# ' 5 73 NANGTHOMBAM IBOMCHA SINGH v. LEISANGHEM CHANDRAMANI SINGH & ORS

- **Citation:** [1977] 1 S.C.R. 573
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976-09-13
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 799 of 1975
- **Bench:** H. R. Khanna, N. L. Untwalia, Jaswant Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/5-73-nangthombam-ibomcha-singh-v-leisanghem-chandramani-singh-ors-6955
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

B
Representation of the People Act 1951-Sec. 77-Incurring expenses in exces~
of what is permissible-Interferenee by thi' Court with appreciation of evidence
•.
by High Court.
Respondent No. 1 was declared elected to Manipur Legislative Assembly.
The appellant who was one of the rival candidates filed an Election Petition on
two grounds (1) Respondent No. 1 was holding office of profit inasmuch he
was the speaker of the Assembly; and (2) the Respondent No. 1 incurred election expenses in excess of what is permissible. The High Court negatived both
the contentions and dismissed the Election Petition.
In an appeal filed by the Election Petitioner to this Court in view of the
change in law with retrospective effect the first ground was not available to the
appellant in this Court.
The appellant contended
(1) The sum of Rs. 500 paid to his party by respondent No. 1 has been
wrongly excluded by the High Court from the total expenditure.
(2) The sum of Rs., 101.50 spent for the purchase of petrol and mobil
oil was not shown by respondent No. 1 in his return.
(3) Respondent No. 1 spent Rs. 1180/- on the microphone.
He has,
however, shown Rs. 720 only in the return.
D
(4) Respondent No. 1 used Jeep No. 7343 in addition to Jeep No. 194
E
and the expenses incurred on that jeep are not known.
· Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : It is well settled that this Court does not normally interfere in an
election appeal with the High Court's appraisement of oral evidence of witnesses
unless such appraisement is vitiated by some glaring infirmity. In the present case
no such infirmity is shown. The evidence led by the Election Petitioner is not
cogent and sufficient to come to the conclusion that various amounts mentioned
F
by him were actually spent by Respondent No. 1. As far as the payment of
Rs. 500/- is concerned, the same is admitted by respondent No. 1, but that was
paid before the filing of the nomination and what the Statute requires is the
expenses incurred from the date of nomination till the date of the declaration
of the result. [575 B-C, 576G]
Stray and solitary use of a jeep for visiting a place a few hundred yards away
from the residence of the respondent where some untowards incident had taken
G
place cannot be held tantamount ta the use of the jeep for election purposes.
[577B-CI
Givn. APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 799 of 1975.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31-1-75 of the Gauhati High
Court, Imphal Bench in Election Petition No. 2/74.
Janardhan Sharma and !itendra Sharma; for the appellant.
H
s. V. Gupte Naunft Lal and (Miss) Lalita Kohli, for Respondent
No. 1.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SH
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
11977) 1 S.C.R.

## Text

'
5 73
NANGTHOMBAM IBOMCHA SINGH
A
v.
LEISANGHEM CHANDRAMANI SINGH & ORS.
September 13, 1976
[H. R. KHANNA, N. L. UNTWALIA AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.]
B
Representation of the People Act 1951-Sec. 77-Incurring expenses in exces~
of what is permissible-Interferenee by thi' Court with appreciation of evidence
•.
by High Court.
Respondent No. 1 was declared elected to Manipur Legislative Assembly.
The appellant who was one of the rival candidates filed an Election Petition on
two grounds (1) Respondent No. 1 was holding office of profit inasmuch he
was the speaker of the Assembly; and (2) the Respondent No. 1 incurred election expenses in excess of what is permissible. The High Court negatived both
the contentions and dismissed the Election Petition.
In an appeal filed by the Election Petitioner to this Court in view of the
change in law with retrospective effect the first ground was not available to the
appellant in this Court.
The appellant contended
(1) The sum of Rs. 500 paid to his party by respondent No. 1 has been
wrongly excluded by the High Court from the total expenditure.
(2) The sum of Rs., 101.50 spent for the purchase of petrol and mobil
oil was not shown by respondent No. 1 in his return.
(3) Respondent No. 1 spent Rs. 1180/- on the microphone.
He has,
however, shown Rs. 720 only in the return.
D
(4) Respondent No. 1 used Jeep No. 7343 in addition to Jeep No. 194
E
and the expenses incurred on that jeep are not known.
· Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : It is well settled that this Court does not normally interfere in an
election appeal with the High Court's appraisement of oral evidence of witnesses
unless such appraisement is vitiated by some glaring infirmity. In the present case
no such infirmity is shown. The evidence led by the Election Petitioner is not
cogent and sufficient to come to the conclusion that various amounts mentioned
F
by him were actually spent by Respondent No. 1. As far as the payment of
Rs. 500/- is concerned, the same is admitted by respondent No. 1, but that was
paid before the filing of the nomination and what the Statute requires is the
expenses incurred from the date of nomination till the date of the declaration
of the result. [575 B-C, 576G]
Stray and solitary use of a jeep for visiting a place a few hundred yards away
from the residence of the respondent where some untowards incident had taken
G
place cannot be held tantamount ta the use of the jeep for election purposes.
