# MANPHUL SINGH v. SURINDER SINGH - **Citation:** [1974] 1 S.C.R. 52 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1973-04-24 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2727 of 1972 - **Bench:** D. G. Palekar, A. Alagiiuswami - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/manphul-singh-v-surinder-singh-6001 - **Pages:** 10 ## Headnote A Representation of People Act, 1951, Sections 83(l)ia) and (b) and 123B Election petition containing elaborate details of allegations of corrupt practicesPetition need contain only material facts and not evidt:nce 1herefore-Earlier part of Order VJ, Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1~00, similar to s. 83{ i) (a) of the Act-Charges of corrupt practices UTJder s. 123 quasi-criminal nature and must be proved satisfactorily-Allegation in election petition held nut liable fo be struck down as not raising triable issue. The respondent filed an election petition challenging the validity of the election to the Haryana Vidhan Sabha from the Jbajjar Constituency held on C 11-3-1973 in which the appellant was declared elected. The election petition contained elaborate details of allegations relating to votes cast in the name of dead persons, votes c;,ast in the name of Government servants who did not cast their votes, votes cast twice or more than twice either in the same constituency or more · than one constituency, allegations of corrupt practices and also of irregularities committed during the course of the counting. Various issues were framed in respect of these allegations and were made triable by the learned single Judge of the High Court by his order dated 17-8-1972. On appeal by special leave from the order of the learned single D Judge, dismissing the appeal, HELD : (i) The election petition in the instant case gives more particulars than would have been found by any body with any amount of experience in respect of election petitions. S. 83(l)(a} contemplates giving a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies and s. 83 ( l) (b) requires full particulars of corrupt practice to be furnished. ·' To say as is done by appellant, that the petition should contain not only the material facts but also the evidence on which he relies to prove those material facts is directly contrary to E the provisions of Order YI. Rule 2. of the Code of Civil Procedure, the earlier part of which is similar to clause (l)(a) of s. 83. 'fhe Code of CivH Procedure applles to all trials of election petitions and to require that a party should not only state the material facts on which he re.lies, which the respondent has done more than amply in this case. but :aJso that he should state the evidence on which he relies is not a proposition which can be accepted either as correct in law or as one which justice requires. [55E, G] (ii) The charges of corrupt practices under s. 123 of the Act are quasi-crimiF nal in nature, and should, therefore, be proved satisfactorily as it has a double ; consequence, the election of the returned candidate being set aside and the can- , .. didate incurring a subsequent disqualification as well. It could not be said in the ins.tant case that the alJegations in the election petition are vague or general in nature or lack material particulars and are as such liable to be struck down as not raising a triable issue. The ,procedure to be adopted for the trial would depend upon the circumstances of each case and each fact sought to be proved. It would not be feasible to lay down any bard and fast rule on this subject. [60Hl G ## Text 52 MANPHUL SINGH v. SURINDER SINGH April 24, 1973 [D. G. PALEKAR AND A. ALAGIIUSWAMI, JJ.] A Representation of People Act, 1951, Sections 83(l)ia) and (b) and 123B Election petition containing elaborate details of allegations of corrupt practicesPetition need contain only material facts and not evidt:nce 1herefore-Earlier part of Order VJ, Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1~00, similar to s. 83{ i) (a) of the Act-Charges of corrupt practices UTJder s. 123 quasi-criminal nature and must be proved satisfactorily-Allegation in election petition held nut liable fo be struck down as not raising triable issue. The respondent filed an election petition challenging the validity of the election to the Haryana Vidhan Sabha from the Jbajjar Constituency held on C 11-3-1973 in which the appellant was declared elected. The election petition contained elaborate details of allegations relating to votes cast in the name of dead persons, votes c;,ast in the name of Government servants who did not cast their votes, votes cast twice or more than twice either in the same constituency or more · than one constituency, allegations of corrupt practices and also of irregularities committed during the course of the counting. Various issues were framed in respect of these allegations and were made triable by the learned single Judge of the High Court by his order dated 17-8-1972. On appeal by special leave from the order of the learned single D Judge, dismissing the appeal, HELD : (i) The election petition in the instant case gives more particulars than would have been found by any body with any amount of experience in respect of election petitions. S. 83(l)(a} contemplates giving a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies and s. 83 ( l) (b) requires full particulars of corrupt practice to be furnished. ·' To say as is done by appellant, that the petition should contain not only the material facts but also the evidence on which he relies to prove those material facts is directly contrary to E the provisions of Order YI. Rule 2. of the Code of Civil Procedure, the earlier part of which is similar to clause (l)(a) of s. 83. 