# M. NARA Y ANA RAO v. G. VENKATA REDDY & OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1977] 1 S.C.R. 490
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976-09-03
- **Bench:** H. R. Khanna, R. S. Sarkaria, Jaswant Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/m-nara-y-ana-rao-v-g-venkata-reddy-others-6937
- **Pages:** 22

## Headnote

Election-Representation of the People A.ct,
1951-Sec. 123(2)-,S'ec.
100(1)(b)-Corrupt Practice-Undue influence-Conduct of Election Rules 1961
-Rule 39(2) (b)-Ballot paper containing mark on the reverse of the symbolCan be rejected a3 invalid-Charge of corrupt practice-If of quasi criminal
nature-Degree of proof-Interference with appreciation of evidence by Hi!?h
Court-Whether election result can be li1?ht/y i'ntufered with.
For the election to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly out of 6
candidates 4 withdrew and Reddy aind Rao were the only contestants. Rao was
elected by a margin of a few hundred votes.
Reddy challenged election of Rao
by filing an election petition in the High Court on several grounds of corrupt
practice, as well as on the ground that there were mistakes in counting of the
votes.
Reddy in his election petition besides asking for the setting aside of the
election of Rao also claiimed that he should be declared elected in his place.
The High Court ordered a recount of votes.
However, even after the recount,
Rao had still majority of votes in his favour although the margin was reduced.
The Election Petitioner contended that he was the sitting member and WllS
Yery popular and that he lost election on account of undue influence, force ood
viofonce on a large scale used by Rao. It was alleged that about 200 supporters
of Rao· with the active assistance of respondent No. 2, one of the candidare.,
who had withdra.wn, threatened, beat and threw stones at the voters and supporters of Reddy; that as a result of the violence the polling had to be stopped
and the polling took place later on; that about 300 supporters of Rao armed
with sticks, iron rods and other weapons surrounded the hotel where Reddy was
staying and forced him to go out and severely assoolted him; that Reddy had
to be removed to hospital. In the election petition allegations were made
against Rao almost under every sub-section of Section 123 of the Act.
But
the only corrupt practice found by the High Court against Rao was the commission of corrupt practice of undue influence within the meaning of Section
123 (2). The High Court, therefore, set a.side the election of Rao.
The High
Court, however, did not grant the declaration in favour of Reddy since
according to the High Court it was not found that but for the corrupt practice
Reddy would have secured the majority votes.
Both Rao and Reddy, therefore,
filed appeal& in this Court.
Allowing the appeal of Rao and dismissing the appeal of Reddy.
HEID :
(1) That the charge of commission of corrupt practice hll.! to be
proved and established beyond doubt like a criminal charge or a quasi-criminal
charge but not exactly in the mooner of establishment of the guilt in a criminal
prosecution giving the liberty to the accused to keep mum. The charge has to
be proved on appraisal of the evidence adduced by both sides especially by the
election petitioner. [500 F-G]
(2) That the election held and results declared on the choice of the voters
should not be lightly interfered with or set aside by a court of law.
After all,
in the holding of a fresh election are involved numerous botherations, tremendous expenses, loss of public time and money and the uncertainty of the public
representation from a particular constit.uency. [500 G-H]
(3) A charge of corrupt practice is easy to level but difficult to prove. If
it is sought to be proved only or mainly by oral evidence wit&out there being
1
contemporaneous documents to support it, court should be very careful in scru-
M. NARAYANA RAO v. G. VENKATA REDDY (Untwalia, J.)
491
tinizing the oral evidence and should not lightly accept it unless the evidence is
A
credible, trustworthy, na.tural and showing beyond doubt the commission of
corrupt practice, as alleged.
[501 A-BJ
( 4) That, this Court ordinarily and generally does not, as it ought not to,
interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the High Court unless there are
compelling reasons for tll.c same, especiall

## Text

_Characters 0–39,925 of 68,995. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39925 for what follows._

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
490
M. NARA Y ANA RAO
v.
G. VENKATA REDDY & OTHERS
and vice versa
September 3, 1976
[H. R. KHANNA, R. S. SARKARIA AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.]
Election-Representation of the People A.ct,
1951-Sec. 123(2)-,S'ec.
100(1)(b)-Corrupt Practice-Undue influence-Conduct of Election Rules 1961
-Rule 39(2) (b)-Ballot paper containing mark on the reverse of the symbolCan be rejected a3 invalid-Charge of corrupt practice-If of quasi criminal
nature-Degree of proof-Interference with appreciation of evidence by Hi!?h
Court-Whether election result can be li1?ht/y i'ntufered with.
For the election to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly out of 6
candidates 4 withdrew and Reddy aind Rao were the only contestants. Rao was
elected by a margin of a few hundred votes.
Reddy challenged election of Rao
by filing an election petition in the High Court on several grounds of corrupt
practice, as well as on the ground that there were mistakes in counting of the
votes.
Reddy in his election petition besides asking for the setting aside of the
election of Rao also claiimed that he should be declared elected in his place.
