# 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 125 ·- ., P.C. THOMAS v. P.M. ISMAIL & ORS - **Citation:** [2009] 14 S.C.R. 125 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2009-09-04 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 5033 of 2006 - **Bench:** D.K. Jain, R.M. Lodha - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/14-addl-s-c-r-125-p-c-thomas-v-p-m-ismail-ors-25200 - **Pages:** 30 ## Headnote ) Representation of the People Act, 1951: ss. 123(3) and (5); 100(1 )(b) - Election petition -Alleging c Corrupt practice by printing and publishing, distributing and circulating by himself, his election agents and workers, notice and calender - High Court setting aside the election holding ~ the allegation proved - On appeal, held: The conduct of the returned candidate amounted to corrupt practice - Case D proved by witnesses. s. 101(b) - Claim of election petitioner and another candidate of the election, to be declared elected, on setting aside of election of returned candidate - Held: Election in the constituency in question having already been conducted, E case becomes infructuous. 'f Election Laws - Charge of corrupt practice - Nature, standard of proof and onus to prove - Held: Such charge under Representation of People Act to be equated with F ... criminal charge - Standard of proof thereof is proof beyond reasonable doubt - The onus lies on the election petitioner - Representation of the People Act, 1950 - Evidence - Standard of proof - Onus to prove. Appeal - First appellate court - Power of- To intetfere G with order of trial court - Held: Supreme Court as a first -appellate court should not interfere with the finding of fact .... unless there are compelling reasons to do so . 125 H 126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. - A Election of the appellant to Lok Sabha was t· challenged by the respondent No.1-election petitioner (the candidate who had got second highest number of votes). It was interalia alleged that appellant had committed corrupt practices as enumerated u/ss. 123(3) B and 123(5) of Representation of the People Act, 1951, and therefore his election was liable to be declared void u/s 100(1)(b) of the Act. He also prayed that he should be declared elected in terms of s.101(b) of the Act. { c High Court sustained the maintainability of the Election Petition on the grounds of corrupt practice falling u/ss. 123(3) and 123(5) of the Act. Electi.on of the appellant was set aside. Hence the Civil Appeal No. 5033 of 2006. !" D Civil Appeal No. 5777 of 2006 was ·preferred by· second respondent therein. He claimed that he having got higher number of votes in the said election, on the election of returned candidate having been set aside, should have been declared as elected, instead of the ·E election petitioner in Civil Appeal No. 5033 of 2006 . Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: F Civil Appeal No. 5033 of 2006: 1. A charge of corrupt practice envisaged by Representation of the People Act, 1951, is to be equated with a criminal charge and the standard of proof thereof G would not be preponderance of probabilities as in a civil action but proof beyond reasonable doubt as in a criminal • trial. If this test is not applied, a very serious prejudice is likely to be caused to the successful candidate whose election would not only be set aside, he may also incur H ·disqualification to contest an election for a certain period 1 ' "· . P.C. THOMAS v. P.M. ISMAIL & ORS. 127 entailing even extinction of his political-career. The onus A lies heavily on the election petitioner to make out a strong case for setting aside an election. [Para 10] [138-A-C] Ch. Razik Ram vs. Ch. Jaswant Singh Chauhan and Ors. 1975 (4) SCC 769; Jeet Mohinder Singh vs. Harminder Singh . B Jassi 1999 (9) SCC 386; Surinder Singh vs. Hardial Singh and Ors. 1985 (1) sec 91, relied on. 2.1. The High Court was satisfied that notice (Ext.P1) and calenda~ (Ext.P2) were distributed by workers of the appellant. Applying the test of common man's C understanding and the effect of the said documents on the mind and feelings of an ordinary average voter, the court agrees with the High Court that the said notice/ statement (Ext.P1) did constitute an appeal to the members of the Christian community, particularly, the D Catholics to seek their votes for the appellant, being a Catholic, on the ground of religion, caste and community. Calendar (Ext.P2} ## Text _Characters 0–39,992 of 57,843. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39992 for what follows._ [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 125 ·- ., P.C. THOMAS A v. P.M. ISMAIL & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5033 of 2006 etc.) SEPTEMBER 4, 2009 B [D.K. JAIN AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] ) Representation of the People Act, 1951: ss. 123(3) and (5); 100(1 )(b) - Election petition -Alleging c Corrupt practice by printing and publishing, distributing and circulating by himself, his election agents and workers, notice and calender - High Court setting aside the election holding ~ the allegation proved - On appeal, held: The conduct of the returned candidate amounted to corrupt practice - Case D proved by witnesses. s. 101(b) - Claim of election petitioner and another candidate of the election, to be declared elected, on setting aside of election of returned candidate - Held: Election in the constituency in question having already been conducted, E case becomes infructuous. 'f Election Laws - Charge of corrupt practice - Nature, standard of proof and onus to prove - Held: Such charge under Representation of People Act to be equated with F ... criminal charge - Standard of proof thereof is proof beyond reasonable doubt - The onus lies on the election petitioner - Representation of the People Act, 1950 - Evidence - Standard of proof - Onus to prove. Appeal - First appellate court - Power of- To intetfere G with order of trial court - Held: Supreme Court as a first -appellate court should not interfere with the finding of fact .... unless there are compelling reasons to do so . 125 H 126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. - A Election of the appellant to Lok Sabha was t· challenged by the respondent No.1-election petitioner (the candidate who had got second highest number of votes). It was interalia alleged that appellant had committed corrupt practices as enumerated u/ss. 123(3) B and 123(5) of Representation of the People Act, 1951, and therefore his election was liable to be declared void u/s 100(1)(b) of the Act. He also prayed that he should be declared elected in terms of s.101(b) of the Act. { c High Court sustained the maintainability of the Election Petition on the grounds of corrupt practice falling u/ss. 123(3) and 123(5) of the Act. Electi.on of the appellant was set aside. Hence the Civil Appeal No. 5033 of 2006. !" D Civil Appeal No. 5777 of 2006 was ·preferred by· second respondent therein. He claimed that he having got higher number of votes in the said election, on the election of returned candidate having been set aside, should have been declared as elected, instead of the ·E election petitioner in Civil Appeal No. 5033 of 2006 . Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: F Civil Appeal No. 5033 of 2006: 1. A charge of corrupt practice envisaged by Representation of the People Act, 1951, is to be equated with a criminal charge and the standard of proof thereof G would not be preponderance of probabilities as in a civil action but proof beyond reasonable doubt as in a criminal • trial. If this test is not applied, a very serious prejudice is likely to be caused to the successful candidate whose election would not only be set aside, he may also incur H ·disqualification to contest an election for a certain period 1 ' "· . P.C. THOMAS v. P.M. ISMAIL & ORS. 127 entailing even extinction of his political-career. The onus A lies heavily on the election petitioner to make out a strong case for setting aside an election. [Para 10] [138-A-C] Ch. Razik Ram vs. Ch. Jaswant Singh Chauhan and Ors. 1975 (4) SCC 769; Jeet Mohinder Singh vs. Harminder Singh . B Jassi 1999 (9) SCC 386; Surinder Singh vs. Hardial Singh and Ors. 1985 (1) sec 91, relied on. 2.1. The High Court was satisfied that notice (Ext.P1) and calenda~ (Ext.P2) were distributed by workers of the appellant. Applying the test of common man's C understanding and the effect of the said documents on the mind and feelings of an ordinary average voter, the court agrees with the High Court that the said notice/ statement (Ext.P1) did constitute an appeal to the members of the Christian community, particularly, the D Catholics to seek their votes for the appellant, being a Catholic, on the ground of religion, caste and community. Calendar (Ext.P2}, does not per se fall within the mischief of Section 123(3) of the Act but taken along with Exhibit P1 does serve as a statement to strengthen the appeal E in notice (Ext.P1). The circulation of the said exhibits amounted to violation of Section 123(3) of the Act. [Para 18] [147-B-D] 2.2. The notice (Ext. P1) does contain a message or an appeal on religious grounds to the Christians/ F Catholics to vote for him for the benefit of the larger interests of the Christians, particularly the Roman Catholics. Indeed, the community members all over understood it as such. This is borne out from the testimony of Pws.