'fhe Code of CivH Procedure applles to all trials of election petitions and to require that a party should not only state the material facts on which he re.lies, which the respondent has done more than amply in this case. but :aJso that he should state the evidence on which he relies is not a proposition which can be accepted either as correct in law or as one which justice requires. [55E, G] (ii) The charges of corrupt practices under s. 123 of the Act are quasi-crimiF nal in nature, and should, therefore, be proved satisfactorily as it has a double ; consequence, the election of the returned candidate being set aside and the can- , .. didate incurring a subsequent disqualification as well. It could not be said in the ins.tant case that the alJegations in the election petition are vague or general in nature or lack material particulars and are as such liable to be struck down as not raising a triable issue. The ,procedure to be adopted for the trial would depend upon the circumstances of each case and each fact sought to be proved. It would not be feasible to lay down any bard and fast rule on this subject. [60Hl G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2727 of 1972. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 17, 1972 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Election Petition 45 of 1972. R. K. Garg and S. C. Agarwala, for the appellant. A. K. Sen, Bakhtawar Singh and M. M. Kshatriya, for the respondent. H B c MANPHUL SINGH v. SURINDER SINGH (Alagiriswami, !.) 53 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ALAGJRISW AMI, J. This appeal arises out of the election to the Haryana Vidhan Sabha from the Jhajjar cons·ituency held on 11-3-1973 in which the appellant was declared elected on receiving 24060 votes as against 23975 votes received by the respondent. The respondent thereupon filed the petition challenging the validity of the election. The appeal itself is against the order dated 17th August 1972 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, who heard the election petition in respect of issues 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7(a) and 7(b). Issue 2 itself was not challenged before this Court. Issues 1, ?. 4, and 5 form one group; issue 6 relates to a corrupt practice; issues 7(a) and 7(b) stand by themselves. Though they also do not refer to a corrupt practice, we will discuss and deal with them separate!Y· We shall first set forth the allegations in the election petition which gave rise to these various i5'ues. The allegation in the election peti· tion with regard to issue (1) is found in para 9(ii) of the election petition, with regard to isrnc (3) in para 9(iv), issue (4) in para 9(v) and issue (5) in para 9(vi) ; D "Para 9(ii) That the respondent got 28 votes of the dead G H voters polled at Chhapa Booth No. 19, Machhrauli Booth No. 31, Silani Boo'hs No. 38 and 39, Siiani Pans Zalim Booth No. 40, Silani Panna Kesa Booth No. 41, Bhadani Booth No. 56, Chhudani Booth No. 58, Sheikhupura Jal Booth No. 61 and Badli Booth No. 79. (iv) That a large number of voters, who were either absentees or missing or sick in hospitals or convicts lodged in jail and deserted ladies have been impersonated by the friends and relations of the respondent for whom they have all polled and their total number is 710. ( v) That a large number of Government servants numbering 158 who were not present in their respec•ive villages and did not cast their votes in fact, have been impersonated and their votes have been polled in favour of the respondent. (vi) That the respondent got the same votes registered in two pr more different places in Haryana Assembly Jhajjar Co116tituency No. 44. The said persons are near or distant relations or friends of the respondent. The said voters polled their votes at two different places in the same constituency and in other constituencies i.e. Jhaiiar Assembly, Con· stituency No. 44, Beri Assembly Constituency No. 42, Salhawas (S. C.) No. 43, Bahadurgarh No. 45, Kalanaur No. 41, Hasangarh No. 38. Pataudi No. 55, Jattusana No. 58 and outside Haryana in Delhi (Union Territory) in village Ghewra, Mitrau, Dichau and Charagh Delhi. The votes were polled in Jhajjar Constituency and in other constituencies as well. . . . . . It may further be added that respondent had arran~ed some chemicals by which the indelible ink used for identity of a voter on the first finger, that