SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(SC) 685

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. M. LODHA, CJI., KURIAN JOSEPH, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, JJ.
Anvar P.V. – Appellants
Versus
P.K. Basheer and others – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4226 OF 2012
Decided On : 18-09-2014

Important Point—Charge of corrupt practice is substantially akin to a criminal charge.

Headnote:(A) The Representation of the People Act, 1951—Section 100(1)(b) read with Section 123(2)(ii) and (4)—Election petition—Corrupt practice by elected candidate—High Court dismissed election petition holding that corrupt practices pleaded in petition are not proved—In grounds for declaring election to be void under Section 100(1)(b), court must form opinion that any corrupt practice has been committed by returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with consent of a returned candidate or his election agent—Speeches, songs and announcements were recorded using other instruments and by feeding them into a computer, CDs were made therefrom which were produced in court without due certification—Those CDs cannot be admitted in evidence since mandatory requirements of Section 65B of Evidence Act are not satisfied—On charges relating to commission of corrupt practices, direct proof on consent is very difficult—Consent is to be inferred from circumstances—However, if an inference on consent from circumstances is to be drawn, circumstances put together should form a chain which should lead to a reasonable conclusion that candidate or his agent has given consent for publication of objectionable material—Not only that there are missing links, evidence available is also not cogent and credible on consent aspect of respondent—There is no case for appellant that any corrupt practice has been committed in interest of returned candidate by an agent other than his election agent—Appeal dismissed. (Paras 24, 30, 31, 34, 39 and 40)

       (1984) 1 SCC 390; AIR 1960 SC 1217; (1984) 4 SCC 649; (1975) 4 SCC 769; (2009) 10 SCC 239—Relied.

       (B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872—Sections 63 and 65 read with Sections 65A and 65B—Electrnic records—Admissibility in evidence—Special provisions on evidence relating to electronic record shall be governed by procedure prescribed under Section 65B of Evidence Act—That is a complete code in itself—Being a special law, general law under Sections 63 and 65 has to yield—Sections 63 and 65 have no application in case of secondary evidence by way of electronic record—Same is wholly governed by Sections 65A and 65B. (Paras 19 and 22)

       (2005) 11 SCC 600—Partly Overruled.

       (C) Words and Phrases—Connive—Connive’ means to secretly allow a wrong doing where as ‘consent’ is permission.—Proof required is of consent for publication and not connivance on publication—It is not true to say that ‘connivance’ invariably and necessarily means or amounts to consent, irrespective of context of given situation—Two cannot be equated—Consent implies that parties are ad idem—Connivance does not necessarily imply that parties are of one mind. (Para 30)

       Facts of Case—What is nature and manner of admission of electronic records, is one of principal issues arising for consideration in this appeal. By impugned judgment, High Court dismissed election petition holding that corrupt practices pleaded in petition are not proved and election cannot be set aside under Section 100(1)(b) of RP Act.

       Findings of Court—Having regard to admissible evidence available on record, though for different reasons, we find it extremely difficult to hold that appellant has founded and proved corrupt practice under Section 100(1)(b) read with Section 123(4) of the RP Act against first respondent. In the result, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.

       

Judgement Key Points

How to determine whether a publication by a candidate or his agent with consent constitutes corrupt practices under Section 123(4) of the RP Act?

What is the admissibility standard for electronic records under the IT Act and the Evidence Act, including the role of Section 65B and the necessity of certificates?

What is the standard of proof required to establish corrupt practices in a election petition, and how does that compare to civil vs criminal standards?


JUDGMENT

KURIAN, J.-

1. Construction by plaintiff, destruction by defendant. Construction by pleadings, proof by evidence; proof only by relevant and admissible evidence. Genuineness, veracity or reliability of the evidence is seen by the court only after the stage of relevancy and admissibility. These are some of the first principles of evidence. What is the nature and manner of admission of electronic records, is one of the principal issues arising for consideration in this appeal.

2. In the general election to the Kerala Legislative Assembly held on 13.04.2011, the first respo ndent was declared elected to 034 Eranad Legislative Assembly Constituency. He was a candidate supported by United Democratic Front. The appellant contested the election as an independent candidate, allegedly supported by the Left Democratic Front. Sixth respondent was the chief election agent of the first respondent. There were five candidates. Appellant was second in terms of votes; others secured only marginal votes. He sought to set aside the election under Section 100(1)(b) read with Section 123(2)(ii) and (4) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the RP Act’) and also sought for a declaration in favour of the appellant. By order dated 16.11.2011, the High Court held that the election petition to set aside the election on the ground under Section 123(2)(a)(ii) is not maintainable and that is not pursued before us either. Issues (1) and (2) were on maintainability and those were answered as preliminary, in favour of the appellant. The contested issues read as follows:

“1) xxx xxx xxx

2) xxx xxx xxx

3) Whether Annexure A was published and distributed in the constituency on 12.4.2011 as alleged in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the election petition and if so whether Palliparamban Aboobacker was an agent of the first respondent?

4) Whether any of the statements in Annexure A publication is in relation to the personal character and conduct of the petitioner or in relation to the candidature and if so whether its alleged publication will amount to commission of corrupt practice under section 123(4) of The Representation of the People Act?

xxx xxx xxx

6) Whether the Flex Board and posters mentioned in Annexures D, E and E1 were exhibited on 13.4.2011 as part of the election campaign of the first respondent as alleged in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the election petition and if so whether the alleged exhibition of Annexures D, E and E1 will amount to commission of corrupt practice under section 123(4) of The Representation of the People Act?

7) Whether announcements mentioned in paragraph 8 of the election petition were made between 6.4.2011 and 11.4.2011, as alleged in the above paragraph, as part of the election propaganda of the first respondent and if so whether the alleged announcements mentioned in paragraph 8 will amount to commission of corrupt practice as contemplated under section 123(4) of The Representation of the People Act?

8) Whether the songs and announcements alleged in paragraph 9 of the election petition were made on 8.4.2011 as alleged, in the above paragraph, as part of the election propaganda of the first respondent and if so whether the publication of the alleged announcements and songs will amount to commission of corrupt practice under section 123(4) of The Representation of People Act?

9) Whether Mr. Mullan Sulaiman mentioned in paragraph 10 of the election petition did make a speech on 9.4.2011 as alleged in the above paragraph as part of the election propaganda of the first respondent and if so whether the alleged speech of Mr. Mullan Sulaiman amounts to commission of corrupt practice under section 123(4) of The Representation of the People Act?

10) Whether the announcements mentioned in paragraph 11 were made on 9.4.2011, as alleged in the above paragraph, as part of the election propaganda of the first respondent and if so whether the alleged announcements mentioned in paragraph 11 of the election petiti










































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top