# ·- JEET MOHINDER SINGH v. HARMINDER SINGH JASSI

- **Citation:** [1999] Supp. 4 S.C.R. 33
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1999-10-26
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 154 of 1999
- **Bench:** Dr. A.S. Anand, S. Rajendra Babu, R.C. Lahoti
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/jeet-mohinder-singh-v-harminder-singh-jassi-16933
- **Pages:** 43

## Headnote

Representation of the People Act, 1951 :
A
B
Election-Judicial review-Court's interference with-Held : The C
returned candidate's election should not be lightly interfered with-The
serious consequences must be kept in mind while interfering with an election.
Sections 83 and 123-Election-Election Trial-Corrupt practiceNature of-Proof-Held : Charge of corrupt practice is quasi-criminal in D
character-Such a charge should be sufficiently clear and precisely statedlt should be proved to the hilt by clear, cogent and credible evidence-Mere
preponderance of probabilities not enough.
Sections 116 and 123-Election-Appea/-lnterference with-By
appellate court-Justification of-Held : Opinion for111ed by the High Court E
should be given great value-Supreme Court will interfere only if the High
Court has disregarded principles governing the approach to evidence or
committed grave or palpable errors.
Sections 81(3), 83 and 123-Election-Corrupt practice-Contents
and form of-Verification Nature of-Explained-Conduct of Election Rules, F
1961, R. 94-A and Form 25.
Election-Nomination-Illegal acceptance of-Allegation of Returning
Officer having been specially brought by transfer on the eve of election at
the instance of the returned candiqate (Ex-Minister)-Va/idity of-Held: G
Transfer and postings are ordinary incidents of service and are made to
satisfy administrative exigencies of service-Merely because the government
servant happens to be posted twice at the particular station within a short
range of time does not lead to an interference that he has been "brought"
to that station for a particular purpose-Service Law. Election-Election
H
33
34
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A Trial-Burden of proof-Held : The onus of proving the averments made in
the election petition lies on the election petitioner-It is for him to examine
a witness to prove his case-He cannot bank upon the plea of non-examination
of that witness by the returned candidate.
Sections 86, 87 and 123-Pleadings in Election-Election petitionB Replication-Material facts and particulars not given in the election petition--
But stated for the first time in replication-Effect of-Held : Material facts
and particulars are required to be given in the election petition itself and
not for the first time in replication-Hence, non-consideration of the same
while framing issues justified.
c
Section 33(5)-Election~Electoral roll or copy thereof-Filing or
production-Provision regarding-Held : Mandatory-Non-compliance of
the provision will entail the rejection of the nomination paper, non-compliance
being a defect of a substantial character.
D
Section 33(5)~cope of-Held: Prescribes the manner of compliance
when the candidate is an elector of a different constituency-Mode of proof-
(i) By producing a copy of the electoral roll of that constituency-or (ii) A
copy of relevant part thereof~! (iii) A certified copy of the relevant entries
in such roll-One of it may be produced at any time after filing of the
E nomination but before the time of scrutiny-The provision does not specify
as to who should produce it~The Section prescribes only the earliest and
the outer limits for producing the requisite document-It does not specifY
that such document be produced only with the nomination paper or at the
time of scrutiny-Returning Officer already in possession of the electoral roll
of that other constituency, can look into it to satisfy himself that the candidate
F is an elector of that constituency.
Section 36(6)-Election-Nomination paper-Accepting of-Held:
Need not be supported by a reasoned order. Reasons in writing are required
in case of rejection. Election-Election Trial-Pleadings-Written StatementPresence of persons-At the time of scrunity-Pleadings of-Held: who was
G present at the time of scrutiny of nomination paper is not required to be
pleaded in the wrirten statement unless in the facts and circumstances of the
case it may.be such a material fact as must be pleaded-There is nothing

## Text

_Characters 0–39,950 of 113,275. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39950 for what follows._

. ·-...
JEET MOHINDER SINGH
v.
HARMINDER SINGH JASS!
OCTOBER 26, 1999
[DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., S. RAJENDRA BABU AND
R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.]
Representation of the People Act, 1951 :
A
B
Election-Judicial review-Court's interference with-Held : The C
returned candidate's election should not be lightly interfered with-The
serious consequences must be kept in mind while interfering with an election.
Sections 83 and 123-Election-Election Trial-Corrupt practiceNature of-Proof-Held : Charge of corrupt practice is quasi-criminal in D
character-Such a charge should be sufficiently clear and precisely statedlt should be proved to the hilt by clear, cogent and credible evidence-Mere
preponderance of probabilities not enough.