The High Court ordered a recount of votes.
However, even after the recount,
Rao had still majority of votes in his favour although the margin was reduced.
The Election Petitioner contended that he was the sitting member and WllS
Yery popular and that he lost election on account of undue influence, force ood
viofonce on a large scale used by Rao. It was alleged that about 200 supporters
of Rao· with the active assistance of respondent No. 2, one of the candidare.,
who had withdra.wn, threatened, beat and threw stones at the voters and supporters of Reddy; that as a result of the violence the polling had to be stopped
and the polling took place later on; that about 300 supporters of Rao armed
with sticks, iron rods and other weapons surrounded the hotel where Reddy was
staying and forced him to go out and severely assoolted him; that Reddy had
to be removed to hospital. In the election petition allegations were made
against Rao almost under every sub-section of Section 123 of the Act.
But
the only corrupt practice found by the High Court against Rao was the commission of corrupt practice of undue influence within the meaning of Section
123 (2). The High Court, therefore, set a.side the election of Rao.
The High
Court, however, did not grant the declaration in favour of Reddy since
according to the High Court it was not found that but for the corrupt practice
Reddy would have secured the majority votes.
Both Rao and Reddy, therefore,
filed appeal& in this Court.
Allowing the appeal of Rao and dismissing the appeal of Reddy.
HEID :
(1) That the charge of commission of corrupt practice hll.! to be
proved and established beyond doubt like a criminal charge or a quasi-criminal
charge but not exactly in the mooner of establishment of the guilt in a criminal
prosecution giving the liberty to the accused to keep mum. The charge has to
be proved on appraisal of the evidence adduced by both sides especially by the
election petitioner. [500 F-G]
(2) That the election held and results declared on the choice of the voters
should not be lightly interfered with or set aside by a court of law.
After all,
in the holding of a fresh election are involved numerous botherations, tremendous expenses, loss of public time and money and the uncertainty of the public
representation from a particular constit.uency. [500 G-H]
(3) A charge of corrupt practice is easy to level but difficult to prove. If
it is sought to be proved only or mainly by oral evidence wit&out there being
1
contemporaneous documents to support it, court should be very careful in scru-
M. NARAYANA RAO v. G. VENKATA REDDY (Untwalia, J.)
491
tinizing the oral evidence and should not lightly accept it unless the evidence is
A
credible, trustworthy, na.tural and showing beyond doubt the commission of
corrupt practice, as alleged.
[501 A-BJ
( 4) That, this Court ordinarily and generally does not, as it ought not to,
interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the High Court unless there are
compelling reasons for tll.c same, especially findings recorded on appreciation of
oral evidence.
[501 BJ
(5) This Court, however, does not approve, of the finding recorded by the
High Court on a misreading or wrong a.ppreciation of the oral evidence especially
when it is unsupported or runs counter to the contemporaneous documentary
evidence.
[501 B-C]
(6) It must always be borne in mind that the consequences of setting aside
of an election on the ground of corrupt practice are very serious for the candidate
concerned a.s well as others involved in it.
A court, therefore, should reach
its conclusion with care and caution taking into consideration the broad probabilities, the natural conduct of the persons involved and the special situation in
which a corrupt practice is alleged to have been co,mmitted.
[501 C-E]
On appreciation of evidence the Court found that the High Court wrongly
ca.me to the conclusion that the corrupt practice was committed either by Rao
or his agent; that the main story set up by Reddy does not find support from
llilY of the contemporaneous documents including statement of Reddy himself.
The genesis of the> disturbance was the alleged assault on the two boys by the
Reddy group. The disturbances before the election did take place but it was
, not a one sided affair.
Both sides were responsible for entering into clashes.
The High Court committed a grave error in placing reliance on such intrinsically and inherently weak pieces of oral evidence as against the contemporaneous
documents. [501 H, 505F, 506A, G, 507 CJ
B
c
D
No corrupt practice was established to have been committed by any person
with the consent of respondent Rao or bis election agent. The High Court,
therefore, wrongly declared election of Rao to be void under Section 100(1)
E
(b ). [508 F]
The ballot papers on which the marks were put on the reverse side of the
symbol and not on the obverse side were rightly rejected.
Rule 39(2)(b) of
the Conduct of Election Rules 1961 requires the elector to make a mark on the
ballot papec on or near the symbol of the candidate for whom he intends to
vote. On a plain reading of the said rule that the voter is to make the mark
on the ballot paper and not behind the ballot paper. [509 B-E]
~
Swarup Singh v. Election Tribunal AIR 1%0 Allahabad 66 and Dhanpati/a/
v. Harislngh, AIR 1969 Rajastban 92, overruled.
A. V. Palaniswami v. The Election Court (District Munsif),
Tripura and
others (1973) 2 Madras Law Journal 60 and Mr. Sykes v. Mr. Mc. Arthur, 4
D'Malley and Hardcastle 110, approved.
F
CrvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 583 and 686
G
of 1974.
