Facts of the Case :

        Present Appeal has been filed against Judgment and Order of High Court delivered in Election petition as a consequence of which election of appellant, as MLA to Punjab Legislative Assembly was declared void and was set aside.

       Findings of the Court :

        Respondent categorically stated date, time and place of occurrence of alleged corrupt practice at instance of the appellant and had also given out names of witnesses who were to support election petition filed by respondent. What exactly would be worth of evidence of witnesses relied upon by counsel was a matter to be considered at the appropriate stage during trial, but to contend that election petition lacked in material facts and material particulars due to which election petition filed by respondent was fit to be rejected on the ground of lack of material facts and material particulars, held not legally correct and justified. Contention of appellant that Election petition was fit to be rejected for lack of material facts and material particulars was held unsustainable.

        Even if Anganwadi workers were appointed in the year 2001, same could not clearly be held to be illegal as the appellant was admittedly a Social Security Minister at the relevant time and any appointment made duringthis period could not be alleged to be indulgence in corrupt practice in order toimpress the voters as these appointments were made in the year 2001 much before the appellant became the candidate in the election.No conclusive inference Could be drawn that respondent who had secured only third position in election had succeeded in proving the charge of corrupt practice against returned candidate. Impugned judgment and order of High Court was set aside.Appeal was allowed.

       Result : Appeal allowed.