MAKHAN LAL BANGAL versus MANAS BHUNIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 17 · Decided: 03-01-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

- --'. 
-! 
MAKHAN LAL BANGAL 
A 
v. 
MANAS BHUNIA AND ORS. 
JANUARY 3, 2001 
B 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., R.C. LAHOTI AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
Election laws: 
Representation of the People Act, 1951: 
c 
Sec/ion 9(1)-Non-compliance with-Effecl of-Relllrned candidale's 
election declared void by High Courl on !he ground of commission of corrupl 
practices--Certain persons were held guilly of commission of corrupl 
practices--But no notices were issued to these persons-Held: High Court's 
judgment vitialed-Case remanded to High Court for a decision afresh after D 
compliance wilh S.99(1). 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
I 
Order 14-/ssues-Framing of-Electi011 petilion-A//~galion of many 
corrupt practices-However, one sweeping issue was framed-Held: Each E 
one of the corrupt practices should hcro'e been framed as an issue-Failure 
to do so has resulled in ul/er confi1sion throughout the /rial and alsu in the 
judgmenl of the High Court-Practice and Procedure. 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
Section 145-Witness-Previous statemenl of-Cross-examination as 
10-Held: Is restrictt!d to prei·ious statement made by the witness and not by 
a 1hird parl}~A witness cannul be confrollled with the contents of a document 
to •~hich he is not a party. 
F 
Section 138-Witness-Oral examination of-Recording of evidence- G 
Held: Has to he generally in a narrutil'e form-However, the Judge can direc/ 
a parlicular queslion or group of q11es1ions to be recorded in question-
answef form. 
Sections 146, 148, 150, 151 and 152-Court's power to disallow H 
17 
18 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] I S.C.R. 
A questions-Scope of-Held: improper and impermissible questions are to be 
avoided-Examination of witnesses not to be protracted-Judges should not 
act as silent spectators but must exercise effective control over court 
proceedings. 
The respondent (defeated candidate) filed an election petition before the 
B High Court challenging the election of the appellant (returned candidate) to 
the State Legislative Assembly on the ground of commission of corrupt 
practices as defined in Section 123(2), ( 4) and (7) of the Representation of 
>--. 
The People Act, 1951. The appellant and two other candidates who had 
contested the election were only arrayed as the respondents in the election 
C petition filed before the High Court. 
The High Court held certain persons guilty of commission of corrupt 
practices. But no notice as provided under Section 99(1 )(a)(i) and (ii) of the 
Act was issued to these persons. Although there were many instances of 
·~ 
corrupt practices only one sweeping issue was framed. The witnesses were 
D cross-examined as to the contents of the election petition and the evidence 
was recorded in question-answer form and not in narrative form. The High 
Court allowed the election petition and set aside the election of the appellant 
declaring the same to be void. Hence this appeal. 
E 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. The High Court has clearly recorded a finding of corrupt 
practices having been committed at the election. The names of persons who 
have been proved at the trial to have been guilty of commission of the alleged 
corrupt practices and the nature of such practices have also been recorded. 
The applicability of Section 99(1 )(a)(i) and {ii) of the Representation of the 
People Act, 1951 is clearly attracted. The High Court did not issue any 
notice to any person found and named in its judgment as having committed 
corrupt pt actices. (23-H; 24-A-BI 
1.2. The fatal tlefect of not issuing notice to the persons who were 
G found guilty of commission of corrupt practices vitiates the High Court's 
judgment and an appropriate course, in the fact and circumstances of the 
case, would be to set aside the High Court's judgment and remand the case 
to the High Court for deciding he election petition afresh after compliance 
with the provisions of Section 99 of the R.P. Act. 127-HI 
H 
Dr. Ramesh Yashwant Prabhoo v. Prabhaskar Kashinath Kunte, (19961 
' --
'M.L. BANGAL v. MANAS BHUNIA 
19 
1 SCC 130; Manohar Josh v." Nitin Bhaurao Patil, 119961 1 SCC 169; A 
Chandrakanta Goyal v. Sohan Singh Jodh Singh Kohli, 119961 1 SCC 378 
and Moreshwar Save v. Dwarkadas Yashwantrao Pathrikar, 119961 1 SCC 
394, relied on. 
Dr. Vimal (Mrs.) v. Bhaguji, (1996) 9 SCC 35, affirmed. 
2.1. An election petition is like a civil trial. The stage of framing the 
issues is an important one inasmuch as on that day the scope of the trial is 
,.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.