AppeaJ. from the Judgment and Order dated 28-2-74 of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in Eleetion Petition No. 1 /72 and
Civil Appeal No. 686 of 1974.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28-2-74 of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in Election Appeal No. 52/73.
M. C. Bharulare, K. Krishna Rao, K. Rajirulra ClwudhaJ·y
and
Mrs. Veena Devi Khanna for the Appellant in CA 583/74.
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
492
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1977) 1 S.C.R.
A. K. Sen, I. Kotireddy and G. N. Rao, for Respondent No. 1
in C.A. 583/74 and also for the Appellant in C.A. 686/74.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UNTWALIA, J.
These are two appeals under section 116A of the
Representation of People Act:, 1951-hereinafter referred to as
the
Act, arising out of an election dispute concerning the election held
on the 5th and 8th of March, 1972 to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative
Assembly from Purchur Constituency.
Six persons had filed nominations for standing as candidates at the election.
Four of them, who
were impleaded as respondents 2 to 5 in the election petition, withdrew in time and did not contest the election.
The only two persons
left in the field for a straight contest were the two appellants in the two
appeals namely M. Narayana Rao, appellant in Civil Appeal No. 583
6£ 1974-hereinafter referred to as Rao or respondent no.
1
(for
brevity, the respondent) according to his position in the election petition and G. Venkata Reddy, appellant in Civil Appeal 686 of 1974hereinafter to be called Reddy or the election petitioner.
Rao was
declared elected on the 11th March, 1972 by a margin of a few
hundred votes.
Reddy challenged his election by filing an election
petition under the Act on several grounds of corrupt practices said to
have been committed by or on behalf of Rao as also on the ground
that several malpractices and mistakes had taken place in the counting
of the votes.
Reddy in his election petition besides asking for the
setting aside of the election of Rao, also claimed that he should be
declared elected in his place.
A learned single Judge of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in a very long, elaborate, exhaustive, which
at
times was exhausting, judgment has accepted the case of the election
petitioner in regard to one type of corrupt practice having been committed on behalf of the respondent and set aside his election.
Rao
bas preferred the appeal from the said order.
A recount of the votes
polled was ordered by the learned Judge and even after re-examination of the validity or invalidity of certain votes, he found on recount,
that Rao had still majority of votes in his favour although the margin
was further reduced.
In that view of the matter, Reddy's prayer for
being declared elected was refused by the High Court.
Hence Reddy's
appeal.
Both the appeals arising out of the same election petition
have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common
judgment.
We would like to state at the outset that even in regard to .tbe
limited questions which fell for our determination in these appeals, the
judgment of the High Court is so lengthy and cumbersome, at times
suffering from unnecessary repetitions and discussions, that while discussing the main issues in these appeals, we have not thought it necessary to meet and deal with all the reasonings of the High Court although in arriving at the decision we-have taken them into consideration. If we do so, our judgment will also be unnecessarily very long.
But we must record our appreciation for the tremendous labouc put in
the High Court by lawyers on either side and the very great pains
which the learned Judge has taken in preparing a careful and exhaustive judgment both on facts and in law.
M. NARAYANA RAO v. G. VENKATA REDDY (Untwalia, J.)
493
Reddy contested the election as a candidate of the Indian National
Congress Party and Rao was an Independent candidate. Reddy's
election symbol was "Cow and Calf" while that of Rao was a "Tractor".
The polling in the Constituency was held on the 5th of March,
1972. Due to disturbances at the 8 polling booths at Chinna Ganjam
with which we shall be concerned in Rao's appeal, polling had to be
postponed to the 8th of March, 1972 on which date the polling was
completed at Chinna Ganjam. At the counting of votes done on the
1 lth of March, 1972 the Sub Collector, Ongole, who was the Returning Officer of the Constituency, found that Rao had polled 31,038
votes while the votes polled by Reddy were only_ 30,728. Approximately 1,398 votes were declared as invalid by the Returning Officer.
It may just be stated here that the total. number of electorates in
Purchur Constituency was 77,932.
Votes polled were quite a good
number amounting to 63,164.
In short the election petitioner's case was that being a sitting member of the Assembly from the Purchur Constituency he was very popular and had great chances of success in the election in question.
The
respondent, his supporters and agents felt that the election petitioner
could be defeated only by use of undue influence, force and violence
A
B
c
on a large scale and not by a fair election.
With that end in view it
D
was averred by Reddy in his election petition that one Sri Mandava
Sitaramayya, an influential worker of his was assaulted at Purchur on
the 2nd of March, 1972 by Y arlagadda Subbarao, brother-in-law of
the respondent.
Although the beating of Sitaramayya and the illegal
activities of the respondent were brought to the notice of the Deputy
Superintendent of Police and Sub Collector, Ongole at 7.00 P.M. on
the 4th of March, 1972 when they were camping at Purchur and they
E
were requested to take adequate precautions for I!_ fair and free poll,
the Deputy Superintendent of Police failed to do so.
