JEET MOHINDER SINGH versus HARMINDER SINGH JASSI

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 33 · Decided: 26-10-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

. ·-... 
JEET MOHINDER SINGH 
v. 
HARMINDER SINGH JASS! 
OCTOBER 26, 1999 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., S. RAJENDRA BABU AND 
R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.] 
Representation of the People Act, 1951 : 
A 
B 
Election-Judicial review-Court's interference with-Held : The C 
returned candidate's election should not be lightly interfered with-The 
serious consequences must be kept in mind while interfering with an election. 
Sections 83 and 123-Election-Election Trial-Corrupt practice-
Nature of-Proof-Held : Charge of corrupt practice is quasi-criminal in D 
character-Such a charge should be sufficiently clear and precisely stated-
lt should be proved to the hilt by clear, cogent and credible evidence-Mere 
preponderance of probabilities not enough. 
Sections 116 and 123-Election-Appea/-lnterference with-By 
appellate court-Justification of-Held : Opinion for111ed by the High Court E 
should be given great value-Supreme Court will interfere only if the High 
Court has disregarded principles governing the approach to evidence or 
committed grave or palpable errors. 
Sections 81(3), 83 and 123-Election-Corrupt practice-Contents 
and form of-Verification Nature of-Explained-Conduct of Election Rules, F 
1961, R. 94-A and Form 25. 
Election-Nomination-Illegal acceptance of-Allegation of Returning 
Officer having been specially brought by transfer on the eve of election at 
the instance of the returned candiqate (Ex-Minister)-Va/idity of-Held: G 
Transfer and postings are ordinary incidents of service and are made to 
satisfy administrative exigencies of service-Merely because the government 
servant happens to be posted twice at the particular station within a short 
range of time does not lead to an interference that he has been "brought" 
to that station for a particular purpose-Service Law. Election-Election 
H 
33 
34 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A Trial-Burden of proof-Held : The onus of proving the averments made in 
the election petition lies on the election petitioner-It is for him to examine 
a witness to prove his case-He cannot bank upon the plea of non-examination 
of that witness by the returned candidate. 
Sections 86, 87 and 123-Pleadings in Election-Election petition-
B Replication-Material facts and particulars not given in the election petition--
But stated for the first time in replication-Effect of-Held : Material facts 
and particulars are required to be given in the election petition itself and 
not for the first time in replication-Hence, non-consideration of the same 
while framing issues justified. 
c 
Section 33(5)-Election~Electoral roll or copy thereof-Filing or 
production-Provision regarding-Held : Mandatory-Non-compliance of 
the provision will entail the rejection of the nomination paper, non-compliance 
being a defect of a substantial character. 
D 
Section 33(5)~cope of-Held: Prescribes the manner of compliance 
when the candidate is an elector of a different constituency-Mode of proof-
(i) By producing a copy of the electoral roll of that constituency-or (ii) A 
copy of relevant part thereof~! (iii) A certified copy of the relevant entries 
in such roll-One of it may be produced at any time after filing of the 
E nomination but before the time of scrutiny-The provision does not specify 
as to who should produce it~The Section prescribes only the earliest and 
the outer limits for producing the requisite document-It does not specifY 
that such document be produced only with the nomination paper or at the 
time of scrutiny-Returning Officer already in possession of the electoral roll 
of that other constituency, can look into it to satisfy himself that the candidate 
F is an elector of that constituency. 
Section 36(6)-Election-Nomination paper-Accepting of-Held: 
Need not be supported by a reasoned order. Reasons in writing are required 
in case of rejection. Election-Election Trial-Pleadings-Written Statement-
Presence of persons-At the time of scrunity-Pleadings of-Held: who was 
G present at the time of scrutiny of nomination paper is not required to be 
pleaded in the wrirten statement unless in the facts and circumstances of the 
case it may.be such a material fact as must be pleaded-There is nothing 
unnatural about the person who himself has filed his nomination paper being 
present at or around the office of the Returning Officer so as to learn what 
H was transpiring thereat and what was the result of the scrutiny. 
•• 
-
J.M. SINGH v. H.S. JASS! 
35 
Section 123(1)-Cor;upt practice~Bri

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