LexJAGIR SINGH & ANR. versus JASDEV SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
l
A
B
c
D
E
G
JAGIR SINGH & ANR.
v.
JASDEV SINGH & ORS.
February 28, 1975 ·
79:1
LM. H. BEG, A. ALAGIRISWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.]
Representa_tion of the People Act (43 of 1951) Section 123(3) and (3A)-
Corrupt practice-Proof o{.
'I_be appellants, who were the voters of the constituency, challenged the
election ~f ~e first respondent who was a nominee of the Akali Dal, to tire
State Legislative Assembly, on the ground that he was guilty of corrupt prac•
tice under s. 123(3) and (3A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The second respondent, who was
a nominee of the Congress and the
third respondent, who was an
independent candidate,
were unsuccessful
in the election. The charge of corrupt practice against the first respondent was
based <_>n the. publication of a poster. The High Court held, (i) that the poster
was printed from a document produced by the appellant's witness; (ii) that the
signature on that document was that of the first respondent; (iii) the document
produced by the court witness as the one from which the poster was printed
was manufactured for the purpose of election petition, and that its production
as well as the production of a tape-recorded conversation between the ls. res-
pondent and the husband of the 2nd respondent, showed an anxiety on tho
part of the first respondent to steer clear of his signature on the document pr<>:
duced by the appellant's witness; and (iv) that such
anxiety
of the first
respondent
could
only
arise
because
he
had,
in
fact,
signed · the
document produced by the appellant's witness, as it was not his case that he
ever signed any blank paper. The High Court, however, dismissed the petition
holding that it was not sure of the existence of the offending posrer before the
poll.
Allowing the appeal to this Court,
HELD : ( 1} The conclusion of the High Court that the poster was not
printed before the pol! is completely non-sequitur, in view of the other findings
of the High Court which are borne out by the evidence on. record. The evi·
dence establishes that the printing of the poster was before the poll and that
it was the first respondent who got it printed.
[793C-D; 795A]
(a) The absence of a complaint by the second respondent does not lead to
the conclusion that the poster was not printed before the appeal. (793-D]
.
, (b) The tape-recorded conversation is absolutely imhelpful to the first res-
pondent's case and it does· not establish that the first respondent was ~urp)ised
and bewildered at the fact that the document produced by the appellants witness
bore hi~ signature. [795D-E]
Ci) The evidence also established that the 'poster was distJ:ibuted in vari<_>US
villages at the ins~nce of the first . respondent. The reasop given by th~ High
Court for disbelieving the oral telil1mony of one of the witnesses ~gardmg the
distribution name1y, 'that he was an Akali and that his
testimony . could not
be accepted and he would be the last person to support the congress candidate'
ii; the very reason that the evidence of that witness should have been accepted
against the first respondent. [796A-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 737 of 1973.
From the judgment and order (lated February 16, 1973 of the Pun-
H
jab & Haryana High Court in Election Petition No. 38 of 1972.
G. ·B. Pai, S. K. Bagga, l. K. Mehta, S. Bagga and Yash Bagga,
for the appellant.
..
\
792
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
lrapil Sibal Jasdev Singh and Hardev Sinfh, for respondent no. 1.
Bhagwant Singh, B. D. Sharma, M. P. Varma and S. R. Sriva3tQVa,
fo1 respondent no. 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A
ALAGIRISWAMI, J.
The appellant.s are two voters of the Dakala
B
constituency who challenged the election of the 1st respondent to the
Punjab Legislative Assembly on many grounds out of which only the
charge of corrupt practice under section 123(3) and 123(3A) of the
Representation of the People Act now survives for consideration. Ret-
pondents 2 and 3 are the ULsuccessful candidates. ·The charge- of cor-
rupt practice is based on the publication of a pamphlet, about th•
nature of which there is no dispute and the contents of which are thert-
C
fore unnecessary to be set out. It is admitted that if the publication
of the pamphlet either by the successful candidate or his election asent
or anyone else at the instance of either of them is proved the election
has to be set aside.
The publication waExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.