# > - OM PRABHA JAIN v. CHARAN DAS & ANR

- **Citation:** [1975] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 107
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1975-04-10
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1551 of 1973
- **Bench:** M. H. Beg, Y. V. Chandrachud, A. C. Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/om-prabha-jain-v-charan-das-anr-6443
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

Representation of the
People Act
(43 of
1951) .Ss. 77, 116-A
and
123 (6 )-Corr,upt Practice-Standard of proof.
Practice and Procedure-Finding by High Court in election disputes-lnterfrreiice by Supre1ne Court.
107
A
B
Section 77 of the, Represel1tation of the People Act, 1951, tirovides that
every can"-idate at an election shall keep an account of e~penditure incurred
C
in connection with the election and that the total expenditure shall not exceed the amount prescribed.
The appellant and the first respondent contested the election to the State
Legislature and the first respondent was successful.
The appellant chal_lenged
the election on the ground, inter alia, that the first respondent was guilty of
corrupt practice having incurred or authorised expenditure in contravention
D
-0f s. 77.
The election petition \Vas dismissed by the High Court.
In appeal to this Court, it \Vas contended that there was evidence to show
that the expenditure incurred by D, in connection with the use of t\VO jeeps
during election \Vas authorised by the first respondent and if that expenditure
was added to the amount shown by the first respondent as his expenditure,
the total expenditure would exceed the prescribed limit of Rs. 9000.
E
During the pendency of the appeal. s. 77 was amended by inserting two
Explanations in the section. Explanation 1 provides that the expenditure in-
.curred or authorised in connection wtih the election of a candidate by a
political party or by any other association or body of persons or by any individual other than the candidate or his election agent, shall not be deemed to
be expenditure in connection with the election, incurred or authorised by the
F
candidate or his election agent.
DismWiing the appeal,
HELD: (Per curia1n) The allegation of corrupt practice
af.[ainst the
respondent has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
[109H & 123F]
(Per ~I. H. Beg, J.)-If a charge of a corrupt practice is held to have
G
been cstablislv!d against a candidate, it may have grave repercussions on his
reputation and poJitical future; and, therefore, prudence requires that the
'Stricter standard of proof of a criminal Charge should be applied. [109F]
The High Court has held that as the precise connection. of D with the
first respondent was not satisfactorily established, the charge of corrupt prac~
tice against the first respondent must fail. This Court will not, \Vithout a
b:tter reason than i;ierely that another inference on the evidence is possibk~.
disturb such a finding even on a statutory first appeal on facts.
There is
if a bare balance of probabilities could decide the case, sufficient circumstan~ H
tial ev~dence to connect the expenditure incurred by D with the respondent
who did not even produce any account books, though the law requires hin1
to maintain sat_isfactory
~ccon~ts to support
hi~ return of expenses; yet, if
the rules of c1rcum·stant1al evidence were applred with the strictness \\rith
whi.ch they are applicable in criminal cases it must be held that the
case
against the first respondent has not been proved beyond reasonable
doubt
!109D-E-F-G-H]
108
SUPREME COURT REPORT~ [1975] SUPP. s.c.R.
A
B
c
(Per Y. V. Chandrachud and A. C. Gupta, JJ.) : (I) The appeal has
to be decided in the light of the Explanation added to s. 77.
(2) The findings of fact recorded by the High Court should not be
disturbed in an appeal under s. 116-A, unless there was some serious error
in the findings.
Jn the present case, the Judge who tried the petition, had
recorded his impression about the demeanour of the V.'itnesses whenever he
thought necessary. The findings based solely on the demeanour of the witnesses cannot be reversed in appeal, but the conclusions of fac.t recorded upon
a cons·ideration of the probabilities can be tested to see if they contain any
serious error [121H 122A]
(3) A charge of corrupt prnctice is quasi-criminal in nature and must
be pro\ed beyond reasonable doubt.
[122D1
( 4) Before the High Court the parties pr

## Text

_Characters 0–39,942 of 50,239. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39942 for what follows._

> -
OM PRABHA JAIN
v.
CHARAN DAS & ANR
April 10, 1975
[M. H. BEG, Y. V. CHANDRACHUD AND A. C. GUPTA, JJ.]
Representation of the
People Act
(43 of
1951) .Ss. 77, 116-A
and
123 (6 )-Corr,upt Practice-Standard of proof.
Practice and Procedure-Finding by High Court in election disputes-lnterfrreiice by Supre1ne Court.
107
A
B
Section 77 of the, Represel1tation of the People Act, 1951, tirovides that
every can"-idate at an election shall keep an account of e~penditure incurred
C
in connection with the election and that the total expenditure shall not exceed the amount prescribed.
The appellant and the first respondent contested the election to the State
Legislature and the first respondent was successful.
The appellant chal_lenged
the election on the ground, inter alia, that the first respondent was guilty of
corrupt practice having incurred or authorised expenditure in contravention
D
-0f s. 77.
The election petition \Vas dismissed by the High Court.
