LexDHARMESH PRASAD VERMA versus FAIYAZAL AZAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•
DHARMESH PRASAD VERMA
v.
FAIYAZAL AZAM
July 17, 1984
[S. MURTAZA f AZAL ALI, A. V ARADARAJAN AND RANGA NATH
MIS!tA, JJ.J
The Representation of the People Act 1951, Section 123 (5).
11
A
B
c
Corrupt practice-Procuring of vehicle for free conveyance of voters-
D
Evidence and proof.
Je1p belonging to friend of candidate-Carrying of voters in jeep-Whe
4
ther corrupt practice.
The respondent was elected to a State Assembly Constituency. The
E
appellant who ha_d contested the election pleaded four items of corrupt praclice
in his Election Petition filed against the respondent.
The Legislative Assembly to which the respondent was elected has been
dissolved and a fresh election has been held. Notwithstanding, the fresh
eiection the appellant pursued his election p<!tition in order to prove corrupt
F
practice on the part of the respo11dent.
In his election petition, the appellant pleadea that the respondent com·
mitted a corrupt practice falling under se-ction 123 (5) of the Representation of
the People Act, 1951 by procuring and using a jeep for the free conveyance of
voters to the po11ing station on the date of poll. The respondent denied the
G
. charge and contended· that the appellant had not complied with the mandatory
provisions of sections 811 82 and 83 of the Act read with Order VI. Rule 15 of
the Code of Civil Procedure and section 117 of the Act and the election peti·
tion was therefore liable to be dismissed.
\
The Judge who tried the petition, followed this Court's ruling in Rahim
Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed [1975) 1 SCR 653 that Proceedings arising out jof
H
A
B
c
12
SUPREME COUllT RBPOllTS
[!985J I s.C.k,
election petitions are quasi-criminal in nature and that evidence relating to
corrupt practices should be scrutinized with scrupulous care and merciless
severity; considered the evidence adduced by the parties, and found that the
jeep bearing No. USJ 5226 while carrying five ladies including P.Ws. 10, 11,
42 who were voters, free of cost, for casting votes on be ha If of the respondent
was seized by the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police about
1& miles from the pJlling booth and that at the time of the seizure, the jeep
v:as driven by a close friend of the respondent and that this friend had worked
for the respondent in the election and was present in the booth on the date of
the p)lling and that the respondent's polling agent stood surety for the release
of the jeep. The Judge held that these facts were not sufficient to hold that
""" the respondent procured the jeep, and that since the jeep with the voters was
caught not at the polling station but at som·e distance way from it, it was only
a case of an attempt at corrupt practice and not corrupt practice itself under
section 123 (5) of the Act, and dismissed the election Petition.
Allowing the appeal, this Court,
HELD: I. The requiren1ent of the law in regard to corrupt practice
D
under section 123 (5) cf the Representation of the People Act_)951 is that in
addition to proving the hiring or proc.>uring of any vehicle or vessel for the
carriage of voters to and from any polling Station it should also be proved that
the electors used the vehicle or vessel free of cost to themselves. [17A~B]
2. .Section 123 (S) requires three things, (1) hiring or procuring of a
E
vehicle; {2) by a candidate or his agent etc. and (3) for the free conveyance of
F
0
11
an elector. [ 16H]
·
Joshibhai Chunibhai Patel v. Anwar Beg Mirza, [19691 2 SCR 97, Razik
Ram v. Jaswant Singh Chauhan, [1975] 4 SCC 769 at 775 and Dadasahib Datta-
traya Pawar v. Pandurang Raoji Jagtap, [1978] 2 SCR 524 at 528, refereed to.
3. The appellant has proved satisfactorily all the three requirements of
clause (5) of section 123 of the Act. The respondent has therefore to be held
guilty of corrupt practice falling under this clause which is ordinarily difficult
to prove. [27F]
In the instUnt case, the evidence of P.Ws. 6, 16 and 43 reveal that the
respondent had procured the j~ep USJ 5226 from his close friend, Kabir
Ahmed for the free conveyance of his electors and that the jeep was, there·
after, used for that purpose on the day of poll, and seized by the Officials,
P.W. 69 District Magistrate, P.W. 73-Superintendent of Police and P.W. 81-
Station House Officer when it was being used for the conveyance of the
electors p .Ws. 10, 11, 42 and others inciuding P .W. 67 free of cost to them-
selves. The appellaExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.