N.S. NANDIESHA REDDY versus KAVITHA MAHESH

Citation: [2021] 8 S.C.R. 297 · Decided: 03-08-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
297
N.S. NANDIESHA REDDY
v.
KAVITHA MAHESH
(Civil Appeal No. 4821 of 2012)
AUGUST 03, 2021
[N. V. RAMANA, CJI, A. S. BOPANNA AND
HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Election Laws:
Representation of People’s Act, 1951 – s. 100(1)(c) – Improper
rejection of nomination paper – Returning officer giving false
evidence before the Court – Effect of – On facts, the High Court
held the election of the appellant from the Legislative Assembly
constituency to be void, in terms of s. 100(1)(c), and in the course
of the said order issued direction to the Registrar General of the
High Court to register a complaint u/s. 193 IPC against the Returning
Officer for the said election, for giving false evidence before the
Court – On appeal, held: Mere reference to inconsistent statements
alone not sufficient to take action unless a definite finding is given
that they are irreconcilable; one is opposed to the other so as to
make one of them deliberately false – Even when the Court comes
to the conclusion on the aspect of intentional false evidence, still
the Court has to form an opinion whether it is expedient in the
interest of justice to initiate an inquiry into the offences of false
evidence, having regard to the overall facts of the case – It cannot
be said that the Returning Officer with an ulterior motive had
declined to receive the nomination paper and to cover up his act
was seeking to tender false evidence before the Court – Manner in
which the Judge concluded that the returning officer was
inconsistent in his statements in the course of his evidence tendered
by him as prosecution witness not justified – Conclusion reached
that he is to be prosecuted, without the findings being recorded
regarding deliberate or intentional falsehood cannot be sustained
– Hence, the direction issued to the Registrar General of the High
Court cannot be sustained – Furthermore, the appellant having
completed the term of the Assembly for which he was elected, the
prayer is rendered infructuous.
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 297
297
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
298
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
Disposing of CA No. 4821 of 2012 and allowing CA No.
6171 of 2012, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Mere reference to inconsistent statements
alone is not sufficient to take action unless a definite finding is
given that they are irreconcilable; one is opposed to the other so
as to make one of them deliberately false. Notwithstanding the
conclusion reached by the Judge on the aspect of improper
rejection of the nomination paper, the correctness of which was
not required to be gone into for the reasons stated, the manner
in which the Judge has concluded that the appellant in C.A. No.
6171/2012 was inconsistent in his statements in the course of his
evidence tendered by him as PW3 is not justified. Further the
conclusion reached that he is to be prosecuted, without the
findings being recorded regarding deliberate or intentional
falsehood cannot be sustained. Hence the direction issued to the
Registrar General of the High Court to initiate the proceedings
by lodging a criminal complaint also cannot be sustained in the
facts and circumstances arising in this case. [Para 11, 16][309-E-
F; 311-F-H; 312-A]
1.2 Even in a case where the Court comes to the conclusion
on the aspect of intentional false evidence, still the Court has to
form an opinion whether it is expedient in the interest of justice
to initiate an inquiry into the offences of false evidence, having
regard to the overall factual matrix as well as the probable
consequences of such prosecution. The Court must be satisfied
that such an inquiry is required in the interest of justice and is
appropriate in the facts of the case. In that backdrop, insofar as
the observation made by the Judge of the election tribunal relating
to the need for maintaining purity of the election process which
is the heart and soul of democracy and in that situation the role of
the Returning Officer being pivotal, the same is fully concurred
with. [Para 17][312-B-D]
1.3 From the evidence as tendered, there is no reason to
permit the prosecution since there is no intentional falsehood
uttered. The other relevant facts also indicate that the factual
matrix does not indicate that it is expedient in the interest of
justice to initiate an inquiry and expose the appellant to criminal
prosecution. On this aspect it is to be noted that the instant case
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
299
is not a case where the nomination paper which was complete in
all respect was filed and it had been im

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