LexM. NARAYANA RAO versus G. VENKATA REDDY & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H 490 M. NARA Y ANA RAO v. G. VENKATA REDDY & OTHERS and vice versa September 3, 1976 [H. R. KHANNA, R. S. SARKARIA AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] Election-Representation of the People A.ct, 1951-Sec. 123(2)-,S'ec. 100(1)(b)-Corrupt Practice-Undue influence-Conduct of Election Rules 1961 -Rule 39(2) (b)-Ballot paper containing mark on the reverse of the symbol- Can be rejected a3 invalid-Charge of corrupt practice-If of quasi criminal nature-Degree of proof-Interference with appreciation of evidence by Hi!?h Court-Whether election result can be li1?ht/y i'ntufered with. For the election to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly out of 6 candidates 4 withdrew and Reddy aind Rao were the only contestants. Rao was elected by a margin of a few hundred votes. Reddy challenged election of Rao by filing an election petition in the High Court on several grounds of corrupt practice, as well as on the ground that there were mistakes in counting of the votes. Reddy in his election petition besides asking for the setting aside of the election of Rao also claiimed that he should be declared elected in his place. The High Court ordered a recount of votes. However, even after the recount, Rao had still majority of votes in his favour although the margin was reduc- ed. The Election Petitioner contended that he was the sitting member and WllS Yery popular and that he lost election on account of undue influence, force ood viofonce on a large scale used by Rao. It was alleged that about 200 supporters of Rao· with the active assistance of respondent No. 2, one of the candidare., who had withdra.wn, threatened, beat and threw stones at the voters and sup- porters of Reddy; that as a result of the violence the polling had to be stopped and the polling took place later on; that about 300 supporters of Rao armed with sticks, iron rods and other weapons surrounded the hotel where Reddy was staying and forced him to go out and severely assoolted him; that Reddy had to be removed to hospital. In the election petition allegations were made against Rao almost under every sub-section of Section 123 of the Act. But the only corrupt practice found by the High Court against Rao was the com- mission of corrupt practice of undue influence within the meaning of Section 123 (2). The High Court, therefore, set a.side the election of Rao. The High Court, however, did not grant the declaration in favour of Reddy since according to the High Court it was not found that but for the corrupt practice Reddy would have secured the majority votes. Both Rao and Reddy, therefore, filed appeal& in this Court. Allowing the appeal of Rao and dismissing the appeal of Reddy. HEID : (1) That the charge of commission of corrupt practice hll.! to be proved and established beyond doubt like a criminal charge or a quasi-criminal charge but not exactly in the mooner of establishment of the guilt in a criminal prosecution giving the liberty to the accused to keep mum. The charge has to be proved on appraisal of the evidence adduced by both sides especially by the election petitioner. [500 F-G] (2) That the election held and results declared on the choice of the voters should not be lightly interfered with or set aside by a court of law. After all, in the holding of a fresh election are involved numerous botherations, tremend- ous expenses, loss of public time and money and the uncertainty of the public representation from a particular constit.uency. [500 G-H] (3) A charge of corrupt practice is easy to level but difficult to prove. If it is sought to be proved only or mainly by oral evidence wit&out there being 1 contemporaneous documents to support it, court should be very careful in scru- M. NARAYANA RAO v. G. VENKATA REDDY (Untwalia, J.) 491 tinizing the oral evidence and should not lightly accept it unless the evidence is A credible, trustworthy, na.tural and showing beyond doubt the commission of corrupt practice, as alleged. [501 A-BJ ( 4) That, this Court ordinarily and generally does not, as it ought not to, interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the High Court unless there are compelling reasons for tll.c same, especially findings recorded on appreciation of oral evidence. [501 BJ (5) This Court, however, does not approve, of the finding recorded by the High Court on a misreading or wrong a.ppreciation of the oral evidence especially when it is unsupported or runs counte
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.