By the 4th ot
March, 1972, according to the case of Reddy, the atmosphere was
thick with rumours that he and his men would be beaten and done to
death, his supporters and voters would be prevented from exercising
their franchise and that in these endeavours of Rao he and his agents
had the full support and cooperation of the Police Department headed
F
by Shri A. Gopal Reddy, Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Chinna
Ganjam and its surrounding villages, Reddy claimed, lay in his strong~
hold area.
Rao and his agents under the umbrella of protection of the
police started an orgy of violence particularly in Chinna. Gan jam and
its surrounding villages.
On the 4th of March, 1972 the respondent
collected his agents and supporters at his election office at Chinna Ganjam and instructed them to go ahead by using undue influence, vioG
lence and force to prevent the voters from casting their votes and not
to allow peaceful conduct of the poll at Chinna Ganjam.
The case of Reddy, the election petitioner, further was that on the
morning of the 5th of March, 1972 Rao's supporters, about 200 in
number, gathered from various villages with the active assistance of
J. S. Krishnamurthy (respondent no. 2 in the election petition-one
H
of the candidates who had withdrawn) and Muddarla Rangarao of
Alankar Theatre, Inkollu, started threatening, beating and stone pelting
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
494
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 1 S.C.R.
of the voters and supporters of Reddy in Chinna Ganjam near the
polling station and elsewhere.
This mob, amongst onhers, included
the 18 persons mentioned in paragraph 8 ( f) of the election petition.
As a result of the violent activities of the supporters of the respondent
and the panic created thereby, the polling at Chinna Ganjam which had
started at 7.30 A.M. on the 5th of March, 1972, was stopped between 9.00 A.M. and 11.30 A.M.
When it was resumed again a
11.30 A.M. the electors were all scared and there was poor response
from them.
Rao's agents again started an orgy of violence at about
mid-day.
Voters who were waiting at the polling booths were
threatened and dispersed and when Reddy's supporters including Marri
Subba Reddy of Mnnnamvaripalem were attempting to infuse confidence in the voters, the mob consisting of persons wearing badges with
"Tractor" symbol, rushed upon the innocent voters and forced them
to flee for their lives.
This was all done with the active support of
the police.
During the afternoon disturbances, Reddy's case has been,
the police most unjustly opened fire upon the dispersing and fleeing
persons killing outright Marri Subba Reddy and
seriously injuring
Komatla Ramachandra Reddy, a resident of Pedda Ganjam, an innocent passerby.
Reddy's case further runs thus.
He went to Chinna Ganjam at
about 2.00 p.m. on the 5th of March, 1972 and when he was taking
coffee in a hotel, the hooligans numbering in all abou~ 300 engaged
by Rao including the 18 persons named in paragraph 8(f)
of the
election petition armed with sticks, iron rodes and other weapons
surrounded the hotel, forced Reddy to come out and severely assaulted
him.
Reddy had to be removed first to Chirala Government Hospital
Md finally to Guntur Hospital where he remained under treatment for
a few days.
As a result of the violent disturbances created by Rao's
agents and supporters at Chinna Ganjam the voting was postponed to
March 8, 1972 and completed on that date.
The election petitioner had also taken a stand in his election petition that the respondent and his supporters went round canvassing
from 3.00 p.m. on the 5th of March, 1972 that Reddy was dead or
was sure to die and there was no use casting votes in his favour. The
panic created by the respondent and his men prevented several voters
from exercising their franchise or coerced them to cast their votes in
favour of the respondent.
Certain other allegations were made in the
election petition alleging that the respondent had utilised the services
of a Government servant, and had indulged in other various types of
malpractices. It is not necessary to refer to them in any detail as the
Trial Judge has not accepted the election petitioner's case in regard
to the said allegedly corrupt practices.
The findings of the High
Court were not challenged by Reddy before us.
We may, however,
state in passing that reckless allegations were made by Reddy against
Rao alleging the commission of corrupt practices within the meaning
of almost every sub-section of section 123 of the Act.
But the only
one found by the High Court against Rao is the commission of corrupt
practice of undue influence within the meaning of sub-section (2) of
section 123.
Reddy in his election petition alleged Commission of several malpractices, mistakes and irregularities in the counting of the votes ..
'
M. NARAYANA RAO v. G. VENKATA REDDY (Untwalia, J.)
495
Several of his valid votes were said to have been wrongly rejected,
several of the invalid votes were wrongly counted for Rao and so on
and so forth. He asserted that ~he Returing Officer had wrongly turned
down his request for a recount and if recount is ordered by the Court
it would be found that he had polled the majority of votes. Upon such
allegat:ions, the details of some of which but not of all, were given in
the election petition, Reddy claimed a declaration for himself of having
been elected t:o the Legislative Assembly from Purchur.
On the pleadings of the parties
the High Court framed
several
issues and the relevant ones for the disposal of these appeals are the
following:
"1 (a) Whether the allegations made in paragraph 8(a)
to (k) of the petition constitute corrupt practice of and 'Undue Influence' envisaged under Sec. 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, and the 1st respondent himself or
his agent or any other person with his consent or that of his
election agent committed the same ?