Sections 116 and 123-Election-Appea/-lnterference with-By
appellate court-Justification of-Held : Opinion for111ed by the High Court E
should be given great value-Supreme Court will interfere only if the High
Court has disregarded principles governing the approach to evidence or
committed grave or palpable errors.
Sections 81(3), 83 and 123-Election-Corrupt practice-Contents
and form of-Verification Nature of-Explained-Conduct of Election Rules, F
1961, R. 94-A and Form 25.
Election-Nomination-Illegal acceptance of-Allegation of Returning
Officer having been specially brought by transfer on the eve of election at
the instance of the returned candiqate (Ex-Minister)-Va/idity of-Held: G
Transfer and postings are ordinary incidents of service and are made to
satisfy administrative exigencies of service-Merely because the government
servant happens to be posted twice at the particular station within a short
range of time does not lead to an interference that he has been "brought"
to that station for a particular purpose-Service Law. Election-Election
H
33
34
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A Trial-Burden of proof-Held : The onus of proving the averments made in
the election petition lies on the election petitioner-It is for him to examine
a witness to prove his case-He cannot bank upon the plea of non-examination
of that witness by the returned candidate.
Sections 86, 87 and 123-Pleadings in Election-Election petitionB Replication-Material facts and particulars not given in the election petition--
But stated for the first time in replication-Effect of-Held : Material facts
and particulars are required to be given in the election petition itself and
not for the first time in replication-Hence, non-consideration of the same
while framing issues justified.
c
Section 33(5)-Election~Electoral roll or copy thereof-Filing or
production-Provision regarding-Held : Mandatory-Non-compliance of
the provision will entail the rejection of the nomination paper, non-compliance
being a defect of a substantial character.
D
Section 33(5)~cope of-Held: Prescribes the manner of compliance
when the candidate is an elector of a different constituency-Mode of proof-
(i) By producing a copy of the electoral roll of that constituency-or (ii) A
copy of relevant part thereof~! (iii) A certified copy of the relevant entries
in such roll-One of it may be produced at any time after filing of the
E nomination but before the time of scrutiny-The provision does not specify
as to who should produce it~The Section prescribes only the earliest and
the outer limits for producing the requisite document-It does not specifY
that such document be produced only with the nomination paper or at the
time of scrutiny-Returning Officer already in possession of the electoral roll
of that other constituency, can look into it to satisfy himself that the candidate
F is an elector of that constituency.
Section 36(6)-Election-Nomination paper-Accepting of-Held:
Need not be supported by a reasoned order. Reasons in writing are required
in case of rejection. Election-Election Trial-Pleadings-Written StatementPresence of persons-At the time of scrunity-Pleadings of-Held: who was
G present at the time of scrutiny of nomination paper is not required to be
pleaded in the wrirten statement unless in the facts and circumstances of the
case it may.be such a material fact as must be pleaded-There is nothing
unnatural about the person who himself has filed his nomination paper being
present at or around the office of the Returning Officer so as to learn what
H was transpiring thereat and what was the result of the scrutiny.
••
-
J.M. SINGH v. H.S. JASS!
35
Section 123(1)-Cor;upt practice~Bribe~Returned candidate along A
with SHO distributed money and liquor to voters and threatened them with
dire consequences if they did not cast their votes for him-Names of persons
who allegedly gave money and liquor and those who were threatened not
given-Allegations denied by SHO and the returned candidate-Opinion of
election observer, an independent witness, based on his enquiry, demolished B
the case of the election petitioner-Held: Under these circumstances allegation
of corrupt practice. of bribery not made out.
Sections 77(3) and 123(6)-Corrupt practice-Expenditure-Jn excess
of prescribed limit-Incurring of-False return of expenses-Filing of-Held,
Positive allegations of the alleged expenses having been incurred between C
the date of nomination of the returned candidate and the date of declaration
of the result must be made in the election petition-In the absence of such
allegation S. 77 (3) not attracted.
Section 77(1) Explanation-Election-Posters-Distributed generally
in the interest of the political party and its candidates highlighting its D
achievements and those of its leadership-Held: The expenses incurred in
such activities cannot be counted as the expenses incurred by the returned
candidate.
Sections JOO(J)(b), JOO(J)(d)(ii), 100(2){a). and 123(2)-ElectionCorrupt practice-Undue influence-Beating of ladies and forcible removal
·of flags of a political party from their houses by supporters of the returned E
candidate-Such supporters not shown to be agents of the returned
candidate-No material to infer that result of election was materially affected
by beating of ladies-Held: Free consent of the returned candidate or his
election agent in respect of undue influence must be specifically alleged and
positively proved-Merely from the fact that one of the said supporters was F
later appointed as a counting agent of the returned candidate it cannot be
inferred that the returned candidate was aware of the said incident and that
he condoned the act of the said supporters by appointing one of them as his
counting agent thereby owning responsibility of the violence committed by
that supporter-There is no specific pleading or proof as to the alleged
violence having been committed with the consent of the returned candidate G
or his election agent-Jn the circumstances of the case, the election petitioner
. failed in making out a case for setting aside the election of the returned
candidate on the ground of corrupt practice.
