LexA. YOUNUS KUNJU versus R.S. UNNI & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
,.
162
A
A. YOUNUS KUNJU
v.
R.S. UNNI & OTHERS ·
B
March 8, 1984
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.]
Election Law-Representation of People Act, 1951 Section 123(4)-Al!egation
·c
of Corrupt Practice and irregularities in the matter of·counting of ballot papecs-
Standard of proof of the charge of corrupt practiCe is the' sarlle in efectioh case,
as_in a criminal case.
.D
E
F
In tbe election held on 19.5.1982 for the election of a member of the Kerala
Legi$lative Assembly "from constit.uency No .. 125 lEravipuram in the Quilon
District of that State, there were eight candidates in all but the main contest was
between the appellant and the respondent. No. 1.
The appellant polled 37,073
while the respondent polled 37,862. There was therefore an e~cess of 789 votes.
As per the ·result. declared .on 20.5.1982, the respondent wa• declared elected.
The appellanftherefore, filed an election petition in the Kerala. High Court
alleging commission of corrupt practices wi_thin the meaning of J;Ub-sectiOns 2,
4, and- 7 of Section 123 of th~ Act and Several irregularities in . the course of
counting leading to wrong conclusion regarding the result. In paragraphs 4 to 8
· of the election petition it had been alleged that e1ecti0n agent Azeez published a
statement dated 13.5.1982 in thdorm of a hand-bill ~kiag faI1e but serious
allegations ~gainst the appellant touching his personal character and conduct.
It was alleged that the· appellant h3.d caused the murder of one Omana, a _18.dy
worker supporting Respondent -No. 1 because she refused to work for the
appellant. The oral evidence to this Cffect byPWs 7, 8, 11 and 12 who-wefe
the workers of tbe appellants aiid the plea for nonsummoning the.printer with
the· documents printed by him were not believe~ by the Election Judge. The·.
election petitiotvhaving been dismissed, .. the petitioner has come in appeal.
Dismissin& the appeal_. the Court
HELD : 1 : 1. The High Court rightly negatived the challenge to the·
G
election of respondent No. 1 o~ gro~nds of corrupt pra~tice. [168E]
•
1 : 2. There is a -total consensus of judicial opinion that a chl:trge of
currupt practice under the RepresentatiOJJ of People Act, 195f has to be proved
beYond reason8.b1e doubt and the standard of prOof is the same as in a criminal
case .. When the High Court applied the right standard in the. matter Of .
. .,#Jr,
"f, .....
•
H
appreci~tion of the material pla:ced before it and has come to hold that the
. allegatiorls of corrupt practice within the meaning of ~ection 123(4) of the Act
bas not been proved, tbe Supreme Court would not re-appreciate the evidence.
' .
(167F·H, 168AJ
•.
•
• J
,,
A. Y. KUNJU v. R.s. UNNi (Ranganath Misra, J. )
163
Mahant Shreenath v. Chaudhry Ranbir Singh [1970] 3 S.C.C. 647; Bqddepal/i
A
Rajtl{{opa/a Raa t. N.G. Ranga, A.I.R. 1971 SC 267; applied .
•
I : 3. Want of proper steps at the right time and negligence or. wilful
default at 1he trial to Cause the summons and prodllctiOn of· a document must
only lead the Court todraw an acfvcrse inferance· regarding non production of
the relevaot material. [165G-H]
1 : 4. Any report of a police officer which indicates that the information
was gathered from the gossips in the locality jg not admissible and it is hearsay
of a type to which no. credence could attach. [166A-B]
·
l : 5. When an election was fought on party basis and there was sharp
division of the electorate on the basis of political parties, workers at the election
C
with party alignment would Ilece~sarily be political supporter of the tespective
canOidates and when called as witnesses
th~y would support· their stand.
Instances are not uncommon where such witnesses support_ their respective can-.
didates and their cas~ even though the same may be far from truth. In such
circun1stances·on the oral. testimony of PWs 7, 8, 11 ·and 12 who are admittedly
workers of the appellant the change of publication of objectionable materials
can not be said to have been established. [t61iB-D]
D
CNIL · APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5992 of
1983
·Appeal from the J11dgment and order dated the 7th December,
1982 of the Kerala High Cowt in Election Petition No. 8 of 1982
E ·
M.M. Abdul Khader and E.M.S. Anam for the Appellant.
f. Govinden Nair and N. Sudhakaran for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RANGANATH MISRA, J. This appeal under Section ll6A of the
RExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.