In appeal to this Court, it \Vas contended that there was evidence to show
that the expenditure incurred by D, in connection with the use of t\VO jeeps
during election \Vas authorised by the first respondent and if that expenditure
was added to the amount shown by the first respondent as his expenditure,
the total expenditure would exceed the prescribed limit of Rs. 9000.
E
During the pendency of the appeal. s. 77 was amended by inserting two
Explanations in the section. Explanation 1 provides that the expenditure in-
.curred or authorised in connection wtih the election of a candidate by a
political party or by any other association or body of persons or by any individual other than the candidate or his election agent, shall not be deemed to
be expenditure in connection with the election, incurred or authorised by the
F
candidate or his election agent.
DismWiing the appeal,
HELD: (Per curia1n) The allegation of corrupt practice
af.[ainst the
respondent has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
[109H & 123F]
(Per ~I. H. Beg, J.)-If a charge of a corrupt practice is held to have
G
been cstablislv!d against a candidate, it may have grave repercussions on his
reputation and poJitical future; and, therefore, prudence requires that the
'Stricter standard of proof of a criminal Charge should be applied. [109F]
The High Court has held that as the precise connection. of D with the
first respondent was not satisfactorily established, the charge of corrupt prac~
tice against the first respondent must fail. This Court will not, \Vithout a
b:tter reason than i;ierely that another inference on the evidence is possibk~.
disturb such a finding even on a statutory first appeal on facts.
There is
if a bare balance of probabilities could decide the case, sufficient circumstan~ H
tial ev~dence to connect the expenditure incurred by D with the respondent
who did not even produce any account books, though the law requires hin1
to maintain sat_isfactory
~ccon~ts to support
hi~ return of expenses; yet, if
the rules of c1rcum·stant1al evidence were applred with the strictness \\rith
whi.ch they are applicable in criminal cases it must be held that the
case
against the first respondent has not been proved beyond reasonable
doubt
!109D-E-F-G-H]
108
SUPREME COURT REPORT~ [1975] SUPP. s.c.R.
A
B
c
(Per Y. V. Chandrachud and A. C. Gupta, JJ.) : (I) The appeal has
to be decided in the light of the Explanation added to s. 77.
(2) The findings of fact recorded by the High Court should not be
disturbed in an appeal under s. 116-A, unless there was some serious error
in the findings.
Jn the present case, the Judge who tried the petition, had
recorded his impression about the demeanour of the V.'itnesses whenever he
thought necessary. The findings based solely on the demeanour of the witnesses cannot be reversed in appeal, but the conclusions of fac.t recorded upon
a cons·ideration of the probabilities can be tested to see if they contain any
serious error [121H 122A]
(3) A charge of corrupt prnctice is quasi-criminal in nature and must
be pro\ed beyond reasonable doubt.
[122D1
( 4) Before the High Court the parties proceeded on the footing that the
question
raised
related
to both .-illegations,, namely,
that the respondent
ir.curred or authorised the expenditure incurred on the two jeeps, and, therefore,
the scope of the inquiry in appeal cannot be limited only to the question
\Vhether the respondent himself incurred the expenditure.
[121A]
D
(5) There is no evidence of the respondent incurring or any direct eviE
F
G
dence of his authorising the expenditure incurred for the jeeps.
[121D]
( 6) From the fact th~1t the respondent used the jeeps once or t\.vice, it
could not be inferred that he paid for their hire, because, it is \\·'ell known
that candidates at an election very often use their supporters' vehicles.
[121D-E1
(7) There is also no reliable circumstantial evidence to connect the respondent with the expenditure il).curred by D.
[121H1
(8) The respondent did not produce his accol1nt of election expenses~
his case being that he had destroyed the papers after preparing his return of
election expenses.
From the fact of non-production of accounts no adverse
inference can be· drawn against the respondent that the expenditure was really
incurred by the respondent himself. D who made the payments gave evidence, and he denied that the respondent authorised him to make the payments.
and this evidence was accepted by the High Court.
[121 E-F]
D. P. hfishra v. Kanwl Narain and A11r. [1971] l S.C.R. 9, distinguished-
(9) The circumstance5 proved in the case are: (a) that D \Vorked for
the respondent; (b) that D hired the t\.VO jeeps and used them for the respondent's election campaign; and (c) that he sometimes operated from the respondent's election office.
But these circumstances do not justify the inference
that the respondent put D in charge of his transport arrangements. [122F-Hl
(10) As regards the money spent by D it is not believable that he spent
his O\Vn money. But the only alternative inference is not that it \Vas the res-
. pondent's money that was sp,ent and that lhe respondent authorised D to
H
sp~nd it, especially when there is evidence to show that the respondent's electian campaign received financial assistance from other sources, such as the
Jan Sangh Party. [123B-C]
(11) A note bo6k put in evidence by the appellant seen1s to suggest that
a. part of the money paid for the 2 jeeps was taken from the respondent. But.
the note book was not kept in the regular course of business, it ·was not a
reliable clocument and there \Vas no independent evidence proving the correctness of the: entries therein. Therefore, it is not possible to rely on the entries
in the note book and it must be left out of consideration.