The appellant-defeated candidate filed an election petition before the High .
Court challenging the election of the respondent-returned candidate (an ex- H
36
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A Minister) to the State Legislative Assembly, which was dismissed. Hence f 1is
appeal
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the Returning Officer
was specially brought by transfer on the eve of the election at the instance of
B the respondent; that the respondent who was an elector of a different
constituency did not produce a copy of the electoral roll of that constituency
under Section 33(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and,
therefore, his nomination paper was illegally accepted; that the acceptance of
....
the nomination paper was not supported by a reasoned order; that the
respondent along with the SHO distributed money and liquor to the voters
C and threatened them of dire consequences if they did not cast their votes to
the respondent which amounted to a corrupt practice of bribery under Section
123(1) of the Act; that the respondent incurred expenditure in excess of that
provided under Section 77 of the Act and thus committed corrupt practice
under Sections 123(1) and 12(6) of the Act; that the supporters of the
respondent had beaten two ladies and removed flags of the appellant's party
D from their houses which amounted to a corrupt practice of undue influence
under Section 123(2); and that one of the said supporters was later appointed
as a counting agent of the respondent.
E
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The following are well-settled legal principles in the field of
election jurisprudence:
(i) The success of a candidate who has won at an election should not be
lightly interfered with. Any petition seeking such interference must strictly
F conform to the requirements of the law. Though the purity of the election
process has to be safeguarded and the court shall be vigilant to see that people
do not get elected by flagrant breaches of law or by committing ;;orrupt
practices, the setting aside of an election involves serious consequences not
only for the returned candidate and the constituency, but also for the public
G at large inasmuch as re-election involves enormous load on the public funds.
and administration. (63-F, G, H; 64-A)
H
Jagan Nath v. Jaswant Singh, AIR, (1954) SC 210 and Gajanan
Krishnaji Bapat v. Dattaji Raghobaji Meghe, [1995) 5 SCC 347, relied on.
(ii) Charge of corrupt practice is quasi-criminal in character. If
...
,.
"
J.M. SINGH v. H.S. JASSI
37
substantiated it leads not only to the setting aside of the election of the A
successful candidate, but also of his being disqualified to contest an election
for a certain period. It may entail extinction of a person's public life and
political career. A trial of an election petition though within the realm of civil
law is akin to trial on a criminal charge. Two consequences follow. Firstly,
the allegations relating to commission of a corrupt practice should be B
sufficiently clear and stated precisely so as to afford the person charged a
full opportunity of meeting the same. Secondly, the charges when put to issue
should be proved by clear, cogent and credible evidence. To prove the charge
of corrupt practice a mere preponderance of probabilities would not be enough.
There would be a presumption of innocence available to the person charged.
The charge shall have. to be proved to the hilt, the standard of proof being the C
same as in a criminal trial. {64-B, C, DJ
Quamarul Islam v. S.K Kanta, AIR (1994) SC 1733; F.A. Sapa v. Singora,
AIR (1991) SC 1557; Manohar Joshi v. Damodar Tatyaba @ Dada Saheb
Rupwati, (1991] 2 SCC 342 and Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh, AIR (1996) D
SC 3, relied on.
(iii) The appellate court attaches great value to the opinion formed by
the Trial judge more so when the Trial Judge recording findings of fact is
the same one who had recorded the evidence. The Appellate Court shall
remember that the jurisdiction to try an election petition has been vasted in E
a Judge of the High Court. Secondly, the trial judge may have had the benefit
of watching the demeanour of witnesses and forming first-hand opinion of
them in the process of evaluation of evidence. The Supreme Court may reassess the evidence and come to its own conclusions on feeling satisfied that
in recording findings of fact the High Court has disregarded settled principles
governing the approach to evidence or committed grave or palpable errors.
F
(64-E-, F, G)
Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat v. Dattaji Raghobaji Meghe, [1996) 5 SCC
347 and Kripa Shankar Chatterji v. Gurudas Chatterjee, (1995) 5 SCC 1,
relied on.
