MAGRAJ PATODIA versus R. K. BIRLA AND ORS.

Citation: [1971] 2 S.C.R. 118 · Decided: 10-09-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. HEGDE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

\ \8 
MAGRAJ PATOJ>IA 
R. K. lllRLA AND ORS. 
September 10, 1970 
[K. S. HEGDE Aj)IQ A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Representation of the People Act, 1951, ss. 77, 123(b) ands. 119-
Expenditure in excess of prescribed lilnit by candidate's party or friends 
an(.
1 others H'ithout his authority-If. contra),•endon of s. 77-J/ appellate 
cou.~r bound to grant costs to SitCcessful party. 
A 
B 
Election petiiions-When Suprerne Court may interfere lVith findings 
C 
of fact-Burden of proof-When inference 1nay be drawn in absence of 
direct evidence. 
The appellant challenged the first respondent's election to the Lok 
Sabha in 1967 mainly on the ground that he had committed the corrupt 
practice under Section 123(6) of the Representation of the People Act. 
1951, in that he ~ad incµrred or authorised the incurring of expenditure 
D 
in excess di the limit prescribed under Section 77. It was alleged, inler-
alia, that the first respondent was put up by one of the wealthiest busi-
ness houses in the country which owned or controlled a large number of 
companies; duririg the election campaign vast material and human re-
sources of these companies were drawri upon by the respondent. 
It was 
alleged that as against the limit of Rs. 25,000 prescribed for the consti-
tuency under s. 77, several lakhs of rupees were spent by him during the 
election campaign on the printing of posters, pamphlets, etc., entertain-
E 
mer.I, the use. of about 200 jeeps and cars, the engagement of·over three 
thousand employees of the various companies and for their maintenance 
and travelling expenses, and on campaign meetings, trunk calls, etc. The 
appellant's election petition was dismissed by the High Court, etc. The 
to this Court under Section 116A of the Act, 
HELD : Dismissing the appeal : The appellant had failed to establish 
that expenditure in excess of the prescribed limit was incurred by 
the 
F 
first respondent or with his consent and authority or that of his election 
agents. 
(i) It is not sufficient for the petitioner to prove merely that the ex-
penditure more than the prescribed limit bad been incurred in connection 
with the election. He must further prove that the excess e.;penditare was 
incurred with the consent or under the authority of the returned candi-
date or his election agent. 
The expenditure incurred by the returned 
G 
candidate's party ·or by his friends or supporters, or by the enemies of 
his rival candidates without his consent or authority cannot be taken into 
consideration. [127 BJ 
Ranan;aya Singh v. Baijnath Singh and Ors. [1955] 1 S.C.R. 671; 
Ram Dayal v. Brijraj Singh and Ors. [1970] 1 S.C.R. 530 and Mubarak 
Mazdoor v. Lal Bahadur, 20 E.L.R. 176; referred to. 
(ii) This Court will not ordinarily go behind the finding of fact reach-
H 
ed by the trial judge unless there is something basically wrong in the con-
clusions reached by him or the procedure adopted by him. This is not 
·a rule of law but a rule of prudence. [126 BJ 
\ 
A 
B 
c 
MAGRAJ v. R. K. B!RLA (Hegde. J.) 
11 9 
Amar Nath v. Lnchman Sing/I & 01"'" Civil Appeal No. 717/68 de-
cided on 23-8-1968 and Jagdev Singh v. Piatap Sing/I, A.LR. 1965 S.C. 
183; referred to. 
{iii) The burden of proving the comn1ission of a corrupt practice 
which is pleaded is on the petitioner and he has to discharge that burden 
satisfactorily. Jn doing so he cannot depend on prc;ionderence of proba-
bilities. 
The evidence must be cogent and conclusive. 
It is frue that 
many times corrupt practices at election may not he established by direct 
~vidence and the commission of those corrupt practices may have to 
be inferred from the proved facts and circumstances but the circumstances 
proved must reasonably" establish that the alleged corrupt practice was 
committed by the returned candidate or his election agent. [ 126 H] 
Dr. M. Chenn_a Reddy v. V. Ramchandra Rao and Anr., Civil Appeal 
No, 1449/68 decided on 17-12-1968, referred to. 
. 
(iv) If the court comes to the conclusion tht an item of expenditure 
has been suppressed in the return of election expenses, the mere fact that 
there is no sufficient evidence about the amount that must have been 
spent is 110 ground for ignoring the matter. It is the duty of the court 
to assess all expenses as best it can and though the court should not enter 
D 
into the region of speculation or merely try to guess the amount that must 
have been spent, it would generally be possible to arrive at an amount 
of expenditure on a con

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