[120E-121C-122H123A]
(12) It may be difficult to get hold of evidence in an election dispute to
prove such. a corrupt practice, but the Jaw requires proof beyond reasonable
doubt.
[123E-F]
' -
·.
,.... ,
>
OM PRABHA v. CHARAN o~s. (Beg, J.)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1551 of 1973.
From the judgment and order dated 31st August 1973 of the
Punjab & Haryana High ·Court in Election Petition No. 42 of. 1972.
L. M. Singhvi,
A. Gupta,
S. L. Yadava,
S. K. Dhingra and
109
A
S. Swamp, and J. B. Dadachanji, for the appellant.
B
H. L. Sibal, S. S. Khanduja, Susnik Kumar Jain, Vishwanath
K. V. and Kapil Sibbal, for respondent No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
BEG, J.-I would like to point out that the High Court, in the
judgment under appeal, recorded the finding, after a very comprehensive and detailed discussion of the whole evidence "that the two
jeeps in question actually worked iu support of the respondent's election campaign right from February 18, 1972 to March 11, 1972
under the charge and direction of Duni Chand".
Nevertheless, the D
High Court finally held that, as the precise connection of Duni Chand
with the contesting respondent was not satisfactorily established, the
charge of corrupt practice against the respondent must fail.
It is the
well established practice of this Court (see e.g. B. B. Karemore &
Ors. v. Govind & Ors.)( 1 ) that it will not, without a better reason
than merely that another inference, on evidence on record, is possiE
ble, disturb such findings even on a statutory first appeal which is
not confined to questions of law.
We cannot forget that, if a charge at a corrupt practice, as an
electoral offence, is held to have been established against a candidate, it may have grave repercussions on his reputation and political
future.
Therefore, prudence requires that we should apply
the
stricter standard of proof of
a criminal charge in such a .case and
not decide the case on a bare balance of probabilities.
F
It appears to me that, although there is, if a bare balance of
G
probabilitie.s could decide the case, sufficient circumstantial evidence
to connect the expenditure incurred by Duni Chand with the respondent, who did not even produce any account books though the
law requires him to maintain satisfactory accounts to support his re-
'turn of election expenses, yet, if we are to apply the rules of circumst~ntial. eyidence wi~h the strictness with which they are appliH
cable m cnmmal cases, 1t may be held here that the case against the
contesting respondent is not proved beyond reasonable doubt despite
all the circumstances appearing against him. There are other circumstances which suggest another possible inference.
Hence, we are left
in doubt on the question whether he or the Jan Sangh party, from
which he broke away after his election, had incurred these expenses
through Duni Chand. I, therefore, though not without some hesitation, agree with the conclusion reached by my learned brethren that
this appeal must be dismissed.
I also agree that, in the circumstances ·
of this case, the parties should bear their own costs.
(l) A.T.R. S.C. 405.
110
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] SUPP. s.c.R.
GUPTA, J.-This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Reprosentation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as
"the
Act") from an order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court
at Chandigarfi-dismissing the election petition filed by the appellant
calling in question the election of the first respondent to the Haryana
State Legislature from the Kaithal Assembly Constituency in 1972.
Poll was taken on March 11, 1972.
The first
respondent
who
secured 26095 votes was elected defeating the nine other candidates
who contested the election.
Appellant Om Prabha Jain who polled
22673 votes secured the next position in the contest.
In her election petition the appellant hereinafter also referred to as the petitioner,
alleged various corrupt practices against the returned candidate seeking
his election to be declared void under sec. 100 of the Act and also
prayed for an order under sec. 99 naming him guilty of corrupt
practice so that he might be disqualified under sec. SA of the Act.
In this appeal the challenge is confined to the allegations c;f corrupt
practice under sub-sec.(6) of sec. 123-"ineurring or authorising of
expenditure in contravention of Section 77".
Sec. 77 as it stood
when the election petition was presented was in these terms:
"77. Account of election
expenses
and
n1axb11um
thereof.-(1) Every candidate at an election shall, either
by himself or by his election agent, keep a separate and
correct account of all expenditure in connection with the
election incurred or authorized by him or by his election
agent between the date of publication of the notification
calling the election and the date of declaration of the result.
thereof, both dates inclusive.
(2) The account shall contain such particulars as may
be prescribed.
( 3) The total of the said expenditure shall not exceed
such amount as may be prescribed."
For the State of Haryana the prescribed limit on election expenses
was Rs. 9000.
H
During the pendency of the appeal in this Court an Ordinance,
n:l!llely, the Representation of the People (Amendment!
Or~inancc,
1974 was promulgated amending sec. 77 of the Act by .msertmg two
explanations to sub-sec. (!) thereof.
The explanations read as
follows :-
'Explanation 1.-N otwithstanding any judgment, order
or decision of any court to the contrary, any cxl'end1ture
incurred or authorized in connection with the electt0n of a
candidate by a political party or by auy other association
or body of persons or by any individual (other than the
>
i
OM PRABHA v. CHARAN DAS (Gupta,!.)