G
(iv) Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 requires
every election petition to contain a concise statement of the material facts on
which the appellant relies. If the election petition alleges commission of
corrupt practice at the election, the election petition shall set forth full
particulars of any corrupt practice including as full a statement as possible H
38
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A of the names ofthe parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice
and the date and place· of the commission of each such practice. Every election
petition must be signed and verified by the appellant in the manner laid down
for the verification of pleadings in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. An
election petition alleging corrupt practice is required to be accompanied by
B an affidavit in Form 25 read with Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules,
1961. Form 25 contemplates the various particula:-s as to the corrupt practices
mentioned in the election petition being verified by the appellant separately
under two headings: (i) which of such statements including particulars are
true to appellant's own knowledge, and (ii) which of the statements including
the particulars are true to information of the appellant. It has been held in
C Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat 's case that the election petitioner is also obliged to
disclose his source of information in respect of the commission of the cor1rupt
practice so as to bind him to the charge levelled by him and to prevent any
fishing or roving enquiry, also to prevent the returned candidate from being
taken by surprise. (64-H, 65-A, B, CJ
D
Gajanan Krishna.ii Bapat v. Dattaji Raghobaji Meghe, [1995) 5 SCC
347, relied on.
2. Transfers and postings are ordinary incidents of service and
ordinarily any transfer or posting is presumed to have been made to satisfy
E the administrative exigencies of service. Merely because a government
servant happens to be posted twice at a particular station within a short range
of time, an inference as to his having been 'brought' to a particular station
for a particular purpose cannot be drawn. The documentary evidence goes to
show that the Chief Minister of the State had directed certain postings/
transfers of the officers. There were as many as 24 transfers and not that
F the Returning Officer alone was transferred for the purpose of being
accommodated or posted to fulfil somebody's demand. (49-B, C, D)
3. Section 33(5) of the Act clearly lays down that a copy of the electoral
roll of the respondent's constituency or a certified copy thereof has to be
G produced 'i:ierore the Returning Officer aUhe time of scrutiny. The provision
is mandatory. A failure to satisfy the requirement of this provision would 'entail
the rejection of nomination paper, non-compliance being a defect of a
substantial character. [51-B-C)
4. The onus of proving the averments made in the election petitfo1n did
H lie on the appellant. It was for the appellant to have examined a witness. If the
. "
'·
)
J.M. SINGH v. H.S. JASSI
39
appellant has failed in discharging his own onus, he cannot bank upon the A
· plea of non-examination of a witness by the respondent which witness was
essentially a witness to be examined by the appellant in the facts and
circumstances of the case. The appellant cannot be permitted to derive strength
from the weakness, if any, of the respondent. (57-A, BJ
5. On a plain reading of Section 36(6), it is clear that the Parliament B
has chosen to treat the case of acceptance of nomination paper differently
from the case of rejection. While a decision as to accepting or rejecting has
to be endorsed on each nomination paper, the reasons are required to be
recorded in writing by making a brief statement thereof only in the case of
rejection of nomination paper. There was no non-compliance with the C
provisions of Section 36(6) merely because· the Returning Officer had simply
endorsed acceptance on the respondent's nomination paper without recording
in writing a brief statement of his reasons for such acceptance. (58-A, BJ
6. Who was present at the time of sc"rutiny of nomination papers is not
required to be pleaded in the written statement unless in the facts and D
circumstances of the case it may be such a material fact as must be pleaded.
There is noting unnatural about the person who himself had filed his
nomination paper being present at or around the office of the Returning
Officer so as to learn what was transpiring thereat and what was the result
of the scrutiny. (58-G-H; 59-A)
E
7.1. Material facts and particulars as to commission of corrupt practice
are required to be given in the election petition and not in the replication
filed much after the expiry of period of limitation for filing election petition.
The material facts and particular alleged for the first time in the replication
and not forming part of the ave rm en ts made in the election petition cannot be F
tried and cannot be made subject matter of issues framed by the Court for the
following reasons:-
(a) Firstly, the respondent does not have an opportunity of denying the
averments-whether facts or particulars, introduced for the first time in G
replication.
(b) Secondly, material facts and particulars as to corrupt practice are
required to be supported by an affidavit in the prescribed proforma. The
replication is not supported by any affidavit in the prescribed proforma.
(67-G, H; 68-AI H
A
40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
7.2. The Designated Election Judge has rightly taken care to fn1me the
issues only by reference to the averments made in the election petition and
not by referring to the averments made for the first time in the replication.
(67-GJ
8.1. On the language of Section 33(5) of the Act, it cannot be h1eld that
B the time of presentation of the certified copy is a constituent of the 'manner'
of compliance. Where the candidate is an elector of a different constituency,
Section 33(5) prescribes the 'manner' of proving the factum of the candidate
being an elector of a different constituency in one of the three modes. (i) By
producing a copy of the electoral roll of that constituency-()r (ii) A copy of
C relevant part thereof-()r (iii) A certified copy of the relevant entries in such
roll. Any other mode of proof is excluded. So far as the time is concerned the
earliest and outer limits of time are prescribed. The requisite document has
to be produced either with the nomination paper which is the earliest point of
commencement of time limit or at the scrutiny of the nomination papers which
is the outer limit. Section 33(5) does not specifically provide who shall 11roduce
D the requisite document before the Returning Officer. All that it provides for
is that one of the three documents must be produced. (60-8-C-D)
Ranjit Singh v. Pritam Singh, AIR (1966) SC 1626, followed.
