DADA SAHEB DATTATRAYA PAWAR & ORS versus PANDURANG RAOJI JAGTAP & ORS.

Citation: [1978] 2 S.C.R. 524 · Decided: 13-01-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

524 
A 
DADA_SAHEB DATTATRAYA PAWAR & ORS. 
1'. 
PANDURANG RAOJI JAGTAP & ORS. 
January 13, 1978 
B 
(Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, V. ·R. KRISHNA IYER & JASWANT SINGH, JJ.J 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Election Petition-Corrupt practice as envisaged by 
S. 
144-!(3) 
of the' 
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960,-Burden of proof-Nature of 
proof to show the guilt under the section is the same as that under S. 123 of the 
Representation of the People Act, 1951. 
Shetkari Sahakari Sangh, a specified cooperative 
society 
as 
defined 
in 
S. 144-A read with S. 73-G of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960~ 
is duly registered under the Act with the entire Kolhapur district as its area of 
operation and has voting members of two types viz., (i) individual members and 
(ii) cooperative societies. In the election of the members of its 
Board of 
Directors, held in the manner laid down in Chapter XI A of the Act and the 
rules made thereunder in the second half of the year 1973, 
two groups are 
headed by Baba Nesarikar who was earlier the Managing Director of the Sangh 
and another headed by one Jagtap Guruji entered the election fray. 
In the said 
election, all the three appellants in Appeal No. 41 and all the six appellants in 
Appeal No. 42 were declared elected from the constituency of individu3.l mem-
bers numbering 25000 and the constituency of the cooperative societies affiliated 
to the Sangh numbering 650 respectively. 
Baba Nesarikar '\Vas himself returned 
unopposed from the combined constituency of individual members and coopera-
tive societies. The Nesarikar gioup captured all the 
seats contested by 
it. 
Respondents 1 and 2 filed tv;,ro separate election petitions under s. 144-T of the 
Act read with Rule 74 of the Maharashtra Specified Cooperative Societies Elec-
tions to Committees Rules, 1971, challenging the validity of the elections on a 
number ot grounds. The Commissioner Pune, by his common judgment and 
order dated December 16, 1975, allowed them on the sole 
ground 
that the 
appellants v..1ere guilty of corrupt practice as envisaged by Section 144-1(3) ot 
the Act, in that special vehicles were hired with the knowledge and consent of 
the appellants for the free conveyance of voters from Bhawani Mandap to the 
polling station and back and used as such on the day of poll. 
Allowing the appeals by special leave, the Court 
HELD: (1) As Section 144-1 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 
1960, corresponds to S. 123 of the Representation Of the People Act, 1951 the 
same principles must govern the adjudication of disputes relating to 
elections 
under the latter Act. [528 A-BJ 
(ii) This Court bas laid down the following principles and tests under S. 123 
of the Representation of the People Act, 19 51 
(a) 
(b) 
In considering whether a corrupt practice described in S. 123(5) of 
the Act is committed, conveying of electors cannot be dissociated 
from the hiring of a vehicle. 
[528 B] 
Ba/want Singh v. Lakshmi Narain [1960] 3 S.C.R. 9l=AIR 1960 
S.C. 770 applied. 
To establish the corrupt practice under s. 123(5) of the Act, it is 
necessary for an election petitioner to prove (i) that any vehicle _or 
vessel was hired or was procured, whether on payment or otherwise, 
by the returned candidate or by his election agent or by any other 
person with the consent of the candidate or of his election 
agent; 
(ii) that it was used for the conveyance of the electors to or from 
any polling station and (iii)that such conveyance was free of cost 
to the electors. Failure to substantiate any one of these ingredients 
leads to the collapse of the whole charge. [528 C·D] 
' 
• 
D. D. PAWAR V. P. R. JAGTAP 
525 
Ch. Razik Ram Vs. Ch. J. S. Chauhan & Ors. [1975] 4. S.C.C. 
A 
769=A.i.R. 1975 S.C. 667 (Applied). 
(c) The stanOard of proof required to establish a corrupt practice 
is 
strict proof, the proceedings against imputation of corrupt practices, 
being quasi-criminal. [529 CJ 
Rahim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed & Ors. [1975] 1 S.C.R. 
643= 
[1974] 2 S.C.C. 660=A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 290; Ch. Razik Ram v. Ch. 
B 
J. S. Chauhan & Ors. [1975] 4 S.C.C. 769= A.J.R. 1975 S.C. 667; 
Hem Rai v. Ramii Lal & Anr. [19751 4 S.C.C. 671=A.I.R. 1975 
S.C. 382; Om Prabha v. Charan Das [1975] Supp. S.C.R. 
107; 
Amolak Chand Chhazad v. Bhagwandas Arya (Dead) & Anr. 
[1977] 3 S.C.C. 566=A.l.R. 
1977 S.C. 
813; 
Lakshmi 
Raman 
Aclrarya v. Chandan Singh & Ors. [1977] 1 S.C.C. 423=A.l.R. 1977 
S.C. 587; Narendra Madivalapa Klkeni v. 

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