-candidate or his election agent) shall not be deemed to be,
and shall not ever be deemed to have been, expenditure
in connection with the election incurred or authorized by
the candidate or by his election agent for· the purposes of
this sub-section :
l 11
A
Provided that nothing contained in this Explanation
shall affect-
( a) any judgment, order or decision of
the
Supreme
Court whereby the election of a candidate to the
House of the People or to the Legislative Assembly
of a State has been declared void or set aside before the commencement of the Representation of the
People (Amendment) Ordinance, 1974;
(b) any judgment, order or decision of a High Court
whereby the election of any such candidate has been
declared void or set aside before the commencement
of the said Ordinance if no appeal has been preferred
to the Supreme Court against such judgment, order
or decision of the High Court before
such
commencement and the period of limitation for filing
such appeal has expired before such commencement.
Explanation 2.-For the purposes of Explanation 1,
"political party" shall have the same meaning as
in
the
Election Symbols (Reservation
and
Allotment)
Order,
1968, as for the time being in force.'.
The Representation of the People (Amendment) Ordinance,
1974
was subsequently repealed and replaced by the Representation of the
People (Amendment) Act, 1974 (Act 58 of 1974) inserting the
aforesaid explanations in sec. 77 of the Act. The appeal before us
does not attract the proviso to Explanation 1 and sec. 77 with the
explanations added will govern this case.
The particulars of the charge that the returned candidate incurred
B
c
D
E
F
G
or authorized expenditure above the prescribed limit are set out in
clauses (a) to (J) of paragraph 14 of the election petition. Dr. H
Singhvi, learned counsel for the appellant, confined his submissions
to the expenditure incurred in connection with the use of two jeeps
bearing Nos. 6424 and 1116 mentioned along with
several
other
vehicles in clause ( e) of paragraph 14.
It is alleged in that paragraph that though the first respondent showed in his return his total
expenditure as Rs. 5844/24 p., his expenses exceeded in any case
the prescribed limit of Rs. 9000/-. The contents' of paragraph 14
of the election petition are denied in paragraph 14 of the written
statement of the first respondent wherein he has stated that he never
used most of the vehicles mentioned in the election petition including
the jeeps 6424 and 1116.
-
112
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] SUPP •. s.c.R.
Of the Issues framed, only Issues Nos. 14, 15 and 16 are relevant
for the purpose of this appeal.
These Issues are as follows:-
"(14) Whether respondent No. 1 incurred or authorised
expenditure on the various items enumerated in subparagraph (a) to (1) of paragraph 14 of the election petition.
( 15) If any of the items of expenditure referred to in the
preceding issue is proved to have been incurred. by
the returned candidate, does the addition
ol'
that
extra amount to the amount of expenses shown by
the returned candidate to have been incurred by him
in the return of election expenses take
the
total
amount spent by him above the statutory limit
of
Rs. 9,000/-?
(16) If the preceding issue is proved, has the
returned
candidate not committed the corrupt practice defined
in section 123 ( 6) read with section 77 of the Act ?"
Before we turn to the evidence bearing on these issues it would
be appropriate to state here certain facts in the background which
must be kept in mind in considering the evidence.
The appellant
contested the election as a candidate of the Indian National Congress.
The first respondent had filed several nomination papers, two of
them as a candidate of the Bharti ya Jan Sangh and two as independent.
He had signed the pledge of the Jan Sangh, but ultimately
he contested the election as an independent candidate.
He had been
a member of the Municipal Committee of Kaithal on the Jan Sangh
ticket and was elected its President in April, 1971 as a nominee of
that party.
Some time after the election in question in the present
appeal was over, the first respondent was served with a charge-sheet
by the Bhartiya Jan Singh, Haryana State, alleging that he had betrayed the organisation by failing to join the Jan Sangh Legislature
Party which. it was said, he had promised to do as soon as the result
of the election was declared; finally he was expelled from the Party.
These facts are not in disp?tc.
The first witness examined by the petitioner to prove that the two
jeeps in question were hired for the first respondent is P.W. 3 Jaojit
Singh, a taxi driver of-Delhi.
He proves the letter Ext. P.W. 3fl,
said to have been given to him by Brij Mohan, a neighbour, who
asked him to send four or five jeeps to respondent Charan Dass at
Kaithal.
Ext. P.W. 3/1 is a letter dated February 20, 1972 addressed
to Brij Moban by one Duni Chand Gupta.
The letter translated into
English from the original Urdn reads as follows :-
"Kaithal.
20-2-72.
Babu Brij Mohan Ji.
-
;
j
-f
OM PRABHA v. CHARAN DAS (Gupta, J.)
It is requested that I had taken from you two Nos.
jeeps on dated 18-2-1972 bearing No. 1116 and 6424 for
the election of Shri Charan Dass, for which I had paid you
the amount of Rupees two thousands in Advance.
Now I
require five Nos. jeeps more. lf you can manage then inform at once so that I may send the advance through somebody.
Inform at once, hire charges are no consideration,
the work should be done.
Sd/- Duni Chand Gupta,
Kai th al.
C / o Shri Charan Dass,
Election Office
Kaithal."
Two things are to be noted in this Jetter, that Duni Chand claims
that be had paid Rs. 2000/- in advance for the two jeeps bearing
numbers 1116 and 6424, and that he gives his address,
care
of
Charan Dass election office, Kaithal.
