Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Rohit Arya, JJ.
Balmukund Singh Gautam v. Smt. Neena Vikram Verma
Election Petition No. 23 of 2014 (Indore); Decided on 18.6.2018
(2) Representation of the People Act, 1951 -- Ss. 83 and 123 -- person challenging election on ground of corrupt practice -- cannot take liberty of making any vague or reckless allegation, without establishing correctness thereof by leading cogent evidence -- before Court proceeds to investigate such allegations, it must be satisfied that material facts have been stated along with full particulars of corrupt practice, duly supported by affidavit -- Court is also required to assess quality of evidence critically as standard of proof of such allegation is the same as charge of fraud in criminal case. AIR 1965 SC 677 and AIR 1994 SC 173 followed. [Para 21
(3) Representation of the People Act, 1951 -- Ss. 83 and 123(4) -- Evidence Act, 1872 -- S.3 -- concept, meaning and scope of 'statement of fact' as used in section 123 (4) of RP Act -- 'statement of fact' can be proved to be 'false' only if it relates to event which has happened and not to a hypothetical future possibility or mere conjecture of likelihood in future - further, 'it should be reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's election' -- this further requirement cannot be satisfied by merely stating likely apprehension. AIR 1994 SC 678 followed. [Para 22
(4) Representation of the People Act, 1951 -- Ss. 83 and 123 -- Civil P. C., 1908 -- O.6 R.15 (4) -- pleadings totally evasive and lacking in material particulars -- no evidence admissible without pleading in election petition -- in affidavit submitted under O.6 R.15 (4), CPC, contents stated to be based upon personal knowledge of petitioner -- in statement, he clearly stated that he was not personally present -- source of information of facts pleaded not disclosed in election petition. AIR 1996 SC 826 followed. [Paras 22 & 24
(5) Representation of the People Act, 1951 -- S.123 -- mere criticism of judgment of High Court in public speech -- not tantamount to corrupt practice. [Para 23
(6) Representation of the People Act, 1951 -- S.123 (4) -- statement that he 'will capture the bhoot and bury it in the village Lebad where the petitioner resides' -- even prima facie does not suggest that it is based upon past event relatable to personal character or conduct of petitioner
-- word 'bhoot' in fact and in effect is hypothetical in nature and not related to any past event -- mere conjecture cannot pass test of 'reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's election' -- statement cannot tantamount to corrupt practice. [Para 23
(7) Representation of the People Act, 1951 -- Ss. 83, 100 (2) (a) and 123 -- for corrupt practice alleged against a third person, consent of candidate or his/her election agent is mandatory -- respondent not present in meeting at time of alleged speech of third person -- election of respondent/returned candidate cannot be held void. [Para 24
(8) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 65B -- person issuing certificates -- did not prepare the electronic record -- certificates not in conformity with requirements of S.65B -- not admissible. AIR 1986 SC 3 and (2015)1 SCC (Cri) 24 followed. [Paras 24 to 26
(9) Representation of the People Act, 1951 -- Ss. 83 and 123 (iii) -- alleged that votes were solicited in the name of Devi Saraswati with consent of respondent -- stated by petitioner that CD of recording of speech prepared by one journalist -- copy of CD marked as annexure and claimed to be integral part of petition but not produced along with election petition -- said journalist not examined -- transcription made by petitioner and alleged publication of news item in newspaper are of no consequence -- categorically stated in report submitted by In-charge, Video Observation Team that CD did not contain said speech -- report remained unchallenged -- no clinching evidence on record to suggest that said speech was with knowledge and consent of respondent -- difficult to hold that alleged speech is tantamount to corrupt practice. [Para 27