E
8.2. The object sought to be achieved by Section 33(5) is fulfilled if the
requisite document is available before the Returning Officer at the time of
scrutiny even if the same was not filed along with the nomination paper;
meaning thereby the production of the requisite document subsequent to the
filing of the nomination paper but before the time of scrutiny so ~as to be
available before the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny would meet the
F requirements of Section 33(5). It would have been better if the do1mment
required to be filed with the nomination paper and not so filed was produced
before the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny because in that case the
production would have been in the presence of all those who might have chosen
to remian present at the time of scrutiny and that would have avoided all such
G insinuations being hurled at the Returning Officer and/or the n:turned
candidate as is being done in the case at hand. But that does not mean that
the document made available to the Returning' Officer before the time of
scrutiny cannot be looked into by him at the time of scrutiny for the purpose
of satisfying himself of the compliance by a candidate with Section :13(5) of
the Act. It is possible and permissible for the candidates to demand and inspect
H the nomination papers of their rivals and the Returning pfficer is under an
x
•
J.M. SINGH v. H.S. JASS!
41
obligation to enable them to do so. Thus, there is no great sanctity in producing A
the Electoral Roll only at the time of scrutiny. [62-D, E, F, GI
Parmar Himatsingh Jugatsingh v. Patel Harmanbhai Narubhai, AIR
(1974) SC 951; Narbada Prasadv. Chhaganla/, AIR (1969) SC 395; Sri Babu
Ram v. Smt Prasanni, (1959) SCR 1403; Rattan Amolsingh v. Atma Ram,
(1955) 1 SCR 499 and Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit, AIR, (1988) SC B
1796, relied on.
8.3. Further, the Returning Officer has deposed on oath that he had been
supplied with the electoral roll of that other Constituency under the
instructions of the Election Commission and that was available with him which C
could have been looked into for the purpose ofsatisfying himself whether the
respondent was an elector of that Constituency or not. The Returning Officer
was not obliged to call for the electoral roll of different constituency and meet
the deficiency in the nomination paper. But in the present case it was already
available with him and as per his own statement he would have looked into it.
The requirement of Section 33(5) would have been satisfied by looking into D
that electoral roll even if the disputed certified copy would not have been
produced by the respondent. (62-H; 63-A, BJ
Ranjit Singh v. Pritam Singh, AIR (1966) SC 1626, followed.
9. The allegations regarding distribution of money and liquor by the
respondent along with the SHO and threatening the voters with dire
consequences if they did not cast their votes for the respondent are denied by
E
the respondent and the SHO. Moreover, the names of the persons who
allegedly gave money and liquor and those who were threatened are not given.
Further the opinion of the election observer, an independent witness, based F
on his enquiry, demolishes the case of the appellant. Therefore, allegations
of corrupt practice of bribery within the meaning of Section 123(1) of the Act
are not made out. (67-B. C; D, E)
10. The appellant has not made a positive allegation of the alleged excess
expenses having been incurred between the date of nomination of the
respondent and the date of the result. In the absence of such positive allegation
Section 77(3) of the Act will not be attracted. (72-H; 73-A)
G
11. The posters were distributed generally in the interest of the political
party and its candidates highlighting the achievements of the political party H
42
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A and its leadership and, therefore, the expenses incurred in such activities ,
could not be counted as the expenses incurred by the respondent. (73-C-D]
12.1. Under Sections IOO(l)(d)(ii) and 100(2)(a) of the Act any corrupt
practice in order to vitiate the election of the returned candidate must be
B shown to have been committed either by the candidate or his election agent or
by an agent other than his election agent in the interest of the returned
candidate. Further, it should be shown that the result of the election in so far
as it concerns a returned candidate has been materially affected by the said
corrupt practice. None of the supporters has been shown much less proved to
be agents of the respondent. There is no material brought on record to infer
C the result of the election having been materially affected by the beating of the
two ladies. The appellant has been rightly held by the Designated Election
Judge to have failed in making out a case for setting aside the election of the
respondent on the ground of the said corrupt practice involving the beating of
the two ladies. The mere fact that one of the said supporters was later appointed
as a counting agent by the respondent does not lead to the inference that the
D respondent was in the knowledge of the incident, which had happened, and
that he had condoned the act of that agent by appointing him as a counting
agent and thereby owned the responsibility of the violence committed by that
agent. [74-:E, F, G, H; 75-A, BJ
E
Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao Patil, [1996] l sec 169, relied on.