-2, PW-6, PW-7, PW-8, PW-9, etc., etc. G who all deposed about the party workers of IFDP, to which party the appellant belonged to, giving notice (Ext.P1) and calendar (Ext.P2) to each one of them as a statement by a known leader of Catholics. The consent H 128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. \ A of the appellant for distribution of the exhibits P1 and P2 .. among the Catholic voters, though not directly proved, was rightly inferred from the fact that his agent who got these printed, paid charges and circulated these. [Para 17 and 18) [146-D-G] B 2.3. To bring the appea-1 within the ambit of Section 123(3) of the Act, it required proof that as per specific ' pleas in the Election Petition, documents Ext.P1 and I Ext.P2 were got printed and published by the appellant c through his election agent, and distributed by the agents or workers/campaigners as alleged. The election petitioner claimed to have no personal knowledge about it and stated that the information about it was supplied to him by the jeep driver, PW-4 and PW-19 who deposed ~ D having supplied the said information to the election petitioner before filing of the election petition.· [Para 19) [147-D-G] 2.4. Three witnesses were produced by the election petitioner in support of his pleas regarding printing and E distribution of Exts. P1 and P2. Viz., PW-4 driver of the jeep; PW-5, claiming to have been temporarily employed ' for a month at the Press to meet the election rush of work; \,,. and PW-6. To counter the evidence of PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6, the appellant produced RW-9, the owner of jeep, F RW-6, owner of the Press and RW-11. The High Court in its judgment under appeal for reasons stated discredited the testimony of RW-9, RW-6 and believed the testimony of PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6. While dealing with the statement of RW-9, the High Court has recorded that his G answers to the questions were generally evasive and his evidence untrustworthy. Nothing was pointed out against • these observations. His testimony carries little conviction as against that-of PW-4. [Paras 20, 21, 22 and 23] [147-GH; 148-A-E; 149-C-D] ., H 2.5. RW-11, the chief election agent of the appellant, P.C. THOMAS v. P.M. ISMAIL & ORS. 129 i In his proof affidavit, denied the allegation made by PWsA 41 5 and 6 and the part allegedly attributed to him by PW5 about the placing of a printing order of Exts.P1 and P2 with the Press and taking delivery of the printed material. According to him, there was no meeting at the alleged time, as on that date and time, he was in the District B Collector's office where scrutiny of nomination papers of ._) the appellant was held. In cross-examination, he stated that his attendance in proceedings for scrutiny of papers is a matter reflected in court records. No evidence about it was produced in support. [Para 24] [150-8-E] c 2.6. There is no ground to differ with the findings recorded by the High Court that the appellant has committed corrupt practice as contemplated u/s. 123(3) • of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 by printing and publishing Annexure I notice and Annexure II photo D calendar and distributing and circulating Annexure I along with Annexure II by himself, his election agent and other agents, his election workers and campaigners with his consent and connivance. [Paras 5 and 24] [133-8-C; 150-G] E 1 Hem Raj vs. Ramji Lal and Anr. 1975 (4) SCC 671, distinguished. Ch. Razik Ram vs. Ch. Jaswant Singh 1975 (4) SCC 769, F held inapplicable. S. Harcharan Singh vs. S. Sajjan Singh and Ors. 1985 (1) sec 370, referred to. 3. There is no question of drawing an adverse G inference against the election petitioner for not examining the author of Exbt P-1 as a witness, particularly when the printing and circulation of offending material (Exts.P1 and P2) has been ~roved by the election petitioner beyond H 130 SUPREfyiE COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A reasonable doubt. [Para 26] [152-C-D] 4. Although being the Court of first appeal, this Court has no inhibition in reversing such a finding. Of fact or law, which has been recorded on a misreading or wrong 8 appreciation of the evidence of the law but ordinarily the appellate court attaches great value to the opinion formed by the Trial judge, more so when the Trial Judge happens to be a High Court Judge; had recorded the evidence and had the benefit of watching the demeanour of C witnesses in forming first hand opinion of them in the process of evaluation of evidence. This Court should not interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the trial court unless there are compelling reasons to do so. The High Court has not committed any grave error in the appreciation and assessment of the evidenr.e on the D point. On consideration of the evidence in its