MANPHUL SINGH versus SURINDER SINGH

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 52 · Decided: 24-04-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.G. PALEKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

52 
MANPHUL SINGH 
v. 
SURINDER SINGH 
April 24, 1973 
[D. G. PALEKAR AND A. ALAGIIUSWAMI, JJ.] 
A 
Representation of People Act, 1951, Sections 83(l)ia) and (b) and 123-
B 
Election petition containing elaborate details of allegations of corrupt practices-
Petition need contain only material facts and not evidt:nce 1herefore-Earlier 
part of Order VJ, Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1~00, similar to s. 83{ i) 
(a) of the Act-Charges of corrupt practices UTJder s. 123 quasi-criminal nature 
and must be proved satisfactorily-Allegation in election petition held nut liable 
fo be struck down as not raising triable issue. 
The respondent filed an election petition challenging the 
validity of the 
election to the Haryana Vidhan Sabha from the Jbajjar 
Constituency held on 
C 
11-3-1973 in which the appellant was declared elected. The election petition 
contained elaborate details of allegations relating to votes cast in the name of 
dead persons, votes c;,ast in the name of Government servants who did not cast 
their votes, votes cast twice or more than twice either in the same consti-
tuency 
or 
more · 
than 
one 
constituency, 
allegations 
of 
corrupt practices and also of irregularities committed during the course of the 
counting. 
Various issues were framed in respect of these allegations and were 
made triable by the learned single Judge of the High Court by his order dated 
17-8-1972. 
On appeal by special leave from the order of the learned single 
D 
Judge, dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : (i) The election petition in the instant case gives more particulars 
than would have been found by any body with any amount of experience in 
respect of election petitions. 
S. 83(l)(a} contemplates giving a concise state-
ment of the material facts on which the petitioner relies and s. 83 ( l) (b) requires 
full particulars of corrupt practice to be furnished. ·' To say as is done by appel-
lant, that the petition should contain not only the material facts but also the 
evidence on which he relies to prove those material facts is directly contrary to 
E 
the provisions of Order YI. Rule 2. of the Code of Civil Procedure, the earlier 
part of which is similar to clause (l)(a) of s. 83. 'fhe Code of CivH Procedure 
applles to all trials of election petitions and to require that a party should not 
only state the material facts on which he re.lies, which the respondent has done 
more than amply in this case. but :aJso that he 
should state the evidence on 
which he relies is not a proposition which can be accepted either as correct in 
law or as one which justice requires. [55E, G] 
(ii) The charges of corrupt practices under s. 123 of the Act are quasi-crimi-
F 
nal in nature, and should, therefore, be proved satisfactorily as it has a double 
; consequence, the election of the returned candidate being set aside and the can-
, .. didate incurring a subsequent disqualification as well. 
It could not be said in 
the ins.tant case that the alJegations in the election petition are vague or general 
in nature or lack material particulars and are as such liable to be struck down 
as not raising a triable issue. 
The ,procedure to be adopted for the trial would 
depend upon the circumstances of each case and each fact sought to be proved. 
It would not be feasible to lay down any bard and fast rule on this subject. 
[60Hl 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : 
Civil Appeal No. 
2727 
of 
1972. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 
17, 1972 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Election Petition 
45 of 1972. 
R. K. Garg and S. C. Agarwala, for the appellant. 
A. K. Sen, Bakhtawar Singh and M. M. Kshatriya, for the respon-
dent. 
H 
B 
c 
MANPHUL SINGH v. SURINDER SINGH (Alagiriswami, !.) 
53 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ALAGJRISW AMI, J. 
This appeal arises out of the election to the 
Haryana Vidhan Sabha from 
the Jhajjar cons·ituency held 
on 
11-3-1973 in which the appellant was declared elected on receiving 
24060 votes as against 23975 votes received by the respondent. The 
respondent thereupon filed the petition challenging the validity of the 
election. 
The appeal itself is against the order dated 17th August 1972 
passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, who heard the 
election petition in respect of issues 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7(a) and 7(b). 
Issue 2 itself was not challenged before this Court. 
Issues 1, ?. 4, 
and 5 form one group; issue 6 relates to a corrupt pract

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