12.2. The requisite consent of the returned candidate or his dection
agent is a constituent part of the corrupt practices under Sections 123(3)
and (3A) and in ingredient of the ground under Section lOO(l)(b). Such
consent has to be pleaded and proved implied consent of the candidatf' cannot
F be read into the provision. Whenever the requirement is of consent, it must
be free consent given by the giver of the consent of his own volition. It must
be specifically alleged and positively proved. In the case at hand there are
neither such pleadings nor proof as to the alleged violence having been
committed by the supporters with the consent of the returned candidate or of
G his election agent. (75-D-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 154 of
1999.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.9.98 of the Punjab and Haryana
H High Court in E.P. No. 9 of 1997.
'-
J.M. SINGH v. H.S. JASS! [R.C. LAHOTI, J.]
43
1'
RajinderSachhar, M.J.S. Sethi, S.K. Mehta, Dhruv Mehta, Fazlin Anam A
and Ms. Shobha for the Appellant.
P.P. Rao, N.S. Gill, Mahesh Agrawala, Rishi Agrawala, Atul Shanna and
E.C. Agrawala for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
R.C. LAHOTI, J. This is an appeal under Section l 16A of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951 preferred by the appellant (petitioner
\)>
before the High Court) feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned
~~
Designated Election Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, dismissing c
the election petition laying challenge to the election of the respondent.
Legislative Assembly elections in the State of Punjab inclusive of'l09Talwandi Sabo' Constituency, took place in the months of January and
February, 1997 as per the election schedule announced by the Election
Commission of India. The nomination papers were to be filed from 13 .1.1997 D
to 18.1.1997. The scrutiny of nomination papers was to take place on 21.1.1997
-4>
at l lA.M. The constituency was to go for polls on 7.2.1997. The counting
of votes was to take place on 9.2.1997. The respondent filed his nomination
papers on 16.1.1997. The appellant filed his nomination papers on 18.1.1997.
At the scrutiny held on 21.1.1997, the nomination papers of the appellant and E
the respondent both were accepted. There were four other candidates whose
nomination papers were also accepted. In all. 92,586 votes were cast out of
which 1226 votes were rejected as invalid. The appellant got 33,290 votes
whereas the respondent got 36,483 votes. The respondent was declared
elected by a margin of 3, 193 votes. Other candidates namely S/Shri Jag deep
Singh, Jaspal Singh, Surjit Singh Thekedar and Gurucharan Singh got 11463, F
8088, 1906 and 133 votes respectively. The appellant was the official candidates
...
of Shiromani Akali Dal. The returned candidate. i.e., the respondent was
official candidate of Indian National Congress. The other four were the
candidates of BSP, Janta Dal and independents.
According to the appellant, the nomination paper filed by the respondent G .
--
was invalid and therefore should have been rejected. The respondent was
also guilty of various acts of commission and omission which amounted to
corrupt practices within the meaning of Section 123 of the Representation of
the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter the ACt, for short) and therefore his election
-J
was liable to be declared void and set aside. The learned Designated Election H
44
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A Judge of the High Court has found none of the allegations made by the
appellant proved. Consequently, the election petition has been held liable to
be dismissed. Here itself, it may be stated that though a number of corrupt
practices were alleged as having been committed by the respondent in the
election petition, however, at the time of hearing of the appeal, Shri Ra,jendra
Sachhar, the learned counsel for the appellant has made his submissions only
B as regards some of the corrupt practices which in his submission should have
been held proved as having been committed by the respondent. The main
thrust of the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the appellant has
been towards the illegal acceptance of the nomination papers of the
respondents as regards which submissions have been made in very many
4
C details. In the succeeding paragraphs, we will notice the pleadings confined
to the submissions made before us at the time of hearing.
The findings recorded on the following issues only are subject matter
of this appeal :-
D Issue No. 1
Issue No. 3.
E
Issue No. 5
F
G Issue No. 6.
H Issue No. 12.
Whether the election of the respondent is liable to be
declared void for the reasons enumerated by the petitioner
in para No. 6(a) to 6(h) of the petition? ........ OPA.
Whether the returned candidate is guilty of corrupt
practices of bribery within the provisions of Section 123(1)
and also alleged undue influence under Section 123(2) of
the Representation of People Act, as alleged in Paras
Nos. 8(a) to (c) of the election petition? ....... OPA.