he had already 54 SUPREME COURT PEPORTS [ 1974] 1 S.C.R. cast his vote had been evaporated and in this manner several of the voters exercised their votes multiple time in the said constituency. For example his sister Mano impersonated for Mitro wife of Mangal, vote No. 934, and Shanti wife of Chhotn vote No. 940 at Booth No. 40. llesides this she herself voted twice i.e. at Booth No. 40 against vote No. 824, and at Booth No. 1 against Vote No. 41." It wonld be noticed that these allegations relate to votes cast -in tho name of 28 dead persons, votes cast in the name of 710 persons who were absent due to various reasons, those cast in the name of 158 Govem ment servants who were not present in their respective villages and did not cast their votes. Issue ( 5) relates to the case of about 149 persons who were said to have voted twice and in some cases more than twice either in the same constituency or in more than ono constituency. The appellant denied all the allega'ions made in these paragraphs but he also filed a recrimination petition making the same allegations against the appellant in respect of about 2200 votes. We are not just now concerned with them. The main contention of Mr. Garg, who appeared on behalf of the appellant, was that these issues should not have been allowed to be raised as the election petition did not contain enough material particulars, that what was asked for was in the nature of a roving and fishing inquiry and should not bo allowed. He was particularly alarmed by the fact that the respondent had cited as many as 1100 witnesses whom he sought to examine in respect of various allegations made in the petition and the issues arising out of them. We shall first of all deal with issues 1, 3, 4 and 5. Five schedules were attached to the election petition. Schedule I gives the names and various details of all the 28 persons alleged to have been dead in whose name others were alleged to have voted. The dates on which they died were also given except in four cases. It appears that as many as 24 death certificates have also been produced. Schedule III contains 705 names giving details of the polling stations and polling booths to which they were attached, their number in tho electoral roll, the names of their fathers or husbands. In 44 cases even the names of persons who had voted for the absent persons were also given in the list. In many other cases reasons were also given why the real voter could not have voted and somebody else should ' have voted in his or her name. Schedule IV gives the names of various Army personnel, Government servants, quasi-Government servants and people in private service and fairly elaborate details aro given there as to where they are employed in order to show that they could not have voted and votes in their names should have been cast by somebody else. Schedule y gives the n~mes of double or multiple voting. The 1st page of that schedule c?n'ams the nai_nes of th.e appellant, his wife, his brother's daughters, his daughter, his son, his driv~r and his driver's wife and shows the two booths where they are registered as voters and as having voted twice. Similarly. details are given regarding other cases of multiple or double voting covering whole of the 149 votes. One would have to searth long and wide in orde~ to come across any election petition which gives such elaborate details. A B c D E F G K A B c D E F G H MANPHUL SINGH v. SUR!NDER SINGH (A/agiriswami, /.) 55. Under secti.on 83(1.)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, an election pe!tt10n shall contain a concise sta ement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies. Under clause (b) it shall set forth Juli i;>articulars of imy corrupt praciice that the petitioner alleges, mctudmg as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and piace of the commission of each such practice. The issues that we are just now discussing fall under clause (a) and not under clause (b). Mr. Garg first took the ex'reme position that in respect of all these thousand and odd votes no challenge could be made in the election petition unless the respondent's polling agents had challcngod them at the time of the po1ling rdying upon Ruic 36 of the Conduct of :Election Rules, 1961 which has made provision for challenges at the time of polling. As we have already indicated, the election petition gives more particulars than would have been found by any body with any amount of experience in respect of election petitions. Mr. Garg then went on to argue that where it is alleged that votes have been cast in the name of dead or absent persons it should be specifically stated who exactly voted in place of the dead or absent persons. In respect of his first objection it has to be pointed out that it may very often happen that a candidate has no polling agents at all in various polling stations and polling boo'hs. Very often the polling agent may not be a person belonging to that village so that he may not be ab.e to challenge those votes then and there. Therefore; it is enough ·if