The evidence of P.W. 3 is
that he could secure only two jeeps from a place
called
Abohar
which he sent to Charan Dass.
The next witness who speaks about .these two jeeps is P. W. 5
Puran Chand. He is a shopkeeper in District Shri Ganga Nagar
lB
A
'B
c
D
E
in Rajasthan. He claims that he was the owner of jeep numbered
6424 and his cousin Munshi Ram owned the other jeep, 1li6. His
F
evidence is that he and Munshi Ram left Shri Ganga
Nagar
on
February 13, 1972 with the two jeeps reaching Delhi the next day
where they contacted Brij Mohan, a commission agent, for getting
their "vehicles hired out". On February 17, Duni Chand came to
Brij Mohan seeking to hire two jeeps. Brij Mohan settled the terms
of hire which were that Duni Ch::ind would pay Rs. 130/- per day
G
for each jeep from February 18 to March 11, 1972 besides Rs. 5/-
per day to the driver of each jeep and also pay for the petrol.
The
witness says that· Munshi Ram and he were each paid Rs. 1000 in
advance by Duni Chand.
On March 4, Duni Chand
paid
him
Rs. 3500/- at Kaithal towards the hire of both the jeeps and got
a receipt from him which is Ext. P.W. 5/1; the balance, Rs. 740/-,
H
was collected later by the drivers of the jeeps.
P.W. 6 Surja 'Ram and P.W. 7 Madan Lal are the drivers of jeeps
Nos. 1116 and 6424 respectively,
P.W. 6 claims that respondent
Charan Dass used to go about in his jeep and the respondent's own
.car "used to remain parked in those days".
The witness states
further tl1at the respondent never went in the jeep driven by Madan
Lal.
The statement that the respondent's car was not used during
the election days is not consistent with what appears from paragraph
14 (b) and (c) of the election petition where the petitioner states
114
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1975] SUPP. S.C.k.
A that the respondent used his car in connection with election campaign but has not shown the expenses incurred on that car.
B
P.W. 7 Madan Lal's evidence is that on arriving at Kaithal with
the jeep the witness was deputed by Duni Chand to work at village
Cheeka.
This witness claims that the first respondent travelled in
his jeep on two occasions, first on the 18th of February and on another day, thus contradicting P.W. 6 who had said that the respondent
never used the jeep driven by P.W. 7.
From the evidence of P.W. 3, P.W. 5, P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 1t
C would appear that Duni Chand hired the two jeeps in question to
help the election campaign of the respondent.
Duni Chand, also known as Duli Chand, was examined as a
Court Witness.
His evidence is that he and six or seven other persons
D had formed a party to work against the Congress candidates in the
Kaithal and Pchowa constituencies.
This party, however, was not
given a name nor did it hold any meeting or issue any poster.
He
says that each member of this party contributed Rs. 1000/- to carry
on the election propaganda.
He admits having written the letter
Ext. P.W. 3/1, and that he had hired the two jeeps
in
question
E.
through Brij Mohan to work against the Congress candidates in the
aforesaid two constituencies. According to him the members of this
party went round in those jeeps to canvass support for respondent
Charan Dass as they considered the respondent to be the best of the
candidates.
Asked about the reason why in the letter Ext. P.W. 3/1
he had . given his address as "care of Charan Dass' election office,
F
Kaithal", he says that this was done "to facilitate Brij Mohan's man
to find me for collecting the balance of the hire money ......... the
man could have enquired the address of my shop from the election
office of Charan Dass".
The witness denies that he had given that
address because he was "incharge of the election work of the respondent relating to employment of motor vehicles''.
The witness adds
G
that he and his friends who worked for first respondent at the election did not maintain any record containing particulars of how the
jeeps were employed by them during those days.
In answer to a
question
put to him
in cross-examination
regarding a note-book
which figures prominently in this case, Duni Chand admits that the
note-book, Ext. P.W. 8/5, is partly in his handwriting.
H
This note-book which we will consider in due course was also
written partly by Raghbir Chand who like Duni Chand was examined
as a Court Witness.
He claims to be one of the group of seven or
eight persons spoken of by Duni Chand who were helping the first
respondent.
The petitioner hersell deposing as P.W. 30 has narrated how she
came to know of the said two jeeps being employed by respondent
Charan Dass .. According to her fifteen to twenty jeeps were used
by him for his election work.
She noted the numbers of these
,
' ,
-
OM PRABHA v. CHARAN DAS (Gupta,!.)
115
vehicles in a diary; this record is based on her personal observation
and also on \nformation received from her workers.
In answer to a
question put by the Court she read out tbe numbers of the jeeps
noted in her diary in the following order: "5948, 6055, 6009, 2574,
1710, 9997, 6424, 1116, 6675, HRJ-5324, HIM-4147, 6170 and
8363."
A
B
The note-book, Ext. P.W. 8/5, seems to be the most important
documentary evidence produced on behalf of the petitioner to prove
that the two jeeps in question had been employed by respondent
Charan Dass.