Whether the returned candidate has incurred expenditure
excess than the authorised expenditure as provided under
Section 77 of the Representation of People Act and thus
allegedly committed corrupt practices within the purview
of Section 123(1) and 123(6) of the Representation of
People Act, as alleged in para No. IO(a) to (g) of the
election petition? If so, to what effect? ..... OPA.
Whether the returned candidate has committed corrupt
practices of undue influence as defined under Section
123(2) of the Representation of People Act, as alleged in
para No. I l(a) to (f) of the election petition? ....... OPA.
Relief.
.....
J.M. SINGH v. H.S. JASS! [R.C. LAHOTI, J.]
45
The pleadings relevant to these issues insofar as necessary for the A
purpose of deciding this appeal shall be suitably extracted and reproduced
at their appropriate places hereinafter.
We will take up for consideration and deal with the submissions made
by learned counsel for the parties issue wise.
Issue No. I : As to whether the nomination paper of the respondent
was illegally accepted?
B
. According to the appellant, the returning officer Manvesh Singh was
specially brought by transfer as the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo C
on 9th December, 1996 i.e., on the eve of the election at the instance of the
respondent. He was earlier also posted at Talwandi Sabo and had developed
contacts with the returned candidate who was an influential Minister in the
Congress Government having been a Minister of State for Co-operation.
Before 9th December, 1996 the returning officer was posted at Bhatinda where
his wife was also serving as lecturer in government college. The returning D
officer having been thus specially brought to Talwandi Sabo for favouring the
respondent did oblige him by making false entries as to presentation of
papers before him and thereby illegally accepted the nomination papers of the
respondent which were otherwise liable to be rejected.
Undisputedly the respondent was not an elector of Talwandi Sabo
Assembly Constituency. He was registered as an elector in the electoral roll
E
of Pucca Kalan Assembly Constituency. As required by sub section (5) of
Section 33 of the Act, the respondent was required to file alongwith the
nomination paper a copy of the electoral roll of that Constituency (i.e., Pucca
Kalan Assembly Constituency) or of the relevant part thereof or a certified F
copy of the relevant entries in such roll which the respondent had not done
at the time of presentation of the nomination paper on 16.1.1997. However,
such a document though not filed alongwith the nomination paper, could be
produced before the returning officer at the time of scrutiny. The election
petition alleges that the returning officer conducted scrutiny of nomination G
papers at 1 I A.M. on 21.1.1997. The appellant and some other candidates
i:vere present at the time of scrutiny in the office of the returning officer. The
respondent or his election agent or any other person on his behalf was not
present at the time of scrutiny. The returning officer did not exhibit all the
nomination papers at the time of scrutiny nor allowed inspection thereof. He
only announced that all the nomination papers were accepted. lbe appellant's H
46
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A specific request for inspection of the nomination papers was not allowed by
the returning officer who said that there. was no need of such inspection.
The. averments made in the election petition as regards the illegal
acceptance of the nomination papers of the respondent as set out in the
B election petition (the relevant parts thereof) are extracted and reproduced
hereunder:
c
D'
E
Para 6
(f) That, in fact a certified copy of the electoral roll was applied for
· on January 21, 1997 in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, B'hatinda,
who was the District Election Officer. The Election Office is located
near Railway Station, Bhatinda, in the old Tehsil Complex, whiich is at
a distance of about 40 kilometres from Talwandi Sabo. After completing
all the formalities and passing through various dealing hands, the
copies were reported to have been delivered on January 21, 1997. This
certified copy was then carried to Talwandi Sabo and handed over to
the Returning Officer some time after the scrutiny was over, may be
on the next day. The Returning Officer favoured the returned candidate
and recorded the receipt time at 10.00 A.M. on nomination papers. No
copy could possibly be produced at 10.00 A.M. when it had been
applied for on January 21, 1997 at Bhatinda. This Hon'ble Court would
appreciate that copy must have been obtained during usual office
hours and following the usual procedure. Thereafter the distance of
40 kms, was covered from Bhatinda to Talwandi Sabo. The route also
includes busy bazars of four kilometers with two railway crossings.
F
(g) That the Returning Officer who was the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Talwandi Sabo, was available to the returned candidate inasmuch as
he was specially brought by transfer to Talwandi Sabo just on the eve
of election on December 9, 1996. The gentleman had already served
at Talwandi Sabo earlier and had developed close contracts with the
G
H
returned candidate who was an influential Minister in the then Congress
Government as Minister of State for Cooperation. He was posted at
Bhatinda and his wife was also serving there as Lecturer in Government
College, Bhatinda, yet he was specially got transferred to Talwandi
Sabo at the instance of the returned candidate. This was apparently
a wrong entry to validate the nomination papers of the returned
candidate by inserting the words "Received at 10.00 A.M. on
4:
...
