HARISINGH PRATAPSINGH CHAWDA versus POPATLAL MULSHANKER JOSHI & ORS.

Citation: [1976] 1 S.C.R. 897 · Decided: 19-09-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A. ALAGIRISWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
• 
F 
G 
H 
897 
IIARISINGH PRATAPSINGH CHAWDA 
I'. 
POPATLAL MULSHANKER JOSHI & ORS. 
September 19, 1975 
[A. ALAG!RlSWAMI, P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.] 
Representation of the people Act--S. 123(1). Brtbery-Gift or inducement 
to cause defection whether bribery-The voters niust know about the gift and 
induce1nent-Burden of proof in a case of bribery-Oath against oath whether 
suf/ioient. 
The first respondent, a candidate of the ruling Congress was elected to the 
Lok Sabha from Banaskantba constituency in Gujarat, defeating his rival candi-
date of Organisation Congress. The appellant a voter in 
the 
constituency 
belonging to the Organisation Congress filed an election petition challenging the 
validity of ele::tioii of respondent No. 1 on variou3 grounds. The only ground 
surviving now i'.5 the allegation thait respondent No. I or his agents or other 
persons with his consent madei a gift or promise of gratification to the petitioner 
with the object of directly or indirectly inducing the petitioner to vote for respue-
dent No. l or to refrain from voting for respondent No. 2. The allegation 
is that the first respondent's agent Maulvi and the respondent's son Bipin with 
the consent of the first respondent made a gift of Rs. 10,000/- and promised 
to secure· a party ticket for the appellant and to construct a hostel for the 
Kshatriya students of the Bansaskantha district. A specific allegation was made 
that the first respondent wanted the appellant to vote for him. It was ~s• 
alleged thM the first respondent asked the appellant to convey to Madhusudan 
Sinhji, another voter an offer of a party ticket f'or the Legislative Assembly 
election, and to pay to him also a sum of R's, 10,000/-
The High Court after considering the evidence held that Bipin handed over 
Rs. 10,000/- to the appellant to bring about the appellant's defection from the 
Organisation Congress. The High Court took the view that the object of the 
gift was to bring about the appellant's defection from the Organisation Congress 
and not to induce directly or indirectly any voters to cast their votes for the 
ruling Congress candidate or to refrain from voting in favour of the second 
respondent. The High Court held that the payment of Rs. 10,000/- and holding 
out inducement to build the hostel for Kshatriya students does not &mount to 
any offen:e under the election law. 
On an appeal, the appellant contended : (i) that the first respondent or his 
agent or his son with his consent induced the appellant and Madhusudan Sinhji 
to vote for respondent No. 1 and to refrain from voting for respondent No. 2. 
(ii) that the whole purpose of the defection was tha't the appellant and 
Madhusuda_n Sinhji should can':'ass votes for resP?n?ent No. 1, particularly, from 
the Kshatnya voters on the inducement of building hostel for the Kshatriya 
:students. 
(iii) that the decision of this Court in the case of Kalia Singli v Gendo!at 
requires to be reconsidered. 
· 
(iv) that there was a specific request by respondent No. 1 to the appeUant 
to vote for hifil in exchange for the gift and inducement. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : (I) We are in entire agreement with the finding of the High Court 
as re~rds the payment ~f Rs. 10,000/- to the appellant and also the offer 
to bmld hostel for Kshatnya students. [900-H] 
898 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1976] 1 s.c.R. 
(2) The payment of Rs. 10,000/- to the appell~nt was with a view to indv.ce 
him to defect from Organisation Congress to the ruling Congress. 
It may 
carry with it the implication that he was expected to use his influence with 
the voters to vote for the candidate set up by the ruling Congress. 
[901-B-C] 
(3) The deci·5ion of this Court in the case of Kalia Singh v. Genda Lal 
approved. The said decision does not require any re-consideration. The expres-
sion "directly or indirectly" iS1 intended to cover situations where payment to 
a husband, wife son or father is intended to induce the wife, husband. father 
or son to vote for the bribe giver, that would be indirect inducement. Otherwise 
it would be easy for the bribe giwn to say that he did not bribe the voter 
himself. 
This provision was not intended to cover a case where money is paid 
to a certa·in person in order to make him induce another persori to vote for the 
person who paid him the money would be obvious by looking at the converse 
case. 
When a candidate or anybody on his behalf pays any gratification t

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