On some pages of this note-book are recorded in an
extremely haphazard manner the numbers of several vehicles with
C
certain dates and figures seeming to indicate when some of the vehicles
first reported for duty and how they were deployed.
The note-book
also mentions different sums of money stating or hinting at the sources
wherefrom these amounts were collected and includes certain entries
suggesting payments made for the use of these vehicles.
The two
jeeps, 6424 and 1116 are among the vehicles mentioned in the noteD
book.
The petitioner states in her evidence that P.W. 9 Mohan
Bahadur brought the note-book to her at her residence in Kaithal
in the last week of September, 1972.
P.W. 9 Mohan
Bahadur,
whese eeposition was recorded on October 5, 1972, states that the
note-llook was given to him "last week" by Punnu Ram, Joint Secretary •f the Kaithal Jan Sangh. According to the witness, Punnu Ram
I.
told him that Jan Sangh had expelled Charan Dass from the Party
anci that the note-book would be of help to the petitioner in her
election petition. The witness adds that Punnu Ram knew that the
witness was a supporter of the petitioner.
In this note-book t_he name of Anil Kumar Gupta, a son of the
first respondent, appears to be written at two places.
Admittedly,
Anil Kumar was a B.A. student in the R. K. S. D. College, Kaithal,
and one of his subjects was Civics.
Pages 3 to 8 of the note-book
contain certain notes on Civics.
According to Mohan Bahadur and
the petitioner there were three loose sheets of paper inside the notebook.
These loose sheets of paper which have also been produced
with the note-book are: (!) a Hindi manuscript containing instructions for the polling agents (Ext. C.W. 2/1), (2) bill of a loudspeaker dealer in the name of Charan Dass for Rs. 101/50p. (Ext.
P.W. 24/1), and (3) a receipt in Hindi dated March 6, 1972 for
RB. 41/50p. for hire of loudspeakers, signed by one Shadi Lal Shad,
a worker of the Jan Sangh Party.
As stated already, it is difficult to find any order or method in
the entries recorded in: this note book though the fact that it belonged
to the respondent's son might appear to lend some authenticity to
the document. Respondent Charan Dass (R.W.15) and his election
agent Gian Chand (R.W.14) both however deny that any such notebook was maintained by them or that they had asked Duni Chand
or Raghbir Chand to make the entries therein. It is also not clear,
how the notebook found its way to the petitioner. Punnu Ram,. Joint
Secretary of the Kaithal Unit of the Jan Sangh Party, who is said to_
l
H
~-
116
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] SUPP, S.C.R.
A have handed over the note-book to Mohan Bahadur was examined
by the respondent (R.W.13).
Punnu Ram denies having made over
any note-book to Mohan Bahadur whom he says he did nor know.
His evidence is that he saw the note-book for the first time in Court.
Punnu Ram admits that he worked for the first respondent at the
B election on behalf of his Party. The
witness proves a document
(Ext.R.W.13/1) containing a statement signed by Shadi Lal Shad
that he had "got prepared" 4 70 small flags and 1000 stencils for the
total cost of Rs. 38.SOp. This document contai1is the signature of
Punnu Ram who appears to have
verified the
correctness of it<
C contents. In his deposition Punnu Ram explains that the Jan Sangh
"·had got the flags and the election symbol of respondent No. 1
prepared as the party was supporting respondent No. 1 '". The witness
adds that the Jan Sangh spent a total amount of Rs. 400/- or Rs. 500/-
on the election of the first respondent. This part of Punnu Ram's
evidence is relevant to the other aspect oE the case, namely, who
D really paid for the two jeeps if it was found that they had been 'employed for the respondent's election campaign.
Raghbir Chand who claims to have made some of the entries
in the note-book was examined as a Court Witness. His evidence is
that Janardan Singh who was his friend and a member of the Jan
E Sangh had asked him to make certain entries in the note-book. He
says that the first column of page 260 a111l the whole of page 261 of
the notebook were in his handwriting. The two jeeps, 1116 and 6424,
are mentioned in the first column of page 260 with the word 'Delhi' in
Urdu written against them. According to Raghbir Chand these pages
F
were blank when the note-book was brought to him by Janardan Singh.
Raghbir Chand says that he did nor know why Janardan Singh wanted
him to write in the note-hook and that he obliged his friend without
asking any questions. The writings on pages 260 and 261 appear to
be in opposite directions, which is one example of the_ lack of order
and method in maintaining the note-book. Raghbir Chand·s explanaG lion is that after be had finished what he was asked to write on page
260 and closed the note-hook,
J anardan Singh thought of getting
some more entries made by him and opened the note-book at page
261 upside down, and Raghbir Chand copied on the page as he found
it whatever Janardan Singh dictated to him.
H
Janardan Singh who claims to be a worker of the Jan Sangh was
also examined as a Court witness. According to him Pawan Kumar,
Joint Secretary of the Jan Sangh at Panipat, came to see him towards the end of March, 1972 and
left
with him the note-book
(Ext. PW. 8/5) and a Parcha containing certain figures in English and
wanted him to get these figures which were all numerals, copied into
the note-book. The witness did not ask him why, and as a worker
of the Jan Sangh proceeded to "obey his orders". He says that he
an<l Ragbbir Chand had "blind faith" in each other, and at his request .
