Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : N.KUMARAYYA, P.SATYANARAYANA RAJU
Jayalakshmidevamma - Appellant
Versus
Janardhan Reddy - Respondent
Decided On : 09-25-58
ELECTION LAW - CORRUPT PRACTICE - TRANSPORTATION OF VOTERS - BURDEN OF PROOF - SECTION 123 (5) OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951 - SCOPE AND INTERPRETATION - SECTION 100 (1) (B) AND (D) (II) OF THE ACT - DISTINCTION - CANVASSING BY MINISTERS - WHETHER CORRUPT PRACTICE - SECTION 123 (2) (B) OF THE ACT - INTERPRETATION - THREATS BY CHIEF MINISTER - WHETHER UNDUE INFLUENCE - SECTION 123 (2) OF THE ACT - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
In an election petition, the respondent alleged that the appellant, a candidate in the election, had committed corrupt practices by arranging transport for the conveyance of voters to the polling stations, that she was a partner of a contractor for the supply of goods to the State Government, that village officers canvassed support for her, and that the Chief Minister and the Minister for Irrigation canvassed support for her and offered inducements to the voters and also threatened them.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal found that the appellant had not committed any corrupt practices and dismissed the election petition. On appeal, the High Court held that the Tribunal's finding that the appellant had not committed the corrupt practice of transporting voters was correct, as the respondent had failed to discharge the burden of proof. The Court also held that the Tribunal's finding that the appellant was not a partner of the contractor was correct. The Court further held that the Tribunal's finding that the village officers did not canvass support for the appellant was correct. The Court also held that the Tribunal's finding that the Chief Minister and the Minister for Irrigation had canvassed support for the appellant but that the respondent had not established the use of "undue influence" as contemplated by Section 123 (2) of the Act was correct.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant had committed the corrupt practice of transporting voters to the polling stations. 2. Whether the appellant was a partner of a contractor for the supply of goods to the State Government. 3. Whether village officers canvassed support for the appellant. 4. Whether the Chief Minister and the Minister for Irrigation canvassed support for the appellant and offered inducements to the voters and also threatened them.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The burden of proof lies on the respondent to establish the corrupt practice of transporting voters. 2. The Tribunal's finding that the appellant was not a partner of the contractor was correct. 3. The Tribunal's finding that the village officers did not canvass support for the appellant was correct. 4. The Tribunal's finding that the Chief Minister and the Minister for Irrigation had canvassed support for the appellant but that the respondent had not established the use of "undue influence" as contemplated by Section 123 (2) of the Act was correct.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed and the election petition was dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal, under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People act, 1951, against the order of the Election Tribunal, Secunderabad, setting aside the election of the appellant to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly, from the Alampur Constituency.
( 2 ) THERE was a general election in January-March, 1957, to the Andhra Pradesh legislative Assembly from the single member constituency of Alampur in mahahoobnagar district. The appellant and the respondent fought the election in a straight contest. The polling took place on 25-2-1957, and en 13-3-1957, the appellant was declared duly elected, she having secured the largest number of votes. The actual number of votes secured by the contestants is not available in the record, but we hava been informed by counsel that 13,345 votes were cast for the appellant and 13,267 votes, for the respondent.
( 3 ) ON 27-4-1957, the respondent herein filed a petition under Sections 80 to 84 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the act) assailing the validity of the appellants election on the following grounds :1. The election was vitiated by non-compliance with and non-observance of certain provisions of the Constitution or the Act and the rules made thereunder. 2. The appellant was on the material date a partner of one J. S. Narayana, who was a contractor for the supply of goods to the State Government, and was thus disqualified for being chosen as a member of the Legislative Assembly. 3. The village Officers of Vallur, Itikak and Ramapurarn canvassed support for the appellant contrary to the provisions of Section 123 (7) of the Act, 4. The Chief Minister and the Minister for Irrigation, Government of Andhra Pradesh, canvassed support for the appellant and offered inducements to the voters and also threatened them. 5. The appellant had arranged transport for the conveyance of voters to the polling stations,
( 4 ) ON 15-7-1957, the appellant filed her written statement denvine these allegations. 4a. On the pleadings the following issues were framed on, 1-9-1957 :i (a ). Were the voters living in the area covered by Harijan Vada as well as Dogarpet excluded from the recent electoral rolls and similarly residents of Konderu village did not find their names in the rolls? If so, what is its effect? (b) Is this Tribunal competent to go into the question of non-inclusion of certain voters in the voters list? 2. Was the respondent (appellant herein) a partner of J. S. Narayana, a contractor for the supply of goods to the State Government, and was thus disqualified for being chosen as a member of the Legislative Assembly? 3. Was the respondent (appellant herein) guilty of corrupt practices detailed in paras 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the petition, namely, whether the village officers canvassed for her and Ministers, Government of Andnra Pradesh, including the Chief Minister, addressed meetings in her favour and she had arranged transport for the conveyance of voters to the polling stations?
( 5 ) ON the first issue, the Tribunal held that some persons, who were qualified to vote were not included in the electoral rolls of Harijan Vada and Dogarpet, but that the omission did not amount to non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. On issue No. 2, it was found that the appellant had advanced monies to J. S. Narayana as a creditor and this did not attract the provisions of Section 7 (d) of the Act. On the first part of issue 3, the finding was that the village officers did not canvass support for the appellant. With regard to the second part of the issue, the Tribunal reached the conclusion that the Chief Minister and the Minister for irrigation of the Government of Andhra Pradesh had canvassed support for the appellant but that the respondent had not established the use of "undue influence" as contemplated by Section 123 (2) of the Act. On the last part of the third issue, it wa
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