[577B-CI
Givn. APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 799 of 1975.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31-1-75 of the Gauhati High
Court, Imphal Bench in Election Petition No. 2/74.
Janardhan Sharma and !itendra Sharma; for the appellant.
H
s. V. Gupte Naunft Lal and (Miss) Lalita Kohli, for Respondent
No. 1.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SH
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
11977) 1 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
~ANNA, J. In tho mid-term poll to Manipur Legislative Assembly
held m February 1974, respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as
the ~espondent) was declared" elected from
the Patsoi Assembly
constituency.
The appellant, who was one of the rival candidates,
filed an election petition to challenge the election of the respondent.
:The election petition was dismissed by the Gauhati High Court.
The
appellant has now come up in appeal against the judgment of the
High Court.
The respondent, who was • candidate spom;ored by the Manipur
People's Party secured 5,033 votes, while the appellant who was his
nearest rival secured 2,473 votes.
The1e were ilome other candidates, but we are not concerned with them.
The respondent was the
Speaker of Manipur Legislative Assembly ,\t the relevant time.
The
Assembly was dissolved in 1973.
The respondent, however continued to hold the office of the Speak.er till March 8, 1974.
The
appellant challenged the election of
the respondent on two main
grounds.
One of the grounds was that the respondent being Speaker of the Assembly held an office of profit in the State Government
and as such was disqualified to seek election.
The other
ground
was
that the election expensea of the respondent exceeded
the prescribed limit of Rs.
2,500.
It was also stated that some of
the expenses incurred by the respondent for the purpose of election
had not been shown by him in tho retlim filed by him, and as such, lie
was guilty of corrupt practice.
The High Court repelled all the
srounds, and in the result dismissed the election petition.
In appeal before us Mr. Sharma on behalf of tho appellant has not
challenged the finding of the High Court insofar as it has held that the
respondent was not disqualified from seeking election because of the
fact that he held the office of the Speaker.
The appellant indeed
could not challenge this finding as we find that the Manipur Legi"slature
has now passed the Manipur Legislature (Removal of Disqualifications"'
(Amendment) Act, 1975 (Manipur Act 1 of 1975).
As a result of
this amendment, a person holding the office of Speaker of Manipur
Legislative Assembly shall not be disqualified from seeking election to
the Legislative Assembly of that State because of his holding that office.
The amending Act, according to clause (2) of section 1, shall b•
deemed to have come into force on February 6, 1973.
The fact
that the legislature is competent to enact such a law with retrospective operatiQn is now well-established
(see Kanta K.athuria
v.
Manak Chand Surana(') and Smt. Indira Nt!hru Gandhi v. Shri Raj
Narain( 2). In view of the above amending Act,
the respondent
cannot be held to be disqualified from seeking election to the Legis- .
lative Assembly of Manipur on account of his having held the office
of the Speaker of the Legislative .A!Sembly.
(1) [1970] 2 S.C.R. 830.
(2) (1976j 2 S.C.R. 347,
,
' +
N. I. SINGH v. L. c. SINGH (Khanna, J.)
575
Mr. Sharma ·bas assailed the finding of the High Court insofar
as it bas held that the election expenses of the respondent diJ not
exceed the prescribed limit of Ri. 2,509.
According to the return
filed by the respondent, he incurred a total expenSe of Rs. 2,160 in
connection with his election. It is urged by Mr. Sharma that though
the· respondent paid Rs. 500 to the Manipur People's party for securing a ticket of that party, he did not show that amount in the return filed by him.
Adding that sum of Rs.
500 to the amount
of Rs. 2,160 would take tho expenses beyond the prescribed limit
of Rs. 2,500.
The said amount of Rs. 500, we find, was paid by
the respondent to Manipur People's party on December 5, 1973.
According to an amendment made in section 77 of tho. Representation of the People Act, 1951 by Act 40 of 1975, every candidate
at an election will either by himself or by his election agent, keep
a separate and correct account of all tho expenditure in connection
with the election, incurred or authorised by him. or by his election
agent between the date on which he has been nominated and the
date of the declaration of the result thereof, both dates inclusive.
The respondent admittedly filed his nomination on January 23, 1974.
The amount of Rs. 500 ~as paid by the respondent on December 5,
1973 long before the dato on which thd respondent filed his nomination. The &aid .amount of Ri. 500 consequently need not have been
iihown in the return of expenses filed by the respondent, nor could
the said amount be taken into consideration in calculating the total
expenses of the respondent with a view to judge as to whether hiit
expenses exceeded the prescribed limit.
It .has not been disputed
that Act 40 of 1975 by which amendment was made in section 77 of
the Representation of the People Act, 1951 has a retrospective effect
and was in operation at the time tho election with which we are concerned was held.
Mr. Sharma has next contended before us that an amount of Rs.
101/55 paise was spent for the purchase of petrol and mobil-oil by
the respondent in addition to the amount of Rs. 586 which was shown
by the respondent to have been spent by him on the purchase of
petrol and mobil-oil. According to Mr. Sharma, petrol and mobiloil worth Rs. 101/55 were purchased by the respondent from Singh
& Co., Imphal during the dates January 18 to 23, 1974.
