Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M. C. Desai and S. N. Sahai, JJ.
BRAJ BHUSHAN - Appellant
Versus
BAJA ANAND BRAHMA SHAH - Respondents
First Appeal 252 Of 1959
Decided On : 01/11/1960
REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT, 1951 - SECTION 123(1)(A), 123(1)(B), 83(1)(B), 90(1), 90(5), 92 - ELECTION PETITION - CORRUPT PRACTICES - STANDARD OF PROOF - BURDEN OF PROOF - HIRING OF CONVEYANCES FOR CARRYING VOTERS - BRIBERY - DISTRIBUTION OF SWEETS TO SCHOOL CHILDREN - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS.
Fact of the Case:
Election petition challenging the election of respondents to the U.P. Vidhan Sabha from Robertsganj Vidhan Sabha Constituency on grounds of corrupt practices. The main allegation was that respondent No. 1, Raja Anand Brahma Shah, hired conveyances to carry voters to and from the polling station, and that he offered bribes to voters in the form of sweets, money, and wearing apparel.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the standard of proof required for establishing a charge of corrupt practice is the same as in criminal cases, and that the burden of proof lies on the petitioner. It found that the petitioners had failed to prove that the conveyances were hired for the purpose of carrying voters, or that respondent No. 1 had given his consent for their employment for that purpose. The court also found that the distribution of sweets to school children and the payment of money to various persons did not constitute bribery, as they were not motivated by the object of inducing voters to vote in a particular way.
Issues: 1. Whether the hiring of conveyances for carrying voters to and from the polling station constituted a corrupt practice under Section 123(1)(b) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. 2. Whether the distribution of sweets to school children and the payment of money to various persons constituted bribery under Section 123(1)(a) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the hiring of conveyances for carrying voters to and from the polling station constituted a corrupt practice under Section 123(1)(b) of the Act only if it was done with the consent of the candidate or his election agent, and that the burden of proving such consent lay on the petitioner. In the present case, the petitioners had failed to prove that respondent No. 1 or his election agent had given their consent for the hiring of the conveyances. 2. The court held that the distribution of sweets to school children and the payment of money to various persons did not constitute bribery under Section 123(1)(a) of the Act, as they were not motivated by the object of inducing voters to vote in a particular way. The court noted that the distribution of sweets was a customary practice in the locality when respondent No. 1 visited, and that the payment of money was made for various legitimate purposes, such as reimbursement of expenses incurred by election workers.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the election petition, holding that the petitioners had failed to prove any of the corrupt practices alleged against respondent No. 1.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of People Act of 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) against the order of an election tribunal dismissing an election petition filed by the appellants.
( 2 ) THIS petition arose out of an election held on the 9th March, 1957, for the U. P. Vidhan Sabha from No. 182 Robertsganj Vidhan Sabha Constituency an the district of Mirzapur. The constituency was a double-member constituency; one seat in the constituency was reserved for a member of the Scheduled Caste and the other seat was a general one. Respondent No. 1, Raja anand Brahma Shah was a candidate for the general seat, while the respondent No. 2, Sobhnath was a candidate for the reserved seat. Both the respondents were seeking election on Jan Sangh tickets and they were allowed the symbol of deepak in that election, though the Raja professes to have been an independent candidate. The third respondent, Sri Sumer Prasad was a scheduled caste candidate for the reserve seat. The appellant, Sri Brijbhushan Lal Misra was a candidate for the general seat, while the other appellant Ram Swarup was one for the reserved seat; both of them were candidates set up by the Congress Party.
( 3 ) THE polling took place on the 9th March 1957 and the results were declared on the 14th march, 1957. The respondents Raja Anand Brahma Shah and Sri Sobhnath were declared duly elected. The appellants preferred an election petition and sent it to the Election Commissioner within the time allowed by law. The Election Commissioner appointed Sri G. D. Sahgal, District judge of Allahabad as an election tribunal and referred the election petition to him for trial. The main prayer contained in the election petition, is that the election of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 be declared void.
( 4 ) NUMEROUS grounds for setting aside the election were put forward in the election petition and they were all denied by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who alone contested the petition. The pleadings gave rise to as many as seven issues. AH the Issues were decided against the appellants and their petition was dismissed by the election tribunal by its judgment dated the 30th June, 1959.
( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has not challenged the findings of the election tribunal on issues Nos. 2, 3, 5 (b), 6 and 7. He has challenged the findings on issues Nos. 1, 4 and 5 (a) only.
( 6 ) AS all the issues pressed relate to the allegations of corrupt practices made against respondent no. 1, before dealing with those allegations I shall first dispose of the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents (sic) that the tribunal took an erroneous view of the onus probandi in holding that the burden of proving such allegations was similar to that of the prosecution in the criminal cases. e. the matter requiring proof should be established beyond any reasonable doubt and in the case of doubt the benefit should go to the respondent.
( 7 ) TWO opinions do not appear to be possible in respect of the standard of proof that is required for establishing a charge for a major corrupt practice. It has been laid down over and over again that a major corrupt practice is more or less of the nature of a criminal charge and strict proof is needed to bring home the charge. The Election Reports are full of such cases. It is not necessary to refer to all of them. By way of an instance reference may be made to the case of Sri Ram v. Mohammad Taqi Hadi, 8 ELR 139 (El. Tr. , Bareilly) where it was said,
"though the procedure to be followed in the trial of election petitions is that laid down in c. P. C. , the standard of proof required to prove corrupt practice is the same as in criminal cases. Suspicion however strong is not sufficient t6 prove such a charge. The evidence whether it is direct or circumstantial must be conclusive and if there is any doubt, the returned candidate should be given the benefit of that doubt".
( 8 ) IN the Case of Harish Chandra v. Tri
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
