KANHAIYALAL versus MANNALAL & OTHERS

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 808 · Decided: 23-03-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.K. GOSWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
808 
KANHAIY ALAL 
v. 
MANNALAL & OTHERS 
March 23, 1976 
[P. K. GOSWAMI AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL Au, JJ.] 
Representation oj the People Act, 
1950!--S~ 123(4)--Corrupt practice-
Degree of proof-Election dispute not a private feud. 
Respondent No. 1, an elector in the constituency in his election petition 
alleged _that the appe:llant, the successful candidate, got printed and published 
and personally d1stnbuted on a large scale throughout the constituency a 
pamphlet containing slat'ements ih relation to the personal character or conduct 
of one of the candidates, reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of 
his elect_ion, and thereby committed the corrupt practice under s. 123 ( 4) of 
the Representation of People Act, 1950. 
The High Court allowed the elec-
tion petition. 
· 
Allowing the appeal-
HELD: (I) (a) The allegations mentioned in the document related to the 
personal character and conduct of one of the candidates and wer:e reasonably 
calculated to prejudice the prospects of his election. 
If the distribution of the 
same by the appe1Iant was established and if it \vas also established that the 
statements of facts therein were false and that the appe1lant 
eith~r believed 
them to be false or did not believe· them to be true, he would be guilty of 
corrupt practice uhder s. 123(4) of the r\ct. [815 E-G] 
(b) The charge of electoral corrupt 
practice being of a 
qua~i-criminal 
character, the onus on an election petitioner is heavy as if in a criminal charge. 
The allegations must be established beyond reasonable doubt to the ,Satisfac-
tion of the court by independent and unimpeach:abJe evidence. [817 G-H] 
2.(a) There is no doubt that the pamphlet \vas in existence prior to the 
date of poll. 
[817 A-BJ 
(b) The High Court comn1itted a serious error in linking up the printing 
of the document allegedly at- the instance of the nppellant, for which there 
was no evidence whatsoever, with the distribution of the san1c by the appel-
lant in the constituency. It flirther committed an error of law in not dealing 
with the two matters of printing and its distribuion separately and independent-
ly. [819 F-H] 
( c) The High Court did not adopt a uniform standard in appreciating the 
evidence of the witnesses of the contending parties. 
Nor was it right in its 
conclusion that the charge of distribution of the pamphlet by the appellant 
\Vas established against him. 
While one of the defeated candidates took care 
to prepare a panchnan1a for the distribution of the offending pamphlet by the 
agt'nts of the appetlaht, and lodged a complaint with the returning: officer, 
there was no documentary evidence, 
no con1plaint or service of hnvyers' 
notice or preparation of a panchnan1a in regard to the 
distributio~ of the 
pamphlet by the appellant himself. It is absurd to· suppOse that the respondent 
would not have moved in the matter \Vhen the appellant had personally dis-
tributed the pamphlet. 
The petitioner had not been able to establish the 
allegations about the distribution of the pamphlet by the appellant before the 
election. [820 B-F] 
H 
3 (a) An election dispute is not a private feud between one individual and 
another. The \vhole constituency is intimately involved in such a dispute. 
Shaky and V.'avering oral testimony of a handful of \.vitnesses cannot still the 
dominant voice of the majority of the electorate. 
f826 A-B] 
• 
' 
• 
• 
·, . )(ANHAIYALl\L v. MANNALAL (Goswami, !.) 
809 
( b) It· is d_iffictilt to hold that a serious charge of this nature is established 
A 
on the ~ere oral testimony"' of the petitioner's witnesses. [825 El_ 
S' 
1 
( c) Oral testimony \Vil! have to be judged with the greatest care and an 
• 
electoral victory cannot be allowed to be nullified by a mouthful of oral testi-
mony without contemporaneous assurance of a reliable nature from an inde-
pendent source. [825 H] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 870 of 1974. 
From ·the Jiidgrnent and Order dated the 7-3-74 of the Madhya 
Pradesh· High. Court (Indore Bench) in Election Petition No. 9 of 
1972. 
B. R. Nahata and Rameshwar Nath for the Appellant. 
Hardayal 'Hardy and S. K. Gambhir for Respondent No. 1. 
B 
S. S. Khanduja and Sushil Kumar lain for Respondent No. 4. 
C 
Lx paric; Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 
·The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
GqsW/\¥1, J.--Thi8 is an appeal under section 116A of 
the 
Representation of the People Act, 1951, against the judgment of the 
Hi

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