KANTI PRASAD JAYSHANKER YAGNIK versus PURSHOTTAMDAS RANCHHODDAS PATEL AND OTHERS

Citation: [1969] 3 S.C.R. 400 · Decided: 24-01-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

KANTI PRASAD JAYSHANKER YAGNIK 
A 
v. 
PURSHOTTAMDAS RANCHHODDAS PATEL AND OTHERS 
January 24, 1969 
[S. M. S!KRI, R. S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.] 
B 
Represtltllltion of the People Act (43 of 1951), s. 123 (2) 
and 
(3 )-Appeal to voters to vote in the name of religion-If corrupt practice 
-Appetil to vote on the basis of candidate's caste-If corrupt practice-
Statement that voting for a part.v would amount to the continuance of cow 
slaughter and consequent incurring of divine displeasure-If corrupt prac-
tice. 
Evidence Act (I of 1872), s. 160-Reports made from notes t<•ken 
down at meetin!lf-lf udmissible-Method of proof-Weight to be attach-
~d to reports. 
The poll for election to the Gujarat State Assembly from Mehsana 
State Assembly constituency was taken on February 21, 1967. 011 Feb-
ruary 18, 1967 one S.M. addressed public meetings at various villages 
which were part of the constituency. The appellant, who was the suc-
cessful candidate was present at those meetings and did not dissociate him-
self from any of the remarks in the speeches. 
Police constables, under 
instructions of the Government, took down notes of the speeches and 
reported to their superior officers. 
These police constables did not take 
down every word spoken by S.M. but whatever was taken down was spoken 
by S.M.; and in the reports, though the exact words were not reproduced 
the substance of the speeches was corre~tly reproduced. These reports 
showed that S.M. made the following statements in his speeches :-
(i) He appealed to the Hindu voters as such not to vote for the Cong-
ress Party lest they might be betraying their religious leader (Jagadguru 
Sankaracharya of Puri), particularly when be had fasted for 73 days in 
the cause of preventing cow slaughter; 
(ii) He put forward an appeal to the electors not to vote for the 
Congress· Party but to vote for the Swatantra Party in the name of religion; 
(iii) He said that a relationship of cause and effect existed between 
the slaughter of 33,000 bullocks every day and natural calamities like 
famine and flood; 
(iv) Re asked his voters to vote for the appellant because he was a 
Brahmin; and 
(v) He said that if the voters voted for the Congress who are respon-
sible for 24 crore of cows being slaughtered then God will be displeased. 
On the questions : (I) Whether the reports made by the police cons-
tables V.'ere admissible in evidence; (2) Whether any weight 
should be 
attached to them; and (3) Whether they showed that the appellant was 
gui!ty of corrupt practice within the meaning of s. 123(2) and (3) of the 
Representation of the People Act, 1951 
HELD (Per Sikri and Bachawat, JJ.) : (!) The reports were properly 
used under s. 160 of the Evid,nce Act, 1872, and were admissible in 
evidence. 
[406 C-D) 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
JAYSHANKER V, RANCHHODDAS 
401 
Before a witness testifies to facts stated in a document, unde'r s. 160 
of the Evidence Act, two conditions must be satisfied namely : (a) thut 
the witness had no specific recollection of the facts themselves; and (b) 
the witness says that he is sure that the facJs were correctly recorded in 
the document. 
For satisfying the conditions it is however not necessary 
that the witness should specifically state that he has no specific recollection 
of the facts and that he is sure that the facts were correctly recorded in tht.: 
document. 
It is enough if it appears from the evidence of the witness 
that those conditions are established. [ 405 C-E) 
In the present case, it could be implied from the circumstances that 
the conditions of s. 160 were satisfied. 
The witnesses were giving their 
testimony in Court after a lapse of 9 months after the speeches wen:: 
made and it is implicit that they could have no specific recollection cf the 
speeches, especially when they attended and reported many .similar meet-
ings as part of their duty during the election campaign. 
The second 
condition is also satisfied because. the 
witnesses made notes 
on the 
spot and made out reports fron1 those notes when the speeches were fresh 
.in their memory. 
The reports are, strictly not substantive evidence as 
such and could only be used as part of the oral evidence on oath. The 
'reports should therefore have been read out in Court and not marked as 
exhibits. But the practice of marking such a report as an exhibit is well-
cstablished and avoids the useless formal cercmgny of reading it out a" 
part of the oral evidence. [40

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