Raghbir Chand copied the figures from the Parcha 011 pages 260 and
261 of the note-book.
These pages however contain certain names
of places and persons and also other words; according to Raghbir
>
I',-.
-
•
,:~.
- '
•
..... - - \ ..
OM PRABHA v. CHARAN DAS (Gupta, J.)
Chand these also were in his handwriting, hut J anardan Singh maintains that the Parcha from which Raghbir Chand had copied did not
contain any such names or words. Janardan Singh's evidence is that
later Pawan Kumar collected the note-book from him.
At the co<1clusion of Janardan Singh's
deposition, the learnoo
Judge appears to have recorded a note of his impression that "throughout his statement, this witness has been displaying nervousness, and
prevarificating and avoiding to give straightforward answers to the
questions put to him".
Duni Chand's version is that what he had written in the notebook was at the instance of Rattan Lal, President of Ward No. 8,
Kaithal Jan Sangh Party. Dtmi Chand says that Rattan Lal expressed
displeasure at the respondent failing to honour his promise to join
the Jan Sangh legislature party, if elected, and enquired of Duni
Chand if he could produce any evidence which would go, against the
respondent in the election dispute, then pending in the High Court.
Duni Chand made over to Rattan Lal the receipt, Ext. P.W.5/1,
given by Puran Chand for Rs. 3500/- paid towards the hire of the
jeeps 1116 and 6424. Five or six days thereafter, Rattan Lal again
came to sec Duni Chand with a diarv and a note-book. Dtmi Chand's
evidence is that he copied on the clifiercnt pages of the note-book
whatever Rattan Lal read out from the diarv. This was· about a month
after the election. Duni Chanel says that, when the note-book was
brought to him, it contained all the other writings that are now there.
Duni Chanel's evidence is that he did not question
Rattan Lal in
what way the note-book would be used against the respondent but
wrote to his dictation on such pages of the note-book and in such
order as he was told. According to Duni Chand, Rattan Lal took
away the diary and the note-book after the writing was done.
117
A
B
c
D
E
F
Certain entries in the note-book apparently corroborate the oral
evidence as to some payments made towards the hire of the two
jeeps but it does not record ail the payments claimed to have been
G
made. For instance,
P.W.6 Surja Ram, driver of
jeep No. 1116,
stated that he had signed in a note book on March 12, in acknowledgement of the receipt of Rs. 740/-, being the balance of the amount
dne on account of the two jeeps.
There is however nothing in the
note-book to support this statement. Assuming Surja Ram's evidence
to he true, one would have expected to find his signature in the noteH
book .
Pawan Kumar, Provincial Secretary, Haryana Jan Sangh, was the
first witness to be examined on behalf of the petitioner. He disclaims
all knowledge of the Parcha or the note-book which, according to
him, he saw for the first time in court. His evidence adds to the
r.1ystery surrounding the note-book. The witness states that the first
respondent was in fact a Jan Sangh candidate but was allowed to
contest as an independent as a matter of election strategy. He adds
that he went to Kaithal on March 14, 1972 and requestee the respondent to declare that he would join the Jan Sangh legislature party.
118
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1975] SUPP. s.c.R.
A The respondent is said to have replied that be would think over the
matter and then inform the witness. The respondent, it is alleged,
was thereafter asked on the telephone on March 16, to attend the
W orldng Committee meeting of the State Jan Sangh at Kamal to be
held the next day. Though the respondent's reply on the teJepbone
B was that he would attend the meeting, he did not ultimately do so.
About two days after the meeting, the witness went again to the' respondent for· an answer but still the
respondent did not give any
definite reply. The witness also states
that 4 or 5 days after the
result of the election was declared, the respondent came to Jan Sangh
olficc to have the return of election expenses prepared in consultaC tion with the witness and the President of the State Jan Sangh Party.
The witness proves the notice. Ex. P.W. I /3, issued on March 25,
1972 asking the first respondent to show cause within one week of
the receipt of the notice why he should not be expelled from the
party because of his failure to join the Jan Sangh legislature party
in breach of his previous assurance.
D
Pa\van Kumar goes on to say that in the course of his visits to0
Kaithal to supervise the election campaign'. in support of the respoade•t,.
he used to find Duni Chand sitting in the respondent's election ollice
and alloting duties to the different vehicles and also making pay111e•l6
E in that connection. It is also the evidence of this witness that though
the first respondent was really a Jan Sangh candidate, the Party did
not incur any expenditure on his elect.ion. According to him even
the expenses of the public meeting arranged by Jan Sangh in support
of the respondent at Kaithal on
March 4, 1972 were met by tile
respondent himself.
