AVTAR SINGH BRAR versus TAJ SINGH & OTHERS

Citation: [1984] 2 S.C.R. 415 · Decided: 16-01-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

~·· 
\ii. 
'<"\ . 
415 
A 
AVTAR SINGH BRAR 
v. 
TAJ SINGH & OTHERS 
January I 6, I 984 
[S. MuRTAZA FAZAL Au, A. VARADARAJAN AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.J 
Representation of the People Act, 1951-S.123(2)-Corrupt practice-Scope of 
The first respondent, Tej Singh; won in legislative assembly election defeating 
the appellant by 123 votes and also 3 other candidates including Ruplal. 
The 
appeIIant challenged the election of Tej Singh on the ground that he was guilty of 
committing corrupt practices. The 1nain corrupt practice said to have been indJ;lged 
in by Tej Singh was that he had got circulated pan1phlets and posters arµong the 
voters of the constituency Wherein he had mentioned that Ruplal had withdrawn 
his candidature and any vote given to him (Tej Singh) would be deemed to be a vote 
for Ruplal, and the said posters were Printed not by Ruplal but at the instance of 
Tej Singh. 
Allowing the appeal, 
I-lELD ; The effect of the posters was to mislead the voters so as to make 
them beliC've that one of the candidates, Viz., Ruplal, had withdrawn and any vote 
given to Tej Singh would be considered as a vote given to Ruplal. 
Tn other w0rds, 
the effect of the posters .was that v.11 the voters who would have voted for Ruplal 
would now cast their votes in favour ofTej Singh. 
As the margin of votes between 
the defeated and the returned CalldidateS was very small, viz., 12·3 votes, if such a 
misrepresentation was not made, in .all probability the votes \vould have gone to the 
appellant (Avtar Singh) and, therefore, the result of the election would have been 
materia11y altered. On a perusal Of the evidence-both oral and documentary-
adduced by the parties and in the circumstances of the case, the irresistible inference 
and inescapable conclusion that can be arrived at is that Tej Singh had actually 
paid for the posters which were printed at his instance and Ruplal was not connected 
with ·the printing of the posters. In these circumstances the appellant has proved 
beyond reasonable ·doubt that Tej Singh. had indulged in corrupt practices parti-
cualrly when the printing of the posters by Tej Singh has been clearly admitted 
by him. [417 D-E; G; 418 BJ 
• 
. 
Cl.VIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal (NCE) No. 735of1982. 
From the Judgment and Order dated the 22nd April, 1981 of 
the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Election Petition No, 6 of 1980. 
K.L. Sharma, A..S, Sohal and MC Dhingra for the Appellant. 
M. Veerappa and A.shok Kumar Sharma for Respondent No. I. 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
, 
416 
. ,-
SUPREME COURT RJ!PORTS 
[1984] 2 s.c.R. 
A 
A..S. Pundz'r for Respondent No. 2. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
c 
FAZAL Au, J. This election appeal arises out of an election 
to the Baghapurana Constituency {District Faridkot) to the Punjab 
Legislative Assembly. The polling took place on May 31, 1980 
and the counting was done on June 1, 1980. Tej Singh, respondent, 
secured 25694 votes whereas Avtar Singh (appellant) secured 25571 
votes. There were three other candidates also 
in the field, 
viz., 
(l).Sathi Ruplal, (2) Bhogat Puran Singh, and (3) Jagdish Chander. 4
RChupladl securedd 
1
1
4
3
0
47 vdot
2
e
8
s
56
while Bhagat
1
. Pu
1
ran 
1
Singh and Jhagdihsh 
.. - .. 
an er secure 
an 
votes· respec 1ve y. 
t appears t at t e 
margin between the votes secured by Tej Singh (respondent) and 
Avtar Singh (appellant) was only 123. 
Avtar Singh filed an elecfon petition in the Punjab & Haryana 
High Court against Tej Singh alleging that he was guilty of committing 
D 
corrupt practices, detaile~. in the petition and in the Statement of facts: 
Ruplal supported the appellant but Bhagat Puran Singh and Jagdish 
did not put in any appearance despite service and, therefore, the 
proceedings were taken ex parte against them. Tej Singh denied 
having indulged in any corrupt practice as alleged by Avtar Singh. 
E 
It is not necessary for us to go into further details because, in 
our opinion, the appeal must succeed on a short point. The main 
~ 
corrupt practice said to have been indulged in Tej Singh was that he 
had got circulated paophlets and posters among the voters of the 
J 
constituency wherein he had mentioned that Ruplal had withdrawn 
;'r" 
his candidature and any vote given to him (Tej Singh) would be deemed 
F 
to be a vote for Ruplal, and the said posters were printed not by Ruplal 
but at the .instance of Te~ Singh. 
· 
On a perusal of the evidence-both oral and documentary-
adduced by

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.