(b) If the allegations made in paragraph 8(a) to (k) of
the petition be true, is the election of the 1st respondent
liable to be set aside on the ground of commission of corrupt
practice, namely exercise of 'Undue Influence'
envisaged
under S. 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act?
(c) Whether any such corrupt practice if proved to have
been committed by an Agent of the 1st respondent, other
than his Election Agent, has materially affected the result
of the Election in so far as it concerns the 1st respondent'?
6(a) Whether the allegation that the Returning Officer
and his staff committed several mistakes and irregularities in
the matter of counting, bundling, rejection and reception of
votes as alleged in paragraph 9(a) to (k) of the petition is
true?
(b) Whether 472 votes said to have been cast in favour
of the petitioner were rejected on the ground that the mark
waa put on the back on the ballot papers and whether such
rejection is improper and void ?
(c) Whether the pleading in paragraph 9(b) of the petition is liable to be struck down for not furnishing the particulars such as serial numbers of ballot papers etc., ?
( d) Whether the allegations regarding the irregularities
and violations in the rejection or reception or counting of
votes made in paragraph 9(c) to (k) of the petition are
vague and are liable to be struck down for want of material
particulars ?
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
496
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977) 1 s.c.R.
A
( e) Whether the improper reception of void votes or improper rejection of valid votes and mistakes if any in counting of votes has materially affected the result of the election ?
7 (a) Whether the order of the Returning Officer reject:
ing the request of the petitioner for recount of votes is erroneous and contrary to law? If so what is its effect ?
B
(b) Whether in the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs 9(a) to (k) of the petition the petitioner is entitled
to scrutiny of ballot papers and recount of votes by this
Court?
8. Whether the election of the 1st respondent is liable to
be set aside on any of the grounds alleged in the petition ?
C
9. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be declared duly
elected candidate to the Purchur Constituency ?"
The High Court states in its judgment :
"Issues l(a), (b) and (c) relate to the allegations in
paragraphs 8(a) to (k) of the election petition. They
cover several allegations of .corrupt practice of undue inn
fluence envisaged by section 123 (2) of the Act."
For the sake of convenience the learned Judge split up issue 1 (a) incidence-wise with reference to each of the alleged ones. It would be
useful to quote the split up issues from the judgment of the High
Court.
E -
1 (a)(i) Whether the allegation made in paragraph
8 ( c) of the election petition riz., the attack on Mandava
Seetaramayya, an influential worker and supporter of the
petitioner _on 2-3-1972 by Yarlagadda Subbarao of Karamchadu is true ?
F
G
H
1 (a) (ii) Whether the allegations made in paragraph
8(f) of the election petition that on the night of 4-3-1972 the
1st respondent collected his agents and supporters in Chinna
Ganjam at his election office and instructed them to use undue influence, violence and force in preventing the voters
from exercising their franchise and peaceful conduct of the
· poll is true ?
1 (a) (iii) whether the allegation contained in
paragraph
8(g) of the election petition that the 1st respondent's agents,
workers and supporters including the 18 ~rsons named in
the said paragraph started threatening, beating and pelting
stones on the voters and supporters of the petitioner at
Chinna Ganjam Polling Stations and as a consequence thereof the polling was stopped and the voters were prevented
from casting their votes between 9.00 A.M. and 11.30 A.M.
1 (a) (iv) ·Whether the polling was resumed at 1 l.30A.M.
and the 1st respondent's agents again started an orgy of
violence by the 1st respondent's agents, workers and supporters including those named in paragraph 8(f)
of the
I r-.
M. NARAYANA RAO v. G. VENKATA REDDY
(Untwalia, J.)
497
election petition and several others wearing "Tractor Badges"
A
and disturbed the polling and forced the voten to flee away
without casting their votes and the police most unjustly
opened fire upon the fleeing persons as alleged in paragraph
8(h) of the election petition?
1(a)(v) Whether the petitioner was attacked by the 300
persons as alleged ii' paragraph 8(i) of the election petition?
1 (a)( vi) Whether as alleged in paragraph 8(i) of the
petition a little later some of the petitioner's voters were
threatened and beaten by the 1st respondent's supporters including the persons mentioned in paragraph 8(f) of the
petition?
1 (a) (vii) Whether the allegation in paragraph 8(j) that
the 1st respondent and his agents workers and supporters
went round canvassing from about 3.00 P.M. on 5-3-1972,
that the petitioner was dead or was sure to die and as such
there was no use of casting votes in his favour, is true?
1 (a) (viii) Whether as a result of the above incident
several wters failed to cast their votes even at the re poll held
on 8-3-1972 ?"
Although the High Court has found that Yarlagadda Subbarao
and four others beat Mandava Seetaramayya, it could not be established that they were the agents of Rao or had attacked him with his
consent.
Issue no. 1 (a) (i) was decided against
the election petitioRer.