(10) Representation of the People Act, 1951 -- Ss.83 and 123 -- no public meeting organized or held by respondent -- meeting was of party workers at their office wherein few workers participated -- neither journalists nor public invited -- no pleading and evidence about undue influence on any voter in context of exercising voting rights -- respondent not seen at meeting -- no oral or documentary evidence that speaker appointed as election agent of respondent -- CD not admissible in evidence for want of compliance in terms of sub-section (2) of section 65B of the Act -- difficult to hold that allegations, firstly for lack of material particulars and secondly for want of source of information, tantamount to corrupt practice. [Para 28
(11) Representation of the People Act, 1951 -- Ss. 83 and 123 -- election petition filed with vague or reckless allegations of corrupt practice without foundation -- sought to be proved by evasive, inaccurate and inadmissible evidence -- kept pending for four years only for political survival in public eye at cost of precious time of Court -- election petition dismissed with cost of Rs.1,00,000/- payable to respondent. [Para 30
¼1½ yksd izfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e] 1951 && fdlh vH;FkhZ ds oS;fäd 'khy vFkok vkpj.k ls lacaf/kr vfHkdfFkr rF; ds dFku dks /kkjk 123¼4½ dh fjf"V esa ykus ds fy, frgjh vis{kk dh iwfrZ gksuk vko';d gS && (i) rF; dk dFku feF;k Fkk && (ii) dFku djus okys vH;FkhZ dks mlds feF;k gksus dk fo'okl Fkk vFkok mlds lR; gksus dk fo'okl ugha Fkk & (iii) ,slk dFku ml vH;FkhZ ds fuokZpu dh laHkkO;rkvksa dks izfrdwyr% izHkkfor djus ds fy, ;qfä;qär% izdfYir Fkk ftlds fo#) og dFku fd;k x;k & blds vfrfjDr] vkijkf/kd eu% fLFkfr dk rRo vko';d gS & /kkjk 123¼4½ ds v/khu mica/k vkUo;fd Kku ds fl)kar dks Lohdkj ugha djrkA ¼iSjk 21 ¼2½ yksd izfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e] 1951 && /kkjk 83 rFkk 123 && Hkz"V vkpj.k ds vk/kkj ij fuokZfpr vk{ksfir djus okyk O;fä && rdZiw.kZ lk{; is'k dj mldh lR;rk LFkkfir fd, fcuk] vLi"V vFkok ykijokghiw.kZ vfHkdFku ugha dj ldrk && ,ls vfHkdFkuksa dk vUos"k.k djus ls iwoZ] U;k;ky; dk lek/kku gksuk vko';d gS fd Hkz"V vkpj.k dh iw.kZ fof'kf"V;ksa ds lkFk] lE;d~:is.k 'kiFki= ls lefFkZr] rkfRod rF;ksa dk dFku fd;k x;k gS && lk{; dh xq.koÙkk dk lekykspukRed fu/kkZj.k Hkh U;k;ky; ls visf{kr gS D;kasfd ,sls vfHkdFku ds lcwr dk ekunaM ogha gS tks nkafMd ekeys esa diV ds vkjksi dk gksrk gSA , vkb vkj 1965 ,l lh 677 rFkk , vkb vkj 1994 ,l lh 173 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 21 ¼3½ yksd izfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e] 1951 && /kkjk 83 rFkk 123¼4½ && lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 3 && yksd izfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 123¼4½ esa ;Fkk iz;qä ^rF; ds dFku* dh ladYiuk] vFkZ vkSj O;kfIr && ^rF; dk dFku* dsoy rc feF;k lkfcr fd;k tk ldrk gS ;fn og ml ?kVuk ls lacaf/kr gks tks ?kV pqdh gS] fdlh ifjdfYir Hkkoh laHkkO;rk vFkok Hkfo"; esa fdlh laHkkouk dh vVdy ek= ls ugha && blds vfrfjDr] og ^ml vH;FkhZ ds fuokZpu dh laHkkO;rkvksa ij izfrdwy izHkko Mkyus ds fy, ;qfä;qä :i ls izdfYir* gksuk pkfg, && vfrfjDr vis{kk dsoy laHkkO; vk'kadk ds dFku ls iwjh ugha dh tk ldrhA , vkb vkj 1994 ,l lh 678 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 22 ¼4½ yksd izfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e] 1951 && /kkjk 83 rFkk 123 && flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk&6 fu&15¼4½ && vfHkopu iw.kZr% okXNyiw.kZ rFkk muesa rkfRod fof'kf"V;ksa dk vHkko && fuokZpu vthZ esa vfHkopu ds fcuk lk{; xzká ugha && flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ds vk&6 fu&15 ds v/khu fn, x, 'kiFki= esa dfFkr fd