LexN. HORANGSE versus M. TSUBONGSE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D N. HORANGsil v, M. TSUBONGSE March 13, 1985 [S. MURTAZA fAZAL ALI AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ,J. Election law-Corrupt practics uT1der section 123( I), 123 (JA) and 123 (6) of the Represetation of People Act, 1951-Appreciation of evidence-Burden of,proof of election of Corrupt practice· is upon the election petitioner and not upon the elected candidate-Presentation by way of exchange of giftJ under .the custom of the village long before the election process co1nmenced and given not to procure votes or to induce the recepients to cast their votes cannot fall under expression "corrupt practice!'. Ts:Jbongse the election petitioner and the respondent herein who contes- ted from the Longkhim-Chre constitutency of the Nagaland Legislative E Assembly as a Congress (I) candidate in the election held on 10.11.82 lost by < a margin of ·133 votes to Horangse the appellant and who was the Deputy Speal(er of the last legislative Assembly. The respondent filed· an election petition on the ground that the app~llant was guilty of four instances of cor- rupt practice falling under Section 123(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and on three other grounds, namely; (1) display of a 'banner with the caption "do not sell Nagaland to India", a corrupt practice within the meaning F of Section 123 (3A) of the Act ; (2) exceeding the limit of expenditure amoun- ting to corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123(6) of the Act and (3) use of government vehicles for the purpose of the election. The learned Single Judge, who tried the election petition, found only one of the aforesaid grounds of corroupt practice, namely, presentation of four red waist coats proved and the other grounds not proved, and therefore, he a'lowed the el~ction petition and set aside the appellant'S election on that ground. Hence the G appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD :In an electiort petition, the petitioner who a1teges corrupt practice H must prove his case which is disputed by the returned candidate indepin-' , __ + ( N. HORANGSE V. M. TSUBONGSE 343. dently or the fact whether the returned candidate has proved his defence or not. [348E] Here. on the evidence of R.Ws. 1 to 5, the appellant gOt the ~aist coats d~stributed thro'ugh P.W. 14 who was then a staunch worker of the Naga National Democratic Party in September, 1982 long before the election process bad started, as per the custom of Nagas to make gifts in return for the gifts ieceived by dignitaries. The evidence let in by the respondent election peti- tion~r to prove the item of alleged corrupt practic~ on the part of the appel- lant "is wholly insufficient and unacceptable to prove the charge Satisfactorily. Though in the election petition it is clearly alleged that the app'el1ant gave red waist coats to P.Ws. 11 to·13 and Lithsabha at 4 p.m. on 27.J0.82 for in- , ducing them to cast their votes in his favour in the presence of P.Ws. 14 and ~15 and they witnessed the offer '.3.nd, reported the matter subseq~ently to the reSpondent, P. ·Ws. 14 and 15 do not claim in their evidence personal knowledge about the offer on presentation of the waist coats by the appellant to these four persons ·and about the. inducement of the appellant to cast their votes in (avour. Admittedly, P.W. 14 had asked P.Ws. II, 12 and 13 to remember the date and time· of the appellant's visit to their houses where hec laiffis to have gone aloilg- with P.W. 15 soon after the departure of the appellant from each of those places. It is clear that these three witnesses, P.Ws. 11 to 13 have mentioned the date and month of the appellant's visit only on the basis of what P.W. 14 told them to remember. p, W. 14 who was a staunch worker of the NNDP and had switched over to the Congress (I) Party to which P.W. 15 belongs, sometime before the election, and P.W. 16 are interested witnesses. P.w~·15 has stated in his evidence that the· appellant "appealed ti:> the'people of the 'village to cast their votes in his favour and that he went to the houses of P.Ws .. 11to13 .in Lirise village only·thereafter. If that is so, it is not likely that the appellant, then the Deputy Speaker would have .carried the ·gunny or hessian bag containing the waist coats himself without being accompanied even by a single worker .or sympathiser of the NNDP when he is stated to have ~isite"d those four houses for presenting the waist coats arid inducing the reci
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.