KUMARA NAND versus BRIJMOHAN LAL SHARMA

Citation: [1967] 2 S.C.R. 127 · Decided: 29-11-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

' -. 
.I. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
1H 
KUMARA NAND 
l'. 
BRIJMOHANLALSHARMA 
November 29, 1966 
[K. N. WANCHOO, R. S. BACHAWAT AND J.M. SHELAT, JJ.] 
Representation of th• People Act (43 of 1951), s. 123(4)-E/ectiuns-
Corrupt Practice-State1nent alleging a candidate to be greatest of all 
·thieves-Whether 'l statement of /Get or of opinion only--Candidate with 
whose consent such statement is made must believe it to be true--Nature 
of onus in proving such belief. 
The .ppellant was the winning candidate in an election to t!te Rajasthan 
Legislative Assembly. The respondent who was one of the ur .. mcccs.•ful 
candidates filed an election petition and alleged therein that the appellant 
was guilty of corrupt practice within the meaning of s. 123 ( 4) of the 
Representation of the People Act, 1951. The corrupt practice alleged 
was that at a meeting presided over by the appellant a poem was read out 
which represented the respondent to be the 'greatest of all lbaeves'. Th• 
Election Tribunal as well as the High Court gave their findings against the 
appellant who came to this Court with certificate. 
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that : (i) the statement in 
question was not a statement of fact but only of opinion, (ii) No attempt 
bad been made to prove that the person who recited the poem containins 
tbe statement believed it to be false or did not believe !bat it was true, (iii) 
the onus to prove that corrupt practice had been committed lay on the 
respondent and that bad not been discharged. 
HELD : (i) The mere absence of details as to time and place would 
not turn a statement of fact into a mere expression of opinion. [130 F-0] 
In the present case taking the poem as a whole there could he no doubt 
that when the respondent was called the greatest of all thieves there was 
a clear statement of fact about bis personal character and conduct. [133 
E-FJ 
(ii) The appellant presided and his election agent was pn~ont at tbo 
meeting at which the poem in question was read. The responsibility for 
the publication in the circumstances of the case was that of the appellant 
and it was the appellant's belief that mattered and not the belief of the 
person who read it with the consent of the appellant. (135 E-0] 
(iii) The onus on an election petitioner under s. 123(4) i• to show 
that a statement of fact was published by a candidate or bis agent or by 
any other per,on with the consent of the candidate or bis election agent 
and abo to stow that that statement was false and related to bis personal 
character or conduct. This onus is very light and can be discharged by 
·the cBmplaining candidate swearing to that effect. 
Once that is done the 
burden shifts to the candidate making the false statement of fact to show 
what bis belief was. (136 E-F] 
It was for the appellant to show either that the statement was true or 
that he believed it to be true. The appellant bad failed to do so. The 
High Court therefore rightly held that the respondent bad dischar11ed the 
burden which lay on him. [137 A-B] 
Case low comidered, 
128 
SUPll.EMB COUll.T llEPOllTS 
(1967] 2 s.c.R. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIQ:-1: Civil Appeal Nos. 2135 of 
A 
1966. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated January 27, 1965 of 
the Rajasthan High Court in 0. B. Election Appeal No. 93 of 1963. 
R. K. Garg, D. P Singh and S. C. Agarwal. for the appellant. 
B.D. Sharria and L. D. Sharma, for·the respondent. 
TI1e Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Wanchoo, J. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the 
Rajasthan High Court and arises in the following circumstances. 
There was an election to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from 
the Bcawar constituency at the general election in 1962. 
A number 
oi persons stood for election, two of whom were the appellant and 
the respondent. The appellant secured the highest number of votes 
while the respondent came second. The appellant was declared 
successful at the election and this led to an election petition by the 
respondent. 
A number of grounds were taken in the election petition for 
invalidating the election of the appellant; but in the present appeal 
we are concerned with one ground and shJll refer to that only. 
That ground was that the appellant had commited a corrupt practice 
as defined in s. !23(4) of the Representation of .the People Act, 
B 
c 
D 
No. 3 of 1951, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 
The case of 
E 
the respondent was that the appellant had published a statemen

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