varoZLrq vthZnkj dh O;fDrxr tkudkjh ij vk/kkfjr && dFku esa mlus Li"V dgk fd og O;fäxr :i ls mifLFkr ugha Fkk && vfHkopfur rF;ksa dh tkudkjh dk lzksr fuokZpu vthZ esa izdV ugha gqvkA , vkb vkj 1996 ,l lh 826 vuqlfjr ¼iSjk 22 ,oa 24 ¼5½ yksd izfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e] 1951 && /kkjk 123 && lkoZtfud Hkk"k.k esa mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dh vkykspuk ek= Hkz"V vkpj.k dh dksfV esa ughaA ¼iSjk 23 ¼6½ yksd izfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e] 1951 && /kkjk 123¼4½ && dFku fd og ^Hkwr idM+ dj xzke ysckn esa xkM+ nsxk tgk¡ vthZnkj jgrk gS* && izFken`"V~;k Hkh bafxr ugha djrk fd og ,slh foxr ?kVuk ij vk/kkfjr gS ftls vthZnkj ds oS;fäd 'khy vFkok vkpj.k ls lacf/kr fd;k tk lds && 'kCn ^Hkwr* oLrqr% vkSj O;ogkjr% ifjdfYir izÑfr dk gS rFkk fdlh foxr ?kVuk ls lacaf/kr ugha gS && ek= vVdy] ^ml vH;FkhZ ds fuokZpu dh laHkkO;rkvksa ij izfrdwy izHkko Mkyus ds fy, ;qfä;qä :i ls izdfYir* gksus dh ijh{kk esa mÙkh.kZ ugha gks ldrh && dFku Hkz"V vkpj.k dh dksfV esa ugha vk ldrkA¼iSjk 23 ¼7½ yksd izfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e] 1951 && /kkjk 83] 100¼2½¼d½ rFkk 123 && fdlh ijO;fDr ds fo#) vfHkdfFkr Hkz"V vkpj.k ds fy, vH;FkhZ vFkok mlds fuokZpu vfHkdrkZ dh lEefr vkKkid gS && ijO;fDr ds vfHkdfFkr Hkk"k.k ds le; izR;FkhZ cSBd esa mifLFkr ugha && izR;FkhZ@fuokZfpr vH;FkhZ dk fuokZpu 'kwU; vfHkfu/kkZfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼iSjk 23 ¼8½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 65[k && izek.ki= tkjh djus okys O;fä us && bysDVªkWfud vfHkys[k rS;kj ugha fd;k && izek.k i= 65[k dh vis{kkvksa ds vuq:i ugha &&xzká ughaA , vkb vkj 1986 ,l lh 3 rFkk ¼2015½1 ,l lh lh ¼fØ&½ 24 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 24 ls 26 ¼9½ yksd izfrfuf/kRo] vf/kfu;e] 1951 && /kkjk 83] 123¼3½ && vfHkdfFkr fd izR;FkhZ dh lEefr ls nsoh ljLorh ds uke ij erksa dh ;kpuk dh xbZ && vthZnkj dk dFku dh Hkk"k.k ds /oU;adu dh lhMh fdlh i=dkj }kjk rS;kj dh xbZ && lh Mh dh izfr mikca/k ds :i esa fpfgUr dj vthZ dk vfHkUu vax crkbZ xbZ ijarq fuokZpu vthZ ds lkFk is'k ugha && mä i=dkj ijhf{kr ugha && vthZnkj }kjk cukbZ xbZ vuqfyfi rFkk lekpkj i= esa lekpkj dk vfHkdfFkr izdk'ku egRoghu && izHkkjh] ohfM;ks laizs{k.k ny }kjk fn, x, izfronsu esa lqLi"Vr% dfFkr fd lhMh esa mä Hkk"k.k ugha Fkk && izfrosnu vuk{ksfir jgk && vfHkys[k ij ;g bafxr djus dk vdkV~; lk{; ugha fd mä Hkk"k.k izR;FkhZ dh tkudkjh vkSj lEefr ls Fkk && ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djuk dfBu fd vfHkdfFkr Hkk"k.k Hkz"V vkpj.k dh dksfV dk gSA ¼iSjk 27 ¼10½ yksd izfrfuf/kRo] vf/kfu;e] 1951 && /kkjk 83] rFkk 123 && izR;FkhZ }kjk dksbZ lkoZtfud lHkk la;ksftr ;k vk;ksftr ugha dh xbZ && ny ds dk;ZdrkZvksa dh muds dk;kZy; ij cSBd Fkh ftlesa dqN dk;ZdrkZvksa us Hkkx fy;k && u i=dkj vkeaf=r u turk && erkf/kdkj ds iz;ksx ds lanHkZ esa fdlh ernkrk ij vlE;d~ izHkko ds ckjs esa vfHkopu vkSj lk{; ugha && izR;FkhZ dks cSBd esa ns[kk ugha x;k && ekSf[kd ;k nLrkosth lk{; ugha fd oäk] izR;FkhZ dk fuokZpu vfHkdrkZ fu;qä fd;k x;k Fkk && lk{; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 65[k ¼2½ ds vuqikyu ds vHkko esa lhMh lk{; esa xzká ugha && izFker% rkfRod fof'kf"V;ksa ds vHkko esa vkSj f}rh;r% tkudkjh ds lzksr ds vHkko esa] vfHkfu/kkZfjr djuk dfBu fd vfHkdFku Hkz"V vkpj.k dh dksfV ds gSaA ¼iSjk 27 ¼11½ yksd izfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e] 1951 && /kkjk 83] rFkk 123 && fuokZpu vthZ fcuk fdlh vk/kkj ds] Hkz"V vkpj.k ds vLi"V ;k ykijokghiw.kZ vfHkdFkuksa ds lkFk Qkby && okXNyiw.kZ] xyr vkSj vxzká lk{; }kjk lkfcr djuk pkgh xbZ && U;k;ky; ds cgqewY; le; dh dher ij yksd n`f"V esa jktuhfrd :i ls thfor jgus ds fy, pkj o"kZ yafcr j[kh xbZ && izR;aFkhZ dks lans; #- 1]00]000@& ds ifjO;; ds lkFk fuokZpu vthZ [kkfjtA ¼iSjk 30
