D. VENKATA REDDY versus R SULTAN & OTHERS

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 445 · Decided: 24-02-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.K. GOSWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
' 
D VENKATA REDDY 
v. 
R SULTAN & OTHERS 
February 24, 1976 
(P. K. GOSWAMI ANDS. MURTAzA FAzAL ALI, JJ.) 
445 
Representation of the People Act (43 of 1951 ), ss. 81 and 86(5)-App/ica-
tion for a1ne11dment of petition for giring material part;culars-To what extent 
1nay be allowed~A mendrnent allowed in \·iolation of s. 86(5) without objec-
tion-If could be challenged in appeal to Supre1ne Court. 
Election petition-Approach of court to evidence 
regci.~ding corrupt prac-
tices--T ainted · and 
interested 
evidencc-J\/tcessi1y 
for 
corroboration-
Attitude of court to poll verdict-Material particulars and evidence, scdpe. 
The n~spondent, who wa~ a Muslim, was the Congress candidate for elec-
tion to the State Legit1lative Assembly. 
He challenged the appellant's elect;on, 
and the High Court allowed the election petition on three grounds (l) 
that 
the appellant committed a corrupt practice under s. 123 ( 1), Representation of 
the Pl!ople Act, 19•51 in that he offered a bribe to the Jespondent to indu1.,,'e 
him not to contest the election; (2) that the appellant committed corrupt prac .. 
tice under s. 123(3A) in that he issued and personally distributed a pamphlet 
containing communal allegations. with a view to create ill-feeling among the 
voters; and (3) that the appellant'si agents distributed that pamphlet with the 
appellant's contest. 
Allowing the appeal to this_ Court, 
HELD : ( 1) (a) While it ii; necessary to protect the purity of elections by 
ensuring that the candidares do not secure the valuable votes of the people 
by undue influence, fraud, 
communal propaganda. bribery or other 
corrupt 
practices, the valuable verdict of the people at the polls must be given due 
A 
B 
c 
D 
res_p~ct and should not be disregarded or ~et at naught on vague, frivolous or 
E 
fanciful ailegations, or on evidence which is of a shaky or 
pre-varicating 
character. [450F-G, HJ 
(b) The onus lies heavily on the election-petitioner to make out a strong 
case for setting aside the election. 
He must, in onler to succeed, plead \>II 
material particulars and prove them by clear and cogent evidence. 
[450G; 451K] 
( c) The al1egations of corru'1t practice being in the nature of a quasicrimi-
nal charge, mu9t be proved beyond 
reasonable doubt. When the election-
petitioner seeks to prove the charge by purely partisan evidence of his workers, 
agents. supporters and friends, the court would have to approach the evidence 
with great care and caution, and would, as a matter of prudence, th-Ough not 
as a rule of law, require corroboration of such evidence from independent 
quarters, unless the court is fully sati9fied that the evidence is so creditworthy 
and true, that no corroboration to lend further assurance is necessary. 
[451A-C] 
(d) The attempt of the agents or supporters of the defeated candidate is 
always to get the election set aside by fair mean9 or foul and the evidence of 
such witnesses, must, therefore, be regarded as highly interested and tainted 
evidence. [451C-D] 
(e) When, the evidence led by the election-petitione-r, even thoug:h consis· 
tent. is fraught with inherent iinprobabilities and replete with unnatural ten-
dencies, the .court may refuse to accept such evidence, because consistency 
alone is not the conclusive test of truth. It is, however, difficult to lay down 
any rule of universal application and each case will have to be decided on 
its own facts. 
f451D-El 
Bhanu Kumar Shastri" v. Mohan Lal Sukhadia & Ors., [1971] I S.C.C. 370; 
Rahim Khan v. Khurshid AhmPd & Ors .. r1974l 2 S.C.C. 660; Abdul Hussain 
Mir v. Shomsul Hurln nnd rn"'thPr. p9751 4 ~.C.C. 533 and Ghasi Ram v. 
Dal Singh & Ors. (1968] · 3 S.C.R. 102, followed. 
14-L522SCI/76 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
0 
E 
F 
G 
446 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1976] 3 S.C.R. 
(2) In the present case, the High Coun correctly adumbrated the legal 
propositions but had not correctly applied them to the facts and evidence. It 
also applied different standards in appreciating the evidence. It readily accepted 
the evidence of two witnesses on one issue while rejecting as partisan and in .. 
terested on another issue. 
[453A-D] 
(3) The cumulative effect of' thei inherent improbabilities and the intrinsic 
infirmities of the evidence for the respondent, and the n.nnatural conduct 
of th"C: respondent and his witnesses, lead to the conclusion that the respondent 
had failed to prove the allegation of the offer of bribe. 
[465B-C] 
(a) The respondent bore 

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