The finding of the High Court on Issue no. 1 (a)(ii) is
as
follows:
"From the above discussion, it is established that the 1st
respondent came to his election office at Chinna Ganjam on
the night of 4-3-1972 accompanied by R.W. 13, Ravipudi
Venkatadri, Respondent No. 2, and one Muddana Rangarao.
It is also established that at his election office, Koyi Mohanarao, Karanam Balaram, Karanam Nayudamma,
Karanam
Ankamma, Muddana Madana Mohana Rao, Parvathareddy
Narasimharao, Parvathareddy Satyanarayana, Parvathareddy
Sriramayya, Ghanta Subbayya,
Thumalapenta
Venkateswarulu, Thummalapenta Venkateswamy, Ghunta Venkateswarulu, Narahari Venkatasubbarao, Chunduri Radhabishna
Murty, B. P. R. Vittal were present alongwith some other
persons whose names are not specially mentioned by any of
the witnesses.
It is also proved as alleged in paragraph 8(f) of the election petition that in the presence of the abovementioned persons, the 1st respondent instructed and advised those perB
c
D
E
F
G
sons and others present there "to go a~ead bthy using unfrdue
, H
influence, violence and force in preventmg
e voters
om
exercising their right of franchise and the peaceful conduct
•of the poll as otherwise he had little chance of success."
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
498
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1977] 1 S.C.R.
Issue no. 1 (a) (iii) was also decided against the respondent and it
was held:
"Though the petitioner's deposition in this behalf is based
only on the information furnished
~y the other
witness~s
whose evidence has already been discussed, the other evidence discussed above clearly establishes that Koyi Mohana
Rao, Karnam Nayudamrna, Karanam Balaram, Karanam
Ankamrna, R.W. 13, Ravipudi Venkatadri, B.P.R. Vittal,
Chunduri Radhakrishna Murty, Muddana Madana Mohana
Rao, Parvathareddy Narasimha Rao, Munsif of Sobhirala and
his sons, Satyam, Sriramulu his grandson Ghanta Subbayya
and Thummalapenta
Venkataswamy,
Narahari Venkata
Subbarao and Thummalapenta Venkateswarlu and some
other people of Chirala and other villages over 100 in number pelted stones and disturbed the voters in the queues
at the polling booths of Chinna Ganjam as a result of which
polling was suspended f!rom 9.30 A.M. to 11.30 A.M.
While deciding this issue presence of a few persons named in paragragh 8(f) of the election petition was not found as persons taking
part in the disturbance.
On Issue no. l(a)(iv) the finding of the High Court is:
"From the evidence discussed above, I find that the polling which was resumed at about 11.30 A.M., continued
peacefully till about 2.00 P.M., thereafter the polling was
disturbed by the persons who are found under Issue no.
1 (a) (iii) to have disturbed the polling in the morning by
violence alongwith others which constituted a mob of nearly
300 persons armed with sticks and stones, they pelted stones
at the queues of the voters standing near the polling booths
causing injuries to one Kanna Nagayya and thus scared
them away.
The Police apprehending further danger opened
fire resulting in the death of Marri Subba Reddy and injuries
to Komatla Ramachandra Reddy (P.W. 33). The persons
among others whose identity is clearly established by the
evidence discussed above in the commission of the act of
undue influence are (1) Koyi Mohana Rao, (2)
Karanam
Nayadamma.
(3)
Karanam
Balaram,
(4)
Karanam
Ankamma, (5) R.W. 13, Ravipudi Venkatadri, (6) B. P. R.
Vittal, (7) Chunduri Radhakrishna Murty,
(8)
Muddana
Madhana Mohana Rao, (9) Parvathareddy Narasimha Rao,
Munsif of Sobhirala and his sons, (fO) Satyam, (11)
Sriramulu, (12) his grandson Ghanta Subbayya, (13)
Thummalapenta Venkwataswamy, (14) Narahari Venkata Subba
Rao and (15) Thummalapenta Venkateswarlu."
Issue no. 1 (a) (v) was also decided against Rao, the respondent
H
and it was found :
"From the evidence discussed above, in my view, it is
established beyond all reasonable doubt that the petitioner
M. NARAYANA RAO v. G. VEN.KATA REDDY (Untwalia, J.)
499
was attacked after he ran out of P.W. 12's hotel and covered
a distance of about 10 to 12 yards towards the Railway level
crossing; he was attacked by an armed mob of over 100 persons some of whom were wearing "Tractor badges"
and
among the assailants of the petitioner were
( l)
Koyi
Mohana Rao of N agendla, Mangali Krishna of Chirala,
Karnam Balaram of Thimma
Samudram, . Parvathareddy
Narasimha Rao, Village Munsif of Sobhirala,
Thummalapenta Venkataswamy of Sobhirala, Parvathareddy Sriramayya
and parvathareddy Satyanarayana the sons of Parvathareddy
Narasimha Rao, the Village Munsif of Sobhirala."
Case against two of the alleged assailants namely Karnam Nayudamma
and Pallapolu Venkateswarlu were not accepted.
