LexDR. (MRS.) VIMAL versus BHAGUJI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
DR. (MRS.) VIMAL
v.
BHAGUJJ AND ORS.
MAY 12, 1995
[G.N. RAY AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.]
Representation of the People Act 1951-Ss.123(3) and 123(3A)-Cor-
mpt practice-Speeches made at election meeting with consellt of can-
didate-Report of speeches published i11 local newspaper-Oral evidence led
C of reporters attending meeting--Notings forming basis of reports not
produced-Held; candidate 11ot guilty of comtpt practice; evide11ce not u11im-
peachable.
Representation of the People Act 1951-Ss.123(3) and 123(3A}-
Speeches made at election meeting with consent of candidate-Report of
D speeches published in local newspaper-Oral evidence led of reporters attend-
ing meeting--Notings fanning basis of reports not produced-Held, Cowt
should draw adverse i11ference against authe11ticity of report of
speeches-Evidence Act 1872,s.59.
E
Representation of the People Act 1951-Ss.98, 99-Speeches made at
election meeting for benefit of and with consent of candidate-Court setting
aside election for com1pt practice without naming collaborators-Held, Cowt
should not make final decision of conupt without naming collaborators.
Appellant VM's election to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly
F from the said 201 Kaij Constituency (S.C.) was challenged by the defeated
candidate B in the Bombay High Court inter alia on the ground that she
had appealed to the voters on the ground of religion through the speeches
delivered with the consent by JM and PM in the electoral constituencies
for promoting communal hatred between two classes of citizens and that
G accordingly she was guilty of corrupt practice.
The High Court accepted the oral evidence of reporters of two local
dailies 'Maratha Sathi' and 'Ambajoagi Times' which carried their reports
of the speeches of JM and PM respectively. The reports did not reproduce
verbatim the next of the speeches. Although both reporters admitted that
H
they attended the meetings and made notings ('tipans') of the gist of the
392
VIMAL v. BHAGUJI
393
speeches as appeared important to them, these 'tipans' were not produced A
at the trial of the election petition in the High Court. The High Court held
VM guilty of corrupt practice in making propaganda on the score of
religion and promoting communal hatred between two communities
through speeches delivered by JM and PM. The High Court did not name
JM and PM as collaborators and issue noticed to them for having com-
B
milted corrupt practice. The High Court set aside the election ofVM and
declared B having secured the next highest vote as elected. VM appealed
to this Court.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
c
HELD : 1. The evidence about the foundation of corrupt practice
alleged against the appellant is not clinching and unimpeachable. The
finding of corrupt practice against the appellant having serious civil aud
criminal import is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the
case. The appellant is not guilty of corrupt practice under Section 123 and
123(3A) of the Act. [ 412-B, 411-H]
D
Moha11 Singh v. Bhanwarlal, [1964] 5 SCR 12; Ku/tar Singh v.
Mukhtiar Singh, [1964] 7 SCR 790; D. Venkata Reddy v. R. Sultan, [1976]
3 SCR 445; Dart/at Ram Chauhan v. Anand Sharma, [1984] 2 SCC 64;
Laxmi Narayan Nayak v. Ramrata11 Chatwvedi, [1990] 2 SCC 173 = [1985] E
2 SCR 159 and Ram Singh a11d Othe1'. v. Col. Ram Si11gh, [1985] Suppl. 2
SCR 399, referred to.
Na11gthombam lbomcha Si11gh v. Leisanghem Chandramani Singh,
[1977] 1 SCR 573; Mohd. Ywms Saleem v. Shiv Kumar Shastri, [1974] 3
SCR 738; Prahladdas Kha11delwal v. Nare11dra Kumar Salve, [1973] 2 SCR F
157 and Slui Shreewa11t Kumar Chodhmy v. Baidya11ath Panjiar, [1973] 10
sec 95, also referred to.
2. The ti pans and notings being the basis of the reports published in
the newspapers, requires to be considered for ascertaining whether reports G
and depositions were consistent with the no tings made at the time of listen-
ing to the speeches by the authors of the report. The Court should draw
adverse inference against the authenticity of the gist of the speeches since
published in the newspapers for non-production of the said noting. [411-B]
Manmohan Kalia v. Yash, [1984] 3 SCC 499, followed.
H
394
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. l S.C.R.
A
Samant N. Balakrishna v. George Femandez, [1969] 3 SCR 603;
Ziyauddin Bwhanuddin Bukhmi v. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra, [1976] 2
SCC 17; Haji C.H. Mohammad Koya v. TKS.MA. Muthukoya, [1979] 2
SCC 8; La.xmi RajExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.