M. J. JACOB versus A. NARAYANAN & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 4 S.C.R. 305 · Decided: 06-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 4 S.C.R. 305 
~4 
M. J. JACOB 
A 
V. 
A. NARAYANAN & ORS. 
Civil Appeal No. 3611 of 2008 
MARCH 6, 2009 
B 
(R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ) 
... 
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951: 
• 
s. 123(4) - Corrupt practice - Ingredients of - Printing 
and publishing of pamphlet containing false accusation stated c 
to be relating to a candidate - HELD: False statement should 
relate to personal character or conduct of a defeated candidate 
- In the instant case, the alleged false statement did not relate 
to the candidate - High Court erred in setting aside election of 
, 
returned candidate - Judgment of High Court set aside. 
D 
,, 
ELECTION LA w· 
Corrupt practice - Proof of- HELD: In an election petition, 
the standard of proof of an allegation regarding corrupt practice 
is like that of a criminal case - Allegations must be proved E 
beyond reasonable doubt - In case of two probable views, 
benefit of doubt should go to returned candidate . 
.. 
• 
ELECTION LAW: 
Election of returned candidate - Challenge to - HELD: 
/ 
Mandate of people as expressed in election results should F 
ordinarily be respected by courts and election of a successful 
candidate should not be lightly set aside. 
Respondent No. 1, a voter, filed an election petition 
seeking to declare the election of the appellant to the G 
Legislative Assembly of the State of Kerala, as void on 
the allegation of corrupt practice. The High Court allowed 
the petition holding that the election agent of the appellant 
and two others were proved guilty of corrupt practice u/s 
305 
H 
306 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 4 S.C.R 
A 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, of 
preparing, publishing and distributing a pamphlet (Ext. 
P1), containing in para 2 of the said pamphlet, a false 
statement in relation to personal character or conduct of 
one of the defeated candidates, namely, 'TMJ', that a 
B member of his personal staff (driver 'S') attempted to 
murder Thirumaradi Congress Mandalam President and 
two others. Aggrieved, the returned candidate filed the 
appeal. 
c 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 A basic principle in the law relating to 
elections and election petitions is that the mandate of the 
people as expressed in the election results, should 
ordinarily be respected by courts, and the election of a 
0 successful candidate should not be lightly set aside. [para 
14] [317-0] 
R.P Moidutty vs. P T Kunj Muhammed (2000) 1 SCC 
481; Mahanth Shreo Nath vs. Choudhary Ranbir Singh 1970 
(3) SCC 647; Manphul Singh vs. Surinder Singh 1973 (2) SCC 
E 599; Rahim Khan vs. khurshid Ahmed and Others 1974 (2) 
SCC 660; Bir Chandra Barman vs. Shri Anil Sarkar and Others 
1976 (3) SCC 88; Lakshi Raman Acharya vs. Chandan Singh 
and Others 1977 (1) SCC 423; Amo/akachand Chhazed Vs. 
Bhagavandas Arya and Another 1977 (3) SCC 566 - relied 
F on. 
1.2 In an election petition for proving an allegation of 
corrupt practice the standard of proof is like that in a 
criminal case, and, therefore, the allegation must be 
proved beyond reasonable doubt, and if two views are 
G possible then the benefit of doubt should go to the elected 
candidate. [para 10] [314-F-G] 
Manmohan Katia vs. Yash & Ors. (1984) 3 SCC 499; 
Razik Ram vs. Jaswant Singh Chauhan (1975) 4 SCC 769; 
H Surinder Singh vs. Hardial Singh (1985) 1 SCC 91 and 
.. 
M. J. JACOB V. A. NARAYANAN & ORS. 
307 
~·'"'-
Mercykutty Am ma vs. Kadavoor Sivadasan (2004) 2 SCC 217 
A 
- relied on. 
Mohan Singh vs. Bhanwarlal 1964 (5) SCR 12; TK Gangi 
Reddy vs. M. C. Anjaneya Reddy 1960 (22) ELR 261, Jagjit 
Singh VS. Giani Kartar Singh AIR 1966 SC 773; lnder Lal VS. 
B 
Lal Singh 1962 Supp (3) SCR 114; Gadakh Yashwantrao 
Kankarrao vs. Balasaheb Vikhe Patil 1994 ( 1) SCC 682 -
... 
referred to . 
-# 
2.1 In order to establish an allegation regarding 
corrupt practice u/s123(4) of the Representation of the c 
People Act, 1951, the ingredients to be satisfied are: (i) 
there should be a publication by the candidate or his 
agent, or by any other person, with the consent of a 
candidate or his election agent; (ii) the said publication 
' 
should contain a statement of fact which is false; (iii) the D 
,.. 
person making such publication should either believe 
such statement to be false or not believe it to be true; (iv) 
such false statement should be in relation to the personal 
character or conduct of any candidate; and (v) such false 
statement should reasonably be calculated to pre
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.