MANGI LAL versus K. R. PAWAR & ANR.

Citation: [1971] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 822 · Decided: 07-05-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

822 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
MANGI LAL 
v. 
K. R. PAWAR & ANR. 
May 7, 1971 
[J. M. SHELAT, I. D. DUA AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.J 
Representation of the People Act (43 of 1951), ss. 9A. 77 & 123-
Publication of statements relating to the personal character or conduct of 
a candidate-When a corrupt practice-Contract between Company and 
Government-Chairman of Board of Directors of Company-If deemed 
to have entered into contract with Government. 
The appellant challenged the election of the first respondent on the 
grounds: (I) that during the election campaign statements were 'Oade at 
a public meeting that the appellants had misappropriated money, that state-
ments w~re published in a weekly referring to the appellant as a corrupt 
candidat«, that the statements were made with the first respondent's ap-
proval, that the statements were false and the respondent either believed 
them to be false or did not believe them to be true, and that by publish-
ing the false statements in relation to the personal character or conduct of 
the appellant the first respondent appellant was guilty of a corrupt practice 
under s. 123 (4) of the Representation of the People 'Act, 1951. (2) That 
the respondent purchased petrol worth about Rs. 2,000 and if that amount 
was added to the admitted expenditure it would show that the respondent 
had incurred election expenses in excess of the limit prescribed by s. 77 
of the Act read with r. 90 of the Election Rules. 
(3) That the respondent 
was a Chairman of the Board of Directors of an Electric Supply Company 
which generated and supplied electricity to the State Government under a 
contract. and therefore he was disqualified on the ground that he had a 
subsisting contract with the State within the meaning of s. 9(A) of the Act. 
The election petition was dismissed by the High Court 
In appeal to this Court, 
HELD: (1) The appellant had himself admitted on oath as a witness 
that a complaint was filed against him for embezzlement. The complaint 
was pending in the criminal court at the time of the election. 
A charge 
was also framed in those !proceedings. The charge and complaint are rele-
vant and there is no provision of law which makes the order framing the 
charge or the complaint inadmissible in evidence. 
there was thus enough material to show that the statements relating 
to the appellant were not founded on mere suspicion or that they were 
the result of a pure conjuncture or guess. Hence, the appellant had failed 
to discharge the burden laid on him under s. 123(4) of the Act to prove 
that the impugned statements were not only false but in addition that the 
respondent and his agents published them either believing them to be false 
or not believing them to be true. [827A] 
Dr. Jagjit Singh v. Giani Kartar Singh, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 773, followed. 
(2) The charge that he incurred election expenses beyond the prescrih-
ed limit must fail for want of evidence connecting this item of expenditure 
with the election. 
MANOI LAL v. PA WAR (Dua, J.) 
(3) Section 9A of the Act only covers contracts which have ocen en-
tered into by a person in the course of his trade or business with t~e ap-
propriate Government for the supply of goods to or for the execution of 
any works undertaken by that Government. In the present case, the con-
tract to supply electricity by the Electric Supply Company could by no 
means be considered to be a contract entered into by the respondent in the 
course of his trade or business merely because he was at the relevant time 
a Chairman of the Board of Directors ·of the Company, because the busi-
ness of a companY could not be described as a trade or business of the 
Chairman of its Board of Directors. -[828B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1229 
of 1970. 
· 
823 
A 
B 
Appeal under s. 116-A of the Representation of the People 
C 
Act, 1951 from the judgment and order dated March 27, 1970 
of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench in Election 
Petition No. 1 of 1968. 
L. M. Sir.ghvi, U. N. Bachawat, Sobhagmal Jain and S. K. 
Dhingra, for the appellant. 
D 
V. S. Desai, A. M. Mathur, Bhim Singh and S. K. Gambhir, 
for respondent no. 1. 
The Judgment of .the Court was delivered by 
Dua, J.-Mangi Lal Joshi has appealed to this Court under 
s. 116-A of the Representation of the People Act 43 of 1951 
(hereinafter called 'the Act') from the judgment and. order of the 
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) dismissing his elec-
tion petition under s

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