he has made subsequent enquiries and come to know the facts and alleges them within the period of limitation provided in the Act. Whereao s. 83(1)(a) contemplates giving a concise statement of the material facts on which •he petitioner relies, Mr. Garg's argument reallJ amounts to saying that the petition should contain not only the material facts but also the evidence on which he relics to prove those material facts. This is directly contrary to the provisions of Order VI, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that : "Every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a state~ ment in a concise form of the material facts on which the» party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved . ..... ,, 'Ille earlier part of the Rule, it would be noticed, is similar to clause (I )(a) of section 83. The Code of Civil Procedure applies to all trials of election petitions and to require that a party should not only . state the ·material facts on which he relies, which the respondent had done more than amply in this case, but also that he should state the evidence on which he relies is not a proposition which can be accepted either as correct in law or as one which justice reqnires. The evidence by which they are to be proved, if included in the election petition, as contended by Mr. Garg, it would be directly contrary to the provisions of law. Most of the decisions which he cited were cases where a general recount was asked for and there was no evidence to establish that the counting already made was defective or no• reliable. Jn some cases exceot vaime and general a11egations nothing else had been stated. It is in such cases that this Court held that the party 56 SUPRBMll COUllT REPORTS [ 1974] 1 s.c.R. lihould not be allowed the opportunity of a roving and fishing inquiry. But this Court has also always reiterated that for the purpose of doing justiee even a general recount can be order cd if the crrcums.ances demanded. That is why in the face of the extreme care with which the election pe it:Jon in this case has been drawn up and the very minute details given in it we do not consider that any of the decisions of tms Court relied upon by Mr. Garg are to the point and have not referred to them. As we have already indicated, one rarely comes across an election petition giving such minute details and there is nothing more that the petitioner could have done except to state the evidence by which the material facts are to be proved. Indeed, for example, in this case one witness had come forward and given evidence that he had cast the vote of his absent uncle. As and when the trial proceeds in the case of votes cast in the name of dead persons the death certificates a1ready produced would have to be proved as relating to the particular indiviaual whose name is found in the electoral roll and then the oounterfoil relating to the particular number of the voter would have to be looked into to see whether the vote had been cast and then it would have to be found out in whose favour that vote had gone. In the case of absent voters in whose name votes have been cast, either the voters concerned or somebody closely related to them or who knows them very well would have to give evi-. dence that on the par'icular polling day the voter was not in town to ·be able to cast the vote. It is possible that in some cases. as in the 44 instances which we have earlier referred to, it might also be proved tha• a particular person had cast the vote in the name of the absent person, but that is not always necessary if it is established to the satisfaction of the Court that the voter concerned was not anywhere near the polling station on that day and could not have cast the vote. Then the vo'ing paper itself would have to be looked into to see in whose favour it has been cast. It might even be necessary to look into the counterfoils if the respondent wants to establish that the vote has been cast by the real voter. If ihe person who gives evidence admits that he had voted in the name of an absent voter he may have to be confronted with the counterfoil and the signature or thumb impression thereon and it may have to be compared with the signature or thumb impression of the person who gives evidence. This might even become necessary in some cases where even the voter concerned comes forward and gives evidence that he did not cast his vote. If his statement is qnestioned it may be necessary to compare his signatnre or thnmb imoression with •he signature or thumb impression found in the counterfoil of the voting paoer issued in his name. This would apply to the 70'i votes found in Schedule III as well as the 155 votes found in Schedule IV. The cases of double voting might also involve the same procedure and probably even more in order to es•ablish that the same person has voted more than once either within the same constitnencv or in two different constituencies. All t11is is exacting and exhausting work. It apoears that about 1100 witnesses have been summoned and a sum of Rs. 60.000/- ho< b·en deoo