totality, adduced by the election petitioner and the appellant, the court agrees with the High Court. that the election petitioner has adduced cogent, satisfactory and reliable evidence to establish the charge against the appellant u/ E s. 123(3) of the Act. [Paras 28 and 29] [153-0-H; 154-A) Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat vs. Dattaji Raghobaji Meghe 1995 (5) sec 347, relied on. F Civil Appeal No. 5777 of 2006: G H 5. Fresh election to the said parliamentary constituency having already taken place in this year, this appeal is rendered infnfotuous and has to be dismissed on that ground; [Para 33] [154-F-G] Case Law Reference: 1975 (4) sec 769 Relied on. Para 11 held inapplica~le. Para 27 .. J j ;.. ' 1 P.C. THOMAS v. P.M. ISMAIL & ORS. 131 1 1999 (9) sec 386 Relied on. Para 12 A "'!'. 1985 (1) sec 91 Relied on. Para 13 1975 (4) sec 671 Distinguished. Para 26 1985 (1) sec 370 Referred to. Para 27 B 1995 (5) sec 347 Relied on . Para 28 .. CIVIL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5033 Of 2006. From the Judgment & Order dated 31.10.2006 of the High c Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Election Petition No. 1 of 2004. r WITH ~ . ., Civil Appeal No. 5777 of 2006. D T.L.V. Iyer and P.S. Narasimha, Ashok Mathur, Raju Joseph, Anshul Naryana, M.T. George, R. Basanth, P.S. Sudheer, Sindhu T.P., John Mathew, Pradyot Kumar Chakravarty for the appearing parties. E ~ The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ;' D.K. JAIN, J. 1. This appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order dated 31st October, F 2006 rendered by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Election Petition No.1 of 2004, setting aside the election of the appellant to the House of People (Lok Sabha) from 12 H.P. Muvattupuzha Parliamentary Constituency. t2. Election to the said Parliamentary Constituency was G held on 10th May, 2004 and the result was declared on 13th May, 2004. The appellant, who was the first respondent in the Election Petition, was the candidate from the Indian Federal Democratic Party ('IFDP' for short), a constituent of the National H 132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A Democratic Alliance. He was declared.elected by a margin of . ~. •, 529 votes. over the first respondent (hereinafter referred to ~s ,. the 'election petitioner'), who got the second· highest number of votes. The election petitioner was the candidate from the. Communist Party of India (Marxist), a constituent of the Left B Democratic Front (for short 'LDF'). While the appellant secured . 2,56;411 votes, the election petitioner got 2,55,882 votes. The · second respondent in the election petition, who had contested the election as a candidate of the Kerala Congress (M), a -':4 constituent of the United Democratic Front ('UDF' for short), c secured 2,09,880 votes. The other 13 contestants got an insignificant number of votes. 3. The election of the appellant was challenged by the election petitioner on the ground that the appellant had ..... committed corrupt practices as enumerated under Sections , "" D .~ (• :. ~~ 123(3) and 123(5) of the Act and, therefore, his election was liable to be declared void under Section 100(1)(b} of the Act. The consequent relief prayed for in ;the Election Petition was for declaring the election petitioner as elected in terms of Section 101(b) of the Act. E 4. The allegations in the Election Petition were denied by the appellant. In the first instance, as a preliminary objection, _ _(r ' the appellant questioned the maintainability of the Election • \, Petition. Rejecting the objection, the High Court, vide its order F dated 28th February, 2005 sustained the maintainability of the Election Petition only on two grounds of corrupt practice, viz. one falling under Section 123(3) of the Act and ihe other under Section 123(5) of the Act. While the election petitioner himself gave up the grounds pertaining to allegation of excess election G expenditure incurred by the appellant over the maximum limit · provided under Section 77 of the Act and the allegation of -~ undue influence under Section 123(2) of the Act arising out of a speech made by the then President of the Bharatiya Janta Party, the High Court rejected the ground pertaining to the H ., P.C. THOMAS v. P.M, ISMAIL & ORS. [D.K. JAIN, J.] 133 .. J allegation of .bribery in the form of gratification offered by the A appellant to one of the contestants in order to get his candidature withdrawn from this election. 