Arya, J. -- 1. This election petition, under section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short 'the R.P.Act'), has been filed calling in question the election of 201-Dhar (General) Assembly Constituency against the returned candidate with the symbol of 'Lotus' ('Kamal'); a candidate of the Bhartiya Janta Party, a recognized national political party, by the defeated candidate with the symbol of 'Hand' ('Panja'); Indian National Congress', a recognized national political party having lost with a margin of 11,482. Out of the total votes polled i.e. 171354, the returned candidate poled 85624 votes whereas the defeated candidate poled 74142 votes as per the certificate issued by the Returning Officer in form 21-E (Annexure P-1).
2. My predecessor (Shri Justice Alok Verma) has framed six issues with sub-issues under issues No. (1) and (2) vide order dated 27.8.2015. Vide order dated 8.3.2018, this Court has recorded that both the parties have addressed the Court on issues No. 2(e), 2(f) and 2(h) only as regards the corrupt practices as defined under section 123(2) and 123(4) of the R.P.Act, referable to paragraphs 9(k), 9(l) and 9(n) of the election petition and had given up other issues framed by this Court on 27.8.2015. As such, for ready reference issues No. 2(e), 2(f) and 2(h) are reproduced below :
“(i) Whether, in a public meeting held on 13.11.13, husband of respondent Vikram Verma used derogatory language against the High Court?
(ii) Whether, in the public meeting held on 13.11.2013, Ashok Jain gave a speech to incite Hindu feeling of voters?
(iii) Whether, on 17.11.2013, a meeting was organized at BJP office at Dhar in which election agent of respondent Antu @ Anant Agrawal asked the BJP workers to use all legal and illegal means for procuring votes in favour of respondent?”
Paragraph 9(k) referable to issue 2(e) :
3. Shri A.M.Mathur, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner referring to contents thereof contends that a public meeting was organized by the respondent at 3.00 p.m. on 13.11.2013 at Rajwada Chowk, Dhar. The President of BJP, Rajnath Singh was the chief speaker. The stage of the meeting was shared by respondent in person and her husband, the noticee Vikram Verma alongwith other persons. Vikram Verma in his public address had criticized the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court with a remark that 'Gods do not sit in the High Court' and that main points were left out. He had further spoken that he will capture 'a bhoot' and bury it in the village Lebad; a village where the petitioner resides.' According to him, the aforesaid remark was referable to the petitioner which was with a calculated mind to malign his election prospects. Besides, the former statement was contemptuous to the Majesty of Law of the High Court. A complaint (Annexure P-18) was immediately made to the observer by Gangaram Joshi (PW17). The comments were called from the Video Observation Team through letter annexed as P-19 and the report in that behalf was submitted as Annexure P-20. As such, this act of the respondent and her husband is a corrupt practice within the meaning of section 123(4) of the R.P.Act.
To bolster and substantiate his submission, learned senior counsel has referred to paragraph 8 of the statement of PW1 Balmukundsingh Gautam wherein it is stated that he had applied for obtaining certified copy of the compliant vide exhibit P-6 which is admissible in evidence. However, an objection has been raised by the respondent that the same was not admissible in evidence for the reason that the Tahsildar was not the Returning Officer who had issued the certified copy and, therefore, not competent to issue the same. The objection so recorded has been ordered to be dealt with at the time of hearing. The report was submitted by the In-charge, Video Observation Team to the Returning Officer vide exhibit P-7. Similar objection was raised in that behalf as well.
Learned senior counsel has also referred to
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