In regard to Issue no. 1'(a) (vi) the learned Judge held against the
election petitioner stating "In this state of evidence, I am reluctant to
act on the solitary statement of P.W. 41 and hold this
allegation
proved."
Issue no. 1(a) (vii) was also decided against the election petitioner
and the learned Judge stated :
"I, therefore, hold that the petitioner has failed to prove
that the 1st respondent or his supporters spread the rumour
of the attack on and the death of the petitioner and that
thereby number of Congress voters left the
queues at the
polling booths without casting their votes."
Under Issue no. 1 (a) (viii) the findings recorded by the High
Court against the election petitioner are :
In view of the above discussion, it cannot be held that
several hundred voters failed to cast their votes even at the
re-poll on 8-3-72 on account of the fear engendered by the
violence perpetrated by the 1st respondent or his agent8 or
supporters on 5-3-72."
Having thus recorded the findings under the various sub-issues under
Issue no. 1 (a) the Court proceeded to advert to the discussions of
1 (b) and ( c) and came to the conclusion :
A
8
c
D
E
F
"In view of the above discussion, I hold that the acts of
'corrupt practice' were committed by the persons
abovenamed with the consent of the 1st respondent and therefore
the election of the 1st respondent is liable to be declared
G
void under s. 100 (1) (b) of the Act.
His election is also
liable to ~e declared . void
because his
election
agent,
R.W. 13 is found guilty of corrupt practice of undue influence.
The election of the 1st respondent is liable to he
declared void without the further proof that the result of the
election has been materially affected.
Issue 1 (b) is answered
accordingly."
H
In regard to Issue no. 1 ( c) the High Court came to the conclusion
that though some of the persons who committed the corrupt practice
500
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] l S.C.R.
A
of undiie influence on 5-3-1972 were agents of the respondent, if
R.W. 13, Rao's election agent, would not have been among them and
if Rao's consent to the acts of those others were not established, the
election of the respondent could not have been set aside because there
was no prQ<>f that the result of the election had been materially affected on account of the commission of those corrupt practices.
But
since the Court found that undue influence on the 5th March had been
B
co_mrnitted not only with the consent of the respondent but also by his
election agent himself-he being present at Chinna Ganjam on that
date, the election of Rao was frt to be declared void wit;hout any proof
of the result having been materially affected.
The
Uigh Court, if
correct on facts, was undoubtedly right in law.
c
D
E
F
G
H
The High Court had decided issue No. 7 in favour of the election
petitioner and ordered recount.
After a detailed discussion of the
various aillegations made in connection with the malpractices and mistakes committed in the counting of the votes under the various subissues of issue no. 6, the final conclusion of the High Court was that
out of 31,038 votes counted for Rao by the Returning Officer, two
had to be deducted as on recount the number was found less and on
various grounds mentioned in the judgment, 129 more were directed
to be deducted from Rao's count thus leaving the net result of 30,907
valid votes in favour of Rao as per the decision of the High Court.
For the reasons given in its judgment the High Court held that 27
votes ought to have been counted for Reddy which were wrongly not
counted.
Thus adding those 27 to his original figure of 30,728 the
total valid votes, according to the High Court polled by Reddy were
30,755-still short by 100 and odd from those of Rao.
We first take up Civil Appeal 583 of 1974 filed by Rao.'
The
principles of illw governing election disputes and especially in regard
to the charge of a commission of corrupt practice are well established
by several decisions of this Court-many of which have been noticed
in the judgment of the High Court 'also.
We do not propose to refer
to any.
We shall, however, keep the following principles in view in
relation to this appeal :
(1)
(2)
That the charge of commission of corrnpt practice has to
be proved and established beyond doubt like a criminal
charge or a quasi-criminal charge but not exactly in the
manner of establishment of the guilt in a criminal prosecution giving the liberty to the accused to keep mum. The
charge has to be proved on appraisal
of the evidence
adduced by both sides especially
by
the election
petitioner.
That the election held and results declared on the choice
of the voters should not be lightly interfered with or set
aside by a court of law.
After all, in the holding of a
fresh election are involved numerous botherations, tremendous expenses, loss of public time and money and the uncertainty of the public representation from a particular
Constituency.
....
M. NARAYANA RAO v. G. VENKATA REDDY (Untwalia, J.)
501
(3)
(4)
A charge of corrupt practice is easy to level but difficult
to prove. If it is sought to be proved only or mainly
by oral evidence without there being contemporaneous
documents to support it, court should be very careful in
scrutinizing the oral evidence and should not lightly accept
it unless the evidence is credible, trustworthy, natural and
showing beyond· doubt the commission of corrupt practice,
as ~lleged.
That, this Court ordinarily and generally does not, as it
ought not to, interfere with the findings of fact recorded
by the High Court unless there are compelling reasons for
the same, especially findings recorded on appreciation of
oral evidence.
(5) This Court, however, does not approve of the
finding
recorded by the High Court on a misreading or wrong
appreciation of the oral evidence especially when it is
unsupported or runs counter to the contemporaneous
documentary evidence.