5. Upon consideration of the pleadings and taking note of abandonment of the afore-noted allegations by the election B petitioner, the learned Judge framed the following issues: ~~ 1. Whether the 1st respondent has committed corrupt practice as contemplated under Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 by printing and c publishing Annexure I notice and Annexure II photo · calendar and distributing and circulating Annexure I along with Annexure II by himself, his election agent and other · agents, his. election workers and campaigners with the ) consent and connivance of the 1st respondent in various .,/ places of No.12 H.P. Muvattupuzha Parliamentary D Constituency for the election held on 10.5.2004. 2. Whether the 1st respondent, his election agent and other agents with the consent of the 1st respondent, had ·committed corrupt practice contemplated under Section E 123(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 by t hiring and procuring vehicles, viz., autorickshaw Nos. KL514400, KL-5/C 3431 and Jeep Nos. KRO 6606 and KL5/1845 for free conveyance of the electors to and from the polling station Nos .. 57 to 71 in Poonjar Thekkekara F Panchayat in Poonjar Assembly Constituency of No. 2 Muvattupuzha Parliamentary Constituency for the election ·held on 10.5.2004. 3. Whether the election of the 1st respondent from No. 12 H.P. Muvattupuzha Parliamentary Constituency can be G .)·' declared as void by the conduct of corrupt practices .v enumerated in issue Nos.1 and 2 and is it liable to be set aside. 4. Whether the petitioner has to be declared as duly H 134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. I"- A elected from No.12 H.P. Muvattupuzha Parliamentary Constituency after setting aside the election of the 1st .)._ respondent. .. 5. Whether the election petitioner is entitled to get the cost B of his election petition. 6.. On behalf of the election petitioner, twenty five witnesses, including himself were examined. Alleged public notice dated 21st April, 2004 and photo-calendar, filed as -4 Annexures I and II respectively with the election petition,· were c exhibited through election petitioner as Ext.P1 ·and P2 respectively. On the side of the appellant, eleven witnesses, including himself were examined and Ext. R1(a) to R1(g) were marked.· D 7. Analysing the evidence adduced by the parties on the ~ issues, except for issue No.5, the High Court answered all the issues in favour of the election petitioner. Thus, costs of the election petition; were not awarded. It has been observed by the High Court that in the instant case, even though consent of~ E the appellant herein for printing Ext.P1 and P2 is not proved by direct evidence but from proven facts, namely, the election agent of the appellant, Advocate James Anakallungal, .} (hereinafter referred to as 'James'), arranging for printing of. Ext. P1 & P2; the appellant paying the printing charges and the F party workers distributing these documents in the houses of electors, who are Catholics, the only inference possible is that the circulation of printed copies of Exts.P1 & P2 was with the knowledge of the appellant. Inter a/ia, observing that_ while Ext.P1 independently constitutes an appeal to the Catholic G voters to vote for the appellant on the ground of his religion attracting the mischief of Section 123(3) of the Act, Ext.P2 supports and strengthens Ext.P1, the learned Judge held that ' --). the appellant has committed corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the Act by appealing to the electors to vote on the ground of his community and religion through the printing and H circulation of Exts.P1 and P2 aniong the electors. P.C. THOMAS v. P.M. ISMAIL & ORS. [D.K. JAIN, J.] 135 J-- Consequently, his election was liable to be declared void under A 1 Section 100(1)(b) of the Act. On the second issue also, the High Court has observed that though no direct evidence is produced to prove the consent given by the appellant or his election agent to his party workers to arrange the vehicles and even the witnesses have not specifically stated that the vehicles B' were provided to them free of charge, yet in view of the evidence of the witnesses that party workers of the appellant &. had offered vehicles to them, the only possible inference could be that the witnesses were provided vehicles free of charge resulting in violation of Section 123(5) of the Act. Having found c issues No.1 to 3 against the appellant, the High Court came to .. the conclusion that but for the corrupt practices, proved to have been practiced by the appellant, the election petitioner would have got at least 265 more of the votes polled in favour ·of the ' appellant, in which case, he would have won the election. A D ..,. Accordingly, exercising power conferr~d on it under Section 100(1)(b) of the Act, the High Court declared the election of the appellant, the returned candidate, to the said Parliamentary Constituency, to be void and the election petitioner was declared elected under Section 101(b) of the Act in his place E from the said Constituency. The High Court further ordered that ~ .... the findings of commission of corrupt practices by the appellant under Sections 123(3) and 123(5) of the Act will hold good for the purpose of Section 99 of the Act as well. Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant has come up in appeal before us. F 8. Assailing the findings of the High Court, Mr. F.S. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, strenuously urged that the conclusion of the High Court to the effect that the appellant had committed corrupt practices as envisaged under sub-sections (3) and (5) of G I Section 123 of the Act are palpably erroneous, inasmuch as: 4- (i) it was· neither the case of the election petitioner, nor any specific plea was raised in the election petition, that the appellant had appealed to the electors to vote for him on the ground of his community or religion by distribution of printed H 136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A offending materials viz. a notice/statement dated 21st April, 2004 (Ext.P1) and a photo calendar for the year 2004 (Ext.P2); (ii).both the offending documents (Ext.P1 and Ext.P2) were not proved as per the prescribed procedure and, therefore, the very basis in forming the opinion that the appellant had committed B corrupt practice was missing; (iii) having. held that independently Ext.P2 did not constitute an appeal to vote on the ground of religion of the appellant and that the said exhibit had to be read collectively with Ext.P1, alleged to be a notice purportedly authored and printed by one John Kachiramattom c (hereinafter referred to as 'John K.'), which had been circulated along with Ext.P2, and the circulation of both amongst the electors together constituted an appeal to vote for the appellant on the ground of his religion, the learned Judg~/ has failed to appreciate that none of the witnesses examined by the election 0 petitioner had stated that John K. had acknowledged or stated to them that he had, in fact, prepared and signed the said notice/statement for circulation; (iv) though John K. was cited as one of the witnesses by the election petitioner in the list · submitted by him, he was not called by the election petitioner for recording of his evidence; (v) the inferences drawn by the E · learned Judge were based on unproven documents, even· source whereof had not been proved; and (vi) the finding of the High Court to the effect that appellant had committed corrupt practice under Section 123(5) of the Act was based only on inferences drawn from the statements made by interested F witnesses when none of the witnesses had stated that the vehicles were provided free of charge. To buttress his argument that an adverse inference should have been drawn against the election petitioner for not examining John K.,· 1earned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of .this Court in Hem Raj vs. G _ Ramji Lal & Anr1 ., Thakur Sen Negi vs. Dev Raj Negi & Anf ., Virendra Kumar Saklecha vs. Jagjiwan & Ors~.; Jeet Mohinder 1. (1975) 4 sec s11. 2. (1993) Supp. 3 sec 645. H 3. (1972) 1 sec a26. I. t: P.C. THOMAS v. P.M. !SMAIL & ORS. [D.K. JAIN, J.], 137 Singh vs. Harmindet 'Singh Jassi4 and Kanhaiyalal vs. A Manna/al & Ors.5 Reliance was also placed on the decisions of this Court in Ram Chand Bhatia vs. Shri Hardyaf5, Ch. Razik Ram vs. Ch. Jaswant Singh Chauhan & Ors7., Surinder Singh vs. Hardial Singh & Ors 8 ~, · Mercykutty Amma vs. Kadavoor Sivadasan & An~., and a number of other decisions iri which '8 the dictum in Ch. Razik Ram (supra) was followed in support of the proposition that the standard of proof in an: election petition is the same as in a criminal trial, which the election petitioner failed to discharge. 9. Mr. P .S. Narasimha, learned senior counsel appearing C for the election petitioner, on the other hand, supporting the· decision of the High Court, submitted1 that upon productiqn of originals of pamphlet and the calendar by PW.1, they were marked as Exts.P1 and P2 respectively and duly endorsed by 0 the Court trying the election petition, therefore, the documents . stood proved. In support of the plea that once a document has . been admitted in evidence and marked a$ .a:ll:; ~~f:libit, the · objection that it should not have been admitted in.evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document was irregular, cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the . E ,·. marking of the document as exhibit, reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in R. V.E. Venkatachala Gounder vs, Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple & Anr10., Dayamathi Bai (Smt) vs. K.M. Shaffl11 and P.C. Purushothama Reddiar vs. S. Peruma/1 2• Other pleas raised were also countered by F 4. (1999) 9 sec 826. 