Back
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
G. C. Das And S. Barman, JJ.
GOKULANANDA PRAHARAJ - Appellant
Versus
JOGESH CHANDRA ROUT AND ANR. - Respondent
M. A. (Election) 8 Of 1958
Decided On : April 30, 1958
ELECTION LAW - CORRUPT PRACTICES - BRIBERY AND UNDUE INFLUENCE - STANDARD OF PROOF - BURDEN OF PROOF - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 123 (1) AND (2) OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951 - ELECTION EXPENSES - MAXIMUM LIMIT - VIOLATION OF SECTION 77 OF THE ACT.
Fact of the Case:
In an election petition, the appellant (Socialist candidate) alleged that the respondent (Congress candidate) had committed bribery and undue influence to secure the withdrawal of an Independent candidate from the contest, thereby influencing the outcome of the election. The appellant also alleged that the Congress candidate had exceeded the prescribed limit of election expenses and had not included certain expenses in the election expenses accounts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations of bribery and undue influence were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also found that the Congress candidate had not utilized the election propaganda machinery of the retired Independent candidate except for the use of a jeep, for which the Congress candidate had paid the expenses. The court further found that the Congress candidate had not exceeded the prescribed maximum limit of election expenses.
Issues: 1. Whether the Congress candidate had committed bribery and undue influence to secure the withdrawal of the Independent candidate from the contest? 2. Whether the Congress candidate had exceeded the prescribed limit of election expenses? 3. Whether the Congress candidate had violated Section 77 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The burden of proof in cases of alleged corrupt practices lies on the petitioner, and the standard of proof is the same as in criminal cases, i.e., the matter requiring proof should be established beyond any reasonable doubt. 2. The promise of a Congress ticket in the next election, as contained in the letter (Ext. 1), did not constitute a promise of gratification within the meaning of the Explanation to Section 123 (1) of the Act. 3. The use of a jeep by the Congress candidate, for which he had paid the expenses, did not amount to utilizing the election propaganda machinery of the retired Independent candidate. 4. The Congress candidate had not exceeded the prescribed maximum limit of election expenses.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
S. BARMAN, J.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from an order of the Election Tribunal, Puri (Shri T. V. Rao, member, Election Tribunal) dismissing the election petition, on contest, against the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the Congress candidate) and ex parte against the respondent No. 2 (hereinater referred to as the Independent candidate ).
( 2 ) THE relevant facts, shortly stated, are these: In the last General Elections, the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Socialist candidate) as well as the respondents 1 and 2 filed their nomination papers from the Banki Constituency (District Cuttack) for being candidate for the Orissa Legislative Assembly. At the scrutiny, an objection was taken on behalf of the Congress candidate to the effect that the Independent candidate was a per on not qualified to stand for the election on the ground that he had an interest in a contract for the supply of goods and performance of services to the Government of Orissa. The said objection was, however, overruled and the nomination paper of the Independent candidate was accepted as valid by the Returning Officer on scrutiny.
( 3 ) SO the contest at the election commenced as. triangular light among the socialist, Congress and the Independent candidates, which, however, ended in a duel as a straight fight between the Socialist and the Congress candidates, as the independent candidate ultimately withdrew from the contest, leaving his remaining two rivals in the field. In the contest, the Socialist candidate was defeated and the Congress candidate was declared elected.
( 4 ) THERE were two opposite versions of the circumstances in which the independent candidate ultimately retired from the contest, which became the main subject-matter of the election petition filed by the defeated Socialist candidate. The admitted facts, over which there was no dispute, were that the Independent candidate was a Purchasing Agent under the Government of Orissa for paddy and he had certain claims against the Government of Orissa in connection with the said contract. In fact, he had lodged a huge claim as against the Government on the said contract. But the Government of Orissa till that time was not paying his claim for reasons with which we are not concerned for the present purpose.
( 5 ) THE polling in the said Banki Constituency was to take place on 25-2-1957. The three candidates, the appellant from the Socialist Party, respondent No. 1 from the congress and respondent. No. 2 as an Independent candidate, were all on electioneering campaign and were working in the field in their own way with their respective organisations. Ten days before the polling was to take place, the independent candidate retired from the contest.
( 6 ) THE main question for decision in the present appeal is under what circumstances the Independent candidate (respondent No. 2) retired from the contest. With regard to his withdrawal, there were two versions--namely, the socialist version and the Congress version. The appellant, Socialist candidate, who filed the election petition calling in question the election of the Congress candidate (respondent no. 1) to the Assembly, in his petition came out with the following story with regard to the Independent candidate's withdrawal. His case in brief was that in the morning of 14-2-1957 at about 8 a. m. the congress with some of his followers approached the Independent candidate and threatened him saying that they would put their entire influence of the Congress ministers to see that his entire claim, due from the Government on the said purchasing Agency contract be rejected unless he would agree to withdraw his candidature from the election. The immediate reaction to such alleged threat was that the Independent candidate refused to withdraw and withstood the threat. Again, on the same day (14-2-1957) in the evening as also the following day, the february 15 morning the Congress candidate and some of his collaborators in the election
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