'
A
B
c
(6) It must always be borne in mind that the consequences of
D
setting aside of an election on the ground of corrupt practice are very serious for the candidate concerned as well
as others involved in it. A court, therefore, should reach its
conclusion with care and caution taking into consideration
the broad probabilities, the natural conduct of the persons
involved and the special sifuation in which a
corrupt
practice is alleged to have been committed.
E
In the background of the above principles we proceed to examine
whether the finding of the High Court against appellant Rao on some
parts of issue no. 1 resultiμg in the declaration of his election as void
is sustainable. Broadly speaking, the findings against him are ( 1)
that he had created a tense situation to bring about the defeat of Reddy
before the holding of the poll on the 5th March, 1972; (2) that he
had come to Chinna Ganjam in the night .of the 4th March at about
9.00 p.m. in the company of his election agent Venkatadri and had
instructed his workers to create violence, use force and not allow a
free poll at chinna Ganjam; (3) that Rao's election agent Venkatadri
was present in Chinna Ganjam on the 5th March and had taken active
part in the disturbances created on the date of the poll; ( 4) that Rao's
election agents, workers and supporters including more than 100 from
outside Chinna Gan jam were responsible for creating violent disturbances both in the morning as also in the afternoon on the date of poll i.e.
5th March, 1972; (5) that as a result of the police firing one person
on the side of Reddy was killed· and another was seriously injured.
But it may pointedly be stated here that there is no finding recorded
by the learned Judge that the police was in league with Rao and
had deliberately fired on the fleeing party of Reddy; ( 6) Reddy was
assaulted by the workers and supporters of Rao ·at about 2.00 p.m.
near· the Railway crossing in the hotel of P.W. 12 Satyaitarayana;
(7) the respondent bad not been able t() establish that he had not come
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
502
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977) J S.C.R.
to Chinna Ganjam i~ the night of 4th <_:>f March and had gone somewhere else or that his case of the genesis of the occurrence which led
to the disturbances on th 5th March was true.
, Apart from some witnesses being different, here or there, most of
lne witnesses to prove the case of Reddy apropos the findings above,
are common and they are P.Ws 12, 29, 30, 31, 32, 42 besides P.W. 27
Reddy himself.
Shorn of details we shall examine. the main ingredients of the ca~e
to see how far they have been proved to bring home the charge of
commission of corrupt practice on the part of Rao.
As usual there
must have been some tension in the Constituency because it was a
straight contest and neck to neck fight, as the results show, between
Reddy and Rao. Chinna Ganjam was not the only place where Reddy
hoped to get an absolute majority of votes.
The results
indicate,
although there is no separate counting of the votes polled at each booth
these days, that in some parts of the Constituency Reddy must have
polled majority of the votes and in some parts Rao must have done so.
How is it then that Rao took into his head to create disturbances at
Chinna Ganjam only ? Sitaramayya, as the finding of the High Court
is, was assaulted by some person on the 2nd of March.
That must
have put Reddy on his guard to meet any eventuality of force.
After
all he was a sitting member belonging to the ruling party who, we are
told, was in power in the State of Andhra Pradesh at the time of the
election in question. It is difficult to accept or imagine that any
police officer especially a person of the rank of a Deputy Superintendent
of Police or the police in general would have gone against Reddy
and favoured and sided with Rao.
On the face of it, it was almost
an absurd story and the High Court could not persuade itself to accept
it.
On 2-3-1972 Reddy had asked for police bundobust at several
places (vide Ext. A-97, letter dated 2-3-1972) but 'had not included
Chinna Ganjam in the list of those places. In the evening of the 4th
March, 1972, as the evidence adduced on behalf of Reddy shows, be
was present in the travellers' bungalow at Purchur wherein were also
staying the Returning Officer, the Deputy Superintendent of Police and
others.
There is no evidence to show, that on receipt of the information from P.W. 31 as to what had happened in the election office of
Rao in the night of the 4th March, Reddy contacted the Returning
Officer or the Deputy Superintendent of Police and informed them
about the alleged design of Rao and the instructions issued by him
in that regard. It is no doubt true that there were some persons
working for Rao at Chinna Ganjam who did not belong to that village
but were outsiders.
That by itself does not justify the inference that
Rao had collected a mob of outsiders to create violence.
Rao was
ill-advised to deny in his written statement that the 18 persons named
in paragraph 8(f) of the election petition were his workers or supporters. But they were so working from before at Chinna Ganjam as
admitted by P.Ws 12, 29, 31 and 32.
One thing is clear from the evidence in this case that inhabitants
of Sobhirals a hamlet of Channa Ganjam, which is mostly inhabited by
Telgas, had enmity with Reddy.
Chinna Ganjam lay within
the
' .....
i
..
M. NARAYANA RAO v. G. VENKATA REDDY ( Untwalia, !.)
503
Panchayat Samithi of Jetapafom of which Ronda Ramaswami Reddy
A
was the President.
He was an influential man on the side of Reddy.
He had created several enemies including Balaram.