5. (1976) 3 sec 386. s. (1986) 2 sec 121. 7. (1975) 4 sec 769. s. (1985) 1 sec 91. e. c2004) 2 sec 217. 10. c2003) s sec 752. 11. (2004) 7 sec 107. 12. (1972) 1 sec 9. G . .. ,. .,,·:H .. 138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. ~ A the learned counsel. ,:,_ · 10. Before we proceed to examine the facts of the case to consider the question as to whether charges of corrupt practices were established against the appellant, we deem it B necessary to reiterate that a charge of corrupt practice envisaged by the Act is to be equated with a criminal charge and the standard of proof thereof would not be preponderance of probabilities as in a civil action but proof beyond reasonable doubt as in a criminal trial. If this test is not applied, a very c serious prejudice is likely to be caused to the successful candidate whose election would not only be set aside, he may also incur disqualification to contest an election for a certain period entailing even extinction of his political career. Undoubtedly, the onus lies heavily on the election petitioner to make out a strong case for setting aside an election. I D ~ ...... 11. In Ch. Razik Ram (supra), speaking for the Bench, Sarkaria, J. observed thus: " . .It is well settled that a charge of coirupt practice is E substantially akin to a criminal charge. The commission of a corrupt practi(;e entails serious penal consequences. It not only vitiates the election of the candidate concerned _) but also disqualifies him from taking part in elections for ~ a considerably long time. Thus, the trial of an election F petition being in the nature of an accusation, bearing the indelible stamp of quasi-criminal action, the standard of proof is the same as in a criminal trial. Just as in a criminal case, so in an election petition, the respondent against whom the charge of corrupt practice is levelled, is G presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty. A grave and · heavy onus therefore, rests on the accuser to establish each and every ingredient of the charge by clear, ~ unequivocal and unim_peachable evidence beyond reasonable doubt. It is 'true that there is no difference between the general rules of evidence in civil and criminal H ' P.C. THOMAS v. P.M. ISMAIL & ORS. [D.K. JAIN, J.] 139 cases, and the definition of "proved" in Section 3 of the A ;. Evidence Act does not draw a distinction between civil and criminal cases. Nor does this definition insist on perfect proof because absolute certainty amounting to demonstration is rarely to be had in the affairs of life. Nevertheless, the standard of measuring proof prescribed 8 by the definition, is that of a person of prudence and practical good sense. 'Proof means the effect of the evidence adduced in the case. Judged by the standard of prudent man, in the light of the nature of onus cast by law, the probative effect of evidence in civil and criminal c proceedings is markedly different. The same evidence which may be sufficient to regard a fact as proved in a civil suit, may be considered insufficient for a conviction in a criminal action. While in the former, a mere preponderance l of probability may constitute an adequate basis of D .!-- decision, in the latter a far higher degree of assurance and judicial certitude is requisite for a conviction. The same is largely true about proof of a charge of corrupt practice, which cannot be established by a mere balance of probabilities and, if, after giving due consideration and E, effect to the totality of the evidence and circumstances of the case, the mind of the Court is left rocking with • reasonable doubt - not being the doubt of a timid, fickle 'i<· - or vacillating mind - as to the veracity of the charge, it must hold the same as not proved". F 12. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Jeet Mohinder Singh (supra), referring to a large number of earlier decisions, culled out the following legal principles, relevant for our purpose, in the field of election jurisprudence: "(i) The success of a candidate who has won at an G election should not be lightly interfered with. Any petition seeking such interference must strictly conform to the requirements of the law. Though the purity of the election process has to· be H .. A B ·,o F G 140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. safeguarded and the Court shall be vigilant to see that peopte do not get elected by flagrant breaches of law or by committing corrupt practices, the setting aside of an election involves serious consequences not only for Jhe returned candidate and the constituency, but also for the public atlarge inasmuch as re-election involves an .enormous ioad ori the public funds and adminis'trati