F
The evidence of Pawan Kumar does not seem to be altogether consistent and some of his statements also appear to contradict what
certain other witnesses have said. Pawan Kumar has stated that 4
or 5 days after the result of the election was declared he met the
G respondent when the latter came to the Jan Sangh office to have his
return of election expenses prepared. The result of election was declared on March 13, 1972. On March 14, the witness claims to have
seen the respondent at Kaithal to request him to
declare that he
would join the Jan Sangh legislature party. On March 16, he requested
the respondent on telephone to attend the meeting of the Party to be
H held the next day. On March 17, the meeting was held but the respondent did not attend. On March 19, the witness
again went to
Kaithal to have a discussion with the respondent and on March 25,
the show-cause notice was issued. From the above list of dates which
appear from Pawan Kumar's own evidence it is diificult to reconcile·
his other statement that about 4 or 5 day after the respondent 'l'{as
declared elected, the respondent came to the Jan Sangh office to have
the return of election expenses prepared in
consultation with the
witness and the President of the Jan Singh Party. Pa wan Kumar had
also stated that there was no telephone in tbe olfiee of the Jan Sangh
Party at Kaithal. This is contradicted by
P.W.18 B. L. Khanija,
Accounts Officer, Telephones, South Division, Ambala. His evidence
' -
•
'
' I -
•
•
-
. .
OM PRABHA v. CHARAN DAS (Gupta, J.)
based on his office record is that the Secretary, Bhartiya Jan Sangh,
Kaithal was the subscriber of the Kaithal Telephone No. 497 from
Fcbru~ 16, 1972 to March 15, 1972. This was, P.W.18 added,
a casual connection and was installed in the house of Rattan Lal.
P. W .18 further stated· that at the time of ins.tallation of the telephpne
Rs. 180 were charged as advance rent,
Rs. 30 as installauon
·charges and Rs. 1000 as adjustable security, and that after adjusting
the outstanding bills against the security .deposit of Rs. 1000, the
balance was refunded to the subscriber. The total· expenses incurred
by the subscriber of this telephone came to Rs. 385. The original
application dated
February 4, 1972 for installation of this casual
telephone cortnection was also produced in Court, an English translation of (Ext.P.W.18/3) reads as follows:
To,
"Bhartiya Jan Sangh,
Kaithal Manda!.
The S.D.O .
Telephones,
Karna!.
Kaitha], dated the 4th February, 1972.
Subject :-New connection for the office of Bhartiya Jan Sangh.
It is submitted that a telephone connection is required for the
office of Bhartiya Jan Sangh at Kaithal for one and half month.
Kindly get the same installed.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/- Amar Nath, M.C.
Bhartiya Jan Sangh,
Kaithll"
Pa wan Kumar's assertion that Jan Sangh did not spend any money
on the respondent's election is belied not only by R.W .13 Punnu Ram
but also by another witness who deposed for the petitioner. It is P.W. 24
Inderjit. He is an employee of a shop at Kaithal that lends loudspeakers on hire. P.W. 24 states that one Raj Kumar, whom he described as a supporter of the Jan Sangh, came to his shop to hire loud,
speakers on March 4, 1972 and he paid charges a few days thereafter.
This witness proves the receipt, Ext. P.W.24/1, for Rs. 101/50p.
given ·by him. The receipt appears to have been made out in the
name of the respondent, Charan Dass. The witness states that though
the receipt was in the name of Charan Dass he never came tb the
shop for the loudspeakers and the hiring charge was paid by Raj
Kumar. P.W. 24 adds that he had written the nam'l. of Charan Dass
. on the receipt at the instance of Raj Kumar.
The inconsistent statements of Pawan Kumar and the contradictions between his evidence and that of P.W.24 Inderjit who also was
a witness for the petitioner, to say nothing about the evidence of
10 SC/75-9
119
A
B
c
E
F
G
H
120
SUPREME COURT .REPORTS
(1975] SUPP. S.C.k.
A Punnu Ram, though he too was a member of the Jan Sangh, suggests
that either Pawan Kumar had no knowledge of at least some of the
,
facts he was talking about or that some of his statements were deliberately false.
On the evidence discussed above the findings recorded by the
B High Court may be s_umrnarised as follows :-
1. Duni Chand went to Delhi on or about February 17, 1972
and hired the two jeeps in question at the rate of Rs. 130 per day·
for each jeep with effect from February 18, 1972. Duni Chand had
C paid Brij Mohan Rs. 2000 towatxls the hire of the two jeeps and a
further sum of Rs. 3500 to Puran Chand {P.W. 5) on March 4,
>
D
1972 at Kaithal. Altogether Duni Chand spent Rs. 6240 for · the
two jeeps. Both the jeeps were used in the
respondent's election
campaign from February 18 to March 11, 1972 under the charge
and direction of Duni Chand.
•
2. The note-book, Ext. P.W.8/5, belonged to the respondent's
son Anil Kumar Gupta and the notes on Civics that this book: contains
were in his handwriting. The other entries in the note-book relating
to matters cooceruing the election of the
respondent were made
partly by Duni Chand and partly by Raghbir Chand. The note-oook
E
i~ not a do.;mnent maintained in the· regular course of business and
contains certain haphazard entries which cannot be used for foisting
liability on any one without definite and clear proof of the genuineness
and correctness of these entries. The witnesses who proved some of
the entri.es in the note-book, Duni Chand and Raghbir Chand, have
F
both denied that the entries are genuine.