In thii
respect, we find that the evidence adduced by the appellant is not at
all satisfactory.
Two witnesses were examined by the appellant in
this connection.
One of them was the appellant himself, who came
into the witness box as PW 1.
It is apparent that this witness has
no personal knowledge in the matter.
The other witness examined
by the appellant is R. B. Shulda, PW 21.
The evidence of Shukla
shows that he sold petrol and mobil-oil.
worth Rs.
101/55 paise
for vehicle bearing number 194.
The respondent undoubtedly used
jeep NLM 194 during the elections.
Tfiere is nothing in the record
of Singh & Co. or in the evidence of PW Shukla to indicate that the
petrol and mobil-oil worth Rs. 101/55 paise were supplied for
jeep
NLM 194 and not for another vehicle bearing that number.
The
respondent in the course of his deposition has denied
having purchased petrol and mobil-oil from Singh & Co.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
H
576
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977) 1 S.C.R.
Mr. Sharma has also assailed the finding of the High Court :regarding the expenses incurred by the respondent on microphones. According to the retrun filed by the respondent, he spent Rs.
720 on that
account. The case of the appellant is that the respondent paid Rs.
1,130 to Sena Yaima Sarma, Rs. 1,180 to Lockey Sound Equipment
and Rs. 1,000 to Hijam lboton Singh for use of microphones in
connection with his election.
As against that, the case of the respondent is that he hired microphone from Lockey Sound Equipment
and paid Rs.
720 only to that concern in that connection. There
is no cogent evidence on the record to indicate that respondent paid
anything over and above Rs.
720 on account of the use of microphones.
The High Court found that _the representatives of the firms
from which the microphones were alleged by the appellant to have
been taken on hire by the respondent, were not examined as witnesses
and that evidenc~ adduced in this behalf was of a most unsatisfactory
character. We find no cogent ground to take a different view.
Emphasis has been laid by Mr.
Sharma upon the fact that in the return
filed by the respondent, the date of payment of Rs. 720 has been mentioned to be February 26, 197 4 while according
to the evidence
of the respondent in the witness box, the said payment was made
on March 24, 197 4.
In this connection, we find
that the bill of
Lockey Sound Equipment for the hire charges_ of microphones is dated
February 26, 1974. rt seems that the re·spondent mentioned the date
of the bill in connection with that payment.
No inference adverse to
the respondent, in our opinion, can be drawn from the above discrepancy regarding the date of payment.
Lastly, it has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the respondent also used jeep MNS 7343 in addition to jeep NLM 194.
It
is stated that the expenses incurred by the respondent on account of
petrol and mobil-oil for jeep MNS 7343 were not shown by him in his
return.
In this respect we find there was no allegation in the election
petition as originally field regarding the use of jeep MNS 7343 by the
respondent.
This allegation was introduced by the appellant only as
a result of the amendment of the election petition.
No documentary
evidence was placed on the file by the appellant to show that the respondent used jeep MNS 7343 for the purpose of his election.
Oral
evidence was however, adduced by the appellant for this purpose. The
High Court found the evidence adduced in this conection by the appellant to be wholly
unreliable.
After hearing Mr.
Shanna,
we find no cogent reason to take a contrary view. It is well
established that this Court should not normally interfere in an
election appeal with the High Court's appraisement of oral evidence
of witnesses unless such appraisement is vitiated by some
glaring
infirmity.
No such infirmity bas been brought to our notice. Reference has been made by Mr. Sharma to first information report
dated February 23, 1974 which was alleged to have been made by
the respondent to the police.
No attempt was made by the appellant
to bring on record the original first information report or to prove
the same.
The High Court in the circumstances held that the appellant could not rely upon a copy of the said first information report.
r
.. . -
' '
t
.....
·' -
..
-
.+--
N. I. SINGH v. L. c. SINGH (Khanna, J.)
577
Ivlr.
Sharma then contends that the appellant in any case can rely
upon the oral deposition of the respondent when he came into the
witness box.
We have been taken through that deposition, and we
find no warrant for the· conclusion that jeep MNS 7343 was used by
the respondent in connection with his election.
All that has been
stated by the respondent in the course of his deposition is that on
February 23, 197 4 he came to know -of some untoward incident at
a distance of a few hundred yards away from the place of his residence. He went in jeep MNS 7343 towards that spot and thereafter
returned in that jeep from that spot.
. Such stray and solitary use
of the jeep for visiting the place of incident a few hundred yards
away from the residence of the respondent cannot, in our opinion be ·
held to tantamount to the use of the jeep for election purpose. There
is no cogent evidence to show that the jeep was used otherwise by the
respondent for attending his election meetings or for other election
purposes.
As a result of the above, we dismiss the appeal.
Considering
the fact that the first ground which constituted the principal weapon
of attack of the appellant against the validity of the respondent's elecA
B
c
tion is not available because of the change made in law during
the
pendency of the appeal, we direct that the patties should bear their
D
own costs of the appeal.
P.H.P .
Appeal dismissed.