JAGMAL SINGH YADAV versus AIMADUDDIN AHMED KHAN

Citation: [1994] 2 S.C.R. 357 · Decided: 09-03-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
JAGMAL SINGH YADAV 
A 
v. 
' 
AIMADUDDIN AHMED KHAN 
' 
MARCH 9, 1994 
(S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND KULDIP SINGH, JJ.) 
B 
Election Law-Representation of the People Act, 1951-Sections 123(4) 
and IOO(l)(b)-<:harge of corrupt practice-Standa1d of p1oof-!'ublication 
of defamatmy news item-Source of lette1 addTesed to Edito1 of newspape1 
doubtfu~and writing erpert-Testimony of-fl.eliability. 
c 
The election of appellant to the Rajasthan legislative Assembly has 
been set aside on the ground that the appellant committed corrupt practice 
u/s U3 ( 4) of the Representation of the People Act. The only ground on 
which his election has been set aside is that he got published in a local 
newspaper a defamatory news item against the respondent which D 
amounted to a com1pt practice. The High Court held the appellant respon-
sible for the publication of the news item primarily on the basis of the 
·• 
letter addressed to the editor of the newspaper, which according to the 
High Court was written and signed by the appellant. The evidence of the 
editor was discarded in toto he having been proved wholly unresiable E 
witness. To prove the signature of the appellant the High Court finally 
relied on the opinion rendered by a handwriting expert. This appeal u/s 
116A is filed against the judgment of the High Court by which election of 
the appellant bas been set aside. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
F 
" 
HELD: 1.1. It is settled proposition of law that the charge of corrupt 
practice against a returned candidate has to be proved like a criminal 
charge and unless there is cogent evidence to take the case beyond 
reasonable doubt the election cannot be set aside. In the instant case the G 
charge of corrupt practice u/s 123(4) of the Representation of the People 
Act, 1951 against the appellant, primarily depends on the question as to 
whether the letter bears the signatures of the appellant. The editor of the 
newspaper having been proved wholly unreliable witness, the source of the 
i 
letter becomes highly tainted and as such doubtful. It is no doubt correct 
that the signatures on the letter have to be proved independently and H 
357 
358 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[199412 S.C.R. 
A irrespective of the sourct! from which the document is produced keeping 
in view the totality of the circumstances in this case it would be difficult 
for this court to bold the charge proved against the appellant only on the 
testimony of the handwriting expert. [365-G-H; 366-A) 
1.2. Eveu otherwise there are glaring circumstances which create a 
B doubt regarding the signatures of the appellant on the letter containing 
defamatory material. [366-B) 
c 
D 
E 
F 
1.3. The charge of corrupt practice under section 123 ( 4) of the Act bas 
not been proved against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. [367-B) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2938 
(NCE) of 1989. 
For the Judgment and Order dated 18.5.89 of the Rajasthan High 
Court in Election Petition No. 10 of 1985. 
Prashant Bhushan and C. Mohan Rao for the Appellant. 
B.D. Ahmam & Parijat Sinha for the respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KULDIP SINGH, J. This appeal under Section 116A of the Repre-
sentation of People Act, 1951 (the Act) is directed against the judgment 
dated May 18, 1989 of the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench by which 
the election of the appellant to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from 
the Tijara Constituency has been set aside on the ground that the appellant 
committed the corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Act. 
2. The poll was held on March 5, 1985. Six candidates, .including the 
appellant, Aimaduddin Ahmed Khan, respondent in the appeal herein, and 
one Maya Ram had filed their nomination papers. The appellant was 
candidate of the Congress party whereas the respondent was the candidate 
G of Lok Dal. The nomination paper of Maya Ram was rejected by the 
returning officer during the course of scrutiny. Five candidates contested 
the election. The total n.umber of valid votes polled was 70802. The 
appellant received 37481 votes . whereas the respondent received 29982 
votes. On March 6, 1985 the appellant was declared elected to the Rajas· 
H than Legislative Assembly from the Tijara Constituency. 
I 
' ' 
'· 
J.S. YAfJAV v. AA KHAN [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 
359 
3. Aimaduddin Ahmed Khan filed election petition on April 9, 1985 A 
challenging the election of the appellant on the following grounds:-
(i) The nomination p

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