..
J.M. SINGH v. H.S. JASS! [R.C. LAHOTI, J.]
47
21.1.1997". In fact, upto the time of scrutiny, there was no such copy A
produced before the Returning Officer, and thus his nomination papers
were liable to be rejected.
(h) That since the returned candidate is a person whose nomination
papers were wrongly accepted by the Returning Officer and, therefore, B
the result is materially affected so far as the returned candidate is
concerned and the election is liable to be declared void."
All the material averments made in the election petition have been
denied by the respondent in his counter/written statement. As to the production
of the certified copy of the electoral roli it is stated by the respondent that C
the certified copy showing the name· of the respondent as entered in the
electoral roll of Pucca Kalan Constituency was produced before the returning
officer of Talwandi Sabo at 10 A.M. on 21.1.1997 i.e., one hour before the
commencement of scrutiny of nomination papers and thus at the time of
scrutiny the certified copy was very much there before the returning officer
and thus the mandate of Section 3 3 of the Act was fully comp lied with. It is D
specifically denied that the certified copy was handed over to the returning
officer at any time after the scrutiny was over. The distance of the election
office Bhatinda from Talwandi Sabo is hardly 24 kms. and it does not take
more than half an hour to cover this distance by car. The returned candidate
had applied for the certified copy of the relevant entry at 9 A.M. on 21.1.1997 E
in the election office at Bhatinda which was supplied to him within l 5-20
minutes and thereafter the returned candidate immediately rushed in his car
from District Election Office to Talwandi Sabo to produce the said certified
copy in the office of the returning officer which he succeeded in handing over
to the returning officer in his office at 10 A.M. It was denied that the returning
officer was brought by the returned candidate to Talwandi Sabo by getting F
him transferred on 9.12.1996. The allegations as to any corrupt practice having
been committed by the returned candidate was denied. It was submitted that
the respondent had correctly filed the return to expenses. It was further
submitted that the observer never took possession of any printed posters
from the office complex of the respondent. The posters referred to in para 10 G
(t) of the election petition was got printed and distributed by the Block
Congress Committee Talwandi Sabo and Maur Mandi in routine in the 3rd
week of December i.e., much earlier to filing of nomination papers by the
respondent. The poster was never distributed by the respondent during
election process as alleged by the appellant. The respondent had got printed
3500 posters of different sizes and types from Satguru Printing Press for Rs. H
48
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A 2800 @ 80 paise per poster. The respondent also got printed 2000, 1800, 1500
posters for Rs. 1800, Rs. 1875 and Rs. 900@90 paise, Rs. 1.25, Rs. 3.90 per
poster respectively depending on the size and type of different posters. Hand
bills in campaigning were I 0,000 got printed at the cost of Rs. I 000 only. The
total expenditure thus incurred by the respondent on the printing of posters
B was Rs. 10,275 which was correctly shown in the return of the expenses. ·It
is wholly wrong to say that the cost of the two posters mentioned in the
election petition was Rs. 1,40,000.
The learned Designated Election Judge has found the allegation made
by the election petitioner not proved. He has held that the certified copy Ext.
C R-5/1 was duly obtained on 21.1.1997 and produced by the respondent at JO
A.M. before the returning officer. It was a.vailable with the returning officer
at the time of scrutiny of the nomination papers which was held at the
appointed time i.e.;! I AM on 21.1.1997. The learned senior counsel for the
appellant has vehemently attacked the correctness of the findings so anived
at.
D
Whether Manvesh Singh, the returning officer was deliberately brought
to and posted at Talwandi Sabo to favour the returned candidate, i.e., the
respondent? Manvesh Singh, was posted as Secretary to the Regional Transport
Authority, Patiala when he was examined in the Court (on 1.7.1998). At the
E time of election, he was posted as Sub-Divisional Magistratt> of Talwimdi
Sabo.
The averments niade in the election petition vide para 6(g) setting out
the alleged reason for transfer are verified to be true to the personal knowledge
of the appellant. In his deposition before the Court the only fact stated by
F the appellant is that Manvesh Singh had enjoyed one posting earlier also at
Talwandi Sabo and he was posted for the second time just on the eve of
election. This factual part is not denied even by Manvesh Singh himself who
admitted that once earlier also between 25.8.1995 and 24.8.1996 he had remained
posted at Talwandi Sabo as SOM. His wife was a lecturer in Bhatinda. Jn
September, 1996, he had sought for a transfer to Bhatinda so as to join his
G wife which request was allowed by the State Government. However, the St-ate
Government transferred him back to Talwandi Sabo on 17/18.12.1996. He had
not made any representation for transferring him back. In between there was
a change in the leadership of the State Government.