MANMOHAN KALIA versus YASH & OTHERS

Citation: [1984] 3 S.C.R. 383 · Decided: 02-04-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

_,· 
• 
.. ; 
• 
. . 
MANMOHAN KAUA 
v. 
Y'ASH & OTHERS 
April 2, 198' 
[S. MURTAZA 
FAZAL ALI, A. YARADARAJAN 
AND 
RANGNATH. 
MISRA, JJ.] 
Eleclion Lo•s-Corrupt P;ac1ict. aJl~gotiQn of;_StantMrd of proof must 
b~ prnved s1ric1Jy at a crimhsal char1e a"fd lhe p. i·1cipJe of prepond.:ra11C<!. of 
probabi.dlits woUJJ Ml app.I> to- thtt Rtpresenta1ion of tht People A(f, I 9Sl-
Cred1bil( .v· a.1d rtl~vaf!ct: Of Nt"'s item pub/1shtd ApplicaliJn-1•/ the principle 
'of Jnut1.do-Rtpr~stn ation ·of Iht P1oplt Act, J9jJ, Sttrion-.J 2:J (4} 1 scope of. 
l.J tbe oloction to the A1scmb1y cons~ituehcy No -31 J_ullundur C~ntt., 
which. -was held on 31.S 1980, the total Voles polled from the cons.1itueacy ·· 
were 47t>50, out of which the appellant- polled 19710, whereas· 
t~e res~ 
po:ld~nt Yash secured 41_8 voco1. more i.e. 20118 vqtes. 
Therefor.e, the 
appe11ant+sou1b.t to challcn10 \he clcctioa of Respon.:11~nt No. l on-various 
grounds c005-i•tin• of corrupt practio:es com:iliSted by .res;:toodent No. 1 
wb,ch materially affected the result of the election.· 1\cCording to the 
"app:llartt,. Re&,oad.m1 No . .I thr0uah spec.ches ci thcr ma.de by him or his 
ff1end carded out a vilhfyi.na ca.mpai111_ to show that ~he appellant was 
directly connected Wt1h the murd« of one Asa Rai1 a ha"r.ijan and one of 
th•; supporters of Cona:rffs ll) party, 50 as to w.eaa away the votes of the· 
hanj-1ns of th_e locality and tnembers of the Conaress (l) party. The Punjab 
and H·:lry3-n1 -High Court disbelieved the 9!al ~vidence and found no nexus 
with tbc ·riews items etc. and dii.mii~d the election petition. 
Hence the 
·appeal- b'y special leaYc. 
HELD L 1 It is well soa1ed that where· the doctrine of iouendo is 
applied, it m11Jt be clearly proved that the defamatory alteaation -was 
m3de ia rC~p_ect of a person thoUgh rio~ named Jet so fully described -that• 
tile allegation wOUtd refer to that. person and that person alone. lnuendo 
cannot be proved merely by inFerentiJ.I evidence whi~h 'm:i.y be capable of 
two possibilities. [386F-G] 
1. 2 ln the instant case, the evidence.statement pf.. witnesses aad the 
documents produced,- do not ·can for ar{y. inference Qr any close COn9ection 
or direct iink between the imputations made against the appellarit in 1978 
and those made in 1980. 
In none of the documents produced by the 
3ppellant whicb °refer to the activities of the_ first respondent,"' there ·is the 
slightest possible hint that· th• appellant had anything to do with tho 
mu~der of Aia Ram. 
Further more, the allegadons ·made in 1978 being 
far too remote and there being no 
cootinuou~ link between those allega-
. tions.and the allegati0115 made io 1980, thC first c1tcgory of the cbarse 
11gaiost 'tb-e respondent cannot be sustained, more particularly because in 
38 3', 
c 
( 
l 
384 
. . 
' 
' SUPREME COURTS REPORTS 
. [1984] 3 S.C.R" 
1978. a fre&h election was not in the offina because .th.e Jznata' GOvern~·ent 
came into.power iq 1977 and._in normal course would have completed its 
fuJI term~ in ~ ~82_ ... Thus, ac that tinl~no bp~1 coii·l~ have predicted that 
the election would be held only two ye'ars 
J~ter which happened by a 
suddtn spurt of events. 
~386E--F; G-H] 
N. Vimala [Jevi v. K •• Madhusudhana Reddy [1975] 3. S.C.R. 128 
Jo!lowed. 
2.J It is'now well settled by Eevcral aufkorities of the· Sup1eme 
~ourt. t~1 an · -aUe8a1iqn of: corrupt Practice musi be proved as. :stric tlY 
as a 1=rirninal charge and the principle of prepondertnce ·of .probaf:?iliti .es 
woutd not apply'- to corrupt practices envisaged by the Act because if th1 s · 
·test is no(applied a very sericus prtjudi.ce would be caused to the elected 
candidate who may be di~qualified _for ~ period of six years f1 om fight in& 
any ·election, whiCCh will adversely affect the el~ctoral process. !.JB7F-G] 
2.2 In the instant case, ths evidence.both oral and documentary_ .. Jed 
·by the appellant falls short of the •tandard of proof required to bring his 
case within the four corners of.section 123 (4) of the Representatjon· of 
th~ People Act 1951 (!) .• 
About·the speech made on May 18, ·1980, the 
·deposition of PW8 ca'nnot be· relied ·on inasmuch as it is i{qpo~lible to 
conceive of contradicti'On5 made by him.. 
If tho· Witness a:pari from being 
'inte·rested and part jsan, had been Present in 'the meeting throughe_ut, he 
would not forget whO·spoke Brit. 
Ev"en PW J 3 c.annot. b~ believed since,. 
: white admittinjl in Iris cross exaniinatio.p: that 

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