BRIJ MOHAN versus MANGE RAM & ORS.

Citation: [1985] 3 S.C.R. 312 · Decided: 13-03-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
fl 
312 
BRIJ MOHAN 
v • 
MANGE RAM & ORS. 
March 13, 1985 
(S. M.URTAZA f AZAL ALI AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.) 
Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951, Section 123 ( 1) -Corrupt 
Praclice of bribery-Alleqation of giving donation to a temple after inducing 
.voters to cast Yates in hiS favour-Inconsistency between the a/legation in the 
election petition and evidence of witnesses -
Whether Corrupt Practice is 
proved-Held1 "No". 
Jn the election held on 19.5.1982 to the Haryana Legislative Assembly 
from the Jind Constituency, the appellant was declared elected over his nearest 
rival respondent NO. 1 with a margin of 146 votes. 
Respondent No. l chall-
enged the appellant's election inter a/fa, on the ground that the appe1lant 
and his father Sita Ram and two others Ram Kishan and Amrit Lal visited 
_....~ 
Kandela village on or about 16.5.1982 and contacted Dalip Singh, Sarpanch of 
the village and one Dewan Singh, Secretary of the Backward Classes. 
There-
after all of them went to the house of one Dharam Singh where backward 
class voters including Dewan Singh, Harl Ram, Devi Ram, Fateh Singh and 
Mauji Ram had assembled. 
The voters told the appellant that they intended 
to cast their votes in favour of Congress (I) candidate as they had always been 
in favour of the Congress (I) party. 
Then the appeUant had 8. talk with the 
Sarpanch Dalip Singh and one Dharam Singh and subsequently stated, for --X" 
inducing the voters to cast their vote in his favour, that he is prepared to give 
'-
a donation of Rs. 5100 as he had been told that they needed some money for 
• 
their mandir. 
Accordingly he gave a sum of Rs. 5100 to the Sarpanch Dalip 
Singh who passed it on to· Dh~ram Singh and Dewan Singh. 
The voters 
thereafter assured the appellant that they would vote for him and ensure that 
every vote belonging to their class will go in his favour. 
Thus, the appellant 
was alleged to have commited the corrupt practice of bribery as defined i.Q 
Section 123(1) of the Reprefentation of People Act, 1951. 
The appeJlant had. 
denied that he had gone to Kandcla village on 16.5.1982 either alone or in the. 
company of Sita Ram and others. 
He also denied that he had contacted the 
s"arpanch Dalip Singh and others and· gave Rs. 5100 as alleged in the electio~ 
petiton and that the voters of Kandela village held out any promise for .casting 
their votes in his favour. 
The High Court held that the appellant had com; 
milt~~ th; >Qrrupt practi" of ~ri~e'l' l'.ll\l ''I ~si\le t!ie election ~~ ve\4, 
BRU MOHAN v. MANGE RAM 
313 
Allowing the appeal by the appellant, 
HELD : 1. 
As regards the corrupt practice of bribery, there is evidenct 
only of P.Ws. 1, 16, 90, 91 and 92 which is wholly unreliable and does not 
prove the corrupt practice of which the appellant has been found guilty by the 
Learned Single Judge. 
[320B] · 
· 
2(i) 
The first respondent P.W. 1 has stated in his cross-examination 
·that the bribe money was paid by the appeJlal)t on 15.5.1982. It would appear 
from his evidence that he claims to have personal knowledge about the alleged 
visit of the appellant and others to Kandela village on 16.5.1982 and about 
the alleged payment of Rs. 5100 by the appellant for the construction of a 
temple for the backward class people of the village in order to induce the 
voters of those classes to cast their votes in his favour. 
But in his affidavit 
verifying the election petition he has stated that the allegations made in para 
9(d) of the election petition regarding this item of corrupt practice are based 
upon infonnation received by him from Dewan Singh. 
Therefore the evidence 
of P.W. 1 is wholly unacceptable. 
[317C-D] 
2(ii} 
The evidence of P.W. 16 that on 15.5.82 the appellant offered to 
A 
B 
c 
give a sunie of .Rs. 5100 in the house of Dewan Chand and that it· was given 
D 
by one Madan Lal to Dharam Chand is inconsistent with the a1legatiott in the 
election petition that the appellant offered to give Rs. 5100 on 16.5.1982 as 
donation ·and gave it himself to the Sarpanch Dalip Singh and he passed it on 
to Dharama Singh. 
Therefore the evidence of P.W. 16 also cannot be 
accepted. 
[317H; 318AJ 
2(iii.) 
The evidence of P.W. 90 is that the people asked for money to 
· vote in favour of the appellant and that thereupon he gave Rs. 5100 to 
Dharma Lobar on 16.5.82 is contrary to the allegat[on in the election petitiori. 
, There i.s thus a vital discrepancy between the pleading in the el

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