N. VIMALA DEVI versus K. MADHUSUDHANA REDDY

Citation: [1975] 3 S.C.R. 128 · Decided: 20-12-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A. ALAGIRISWAMI, V.R. KRISHNA IYER, R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

128 
N. VIMALA DEVI 
v. 
K. MADHUSUDHANA REDDY 
December 20, 1974 
A 
[A. ALAGIRISWAMI, \l. R. KRISHNA IYER AND R. S. SARKARIA JJ.] 
Repre.icntation of the People Act, 1951-S. 'l16A-A/lega1io11s of corrupt 
B 
practice-Duty of High Court to scrutinise with care. 
Jn the ejection to the State Legislative Assembly, the respondent was dec-
lared elected. 
The appellant who was the defeated candidate in :he election, 
in !>er elect.ion petition alleged that the respondent had committed a number 
of corrupt practices, the most important of whi~h related to the distribution 
of a pamphlet def'amatory of h·~r, falling under s. 123(4) of the R1ipresenta-
tio11 of the People Act, 1951. 
The High Court dismissed her petition. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended that the High Court applied one 
s!andard in appreciating the 
evidenc·~ of the appellant's· witnesses and an al-
together different standard in appreciating the 
evidence of the 
respondent's 
witnesses. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : ( 1) On an examination of the evidence it is satisfactorily estab-
lished that the impugned pamphlet was printed and distributed at lhe mstance 
of the respondent. [135H] 
(2) Where a corrupt practice is alleged against a returned candidahi it must 
be scrutinised with considerable care because a finding to that effect has very 
serious consi~uences. It not merely sets aside th·~ popular verdict but also 
subjects the successful candidate to the penalty of being disqualified for elec-
tion and even criminal prosecution. [135 El 
c 
D 
(3) This Court does not normally reappraise the evidence and come to a 
contrary conclusion from that of the trial judge if it is generally acceptable. 
E 
But it must not be forgotten that an appeal under s. 116A of the Representa-
tion of the People Act is a first app~al a·nd not one under the provisions of ArL 
136 of the Constitution and that an appeal is a rehearing. [135 Fl 
In the instant case the evidence has been reassessed because the High Court 
had rejected the evidence of the appellant's witnesses wholesale mainly on tjie 
ground of their being partisan witnesses while no such standard has been :i~- ' 
plied to evid-ence of witnesses on behalf of the respondent except in two cases. 
Even in those cases it was done because the documentary evidence was too 
F 
strong. The , rejection of the evidence by the High Court in one important 
in~tance has led to a wrong approach in the appreciation of the oral evidence. 
CrviL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 389 of 1973. 
From the judgment and order dated the 22nd December, 1972 of 
the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Election Petition No. 7 of 1972. 
S. V. Gupte, P. P. Rao and G. Narayana Rao, for the appellant. 
P. Ram Reddy. B. Parthasarthi and B. Balamukunda Reddy, for 
the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ALAGIRISWAMI, J.-In the election to the Andhra Pradesh Legis-
lative Assembly from the Chennur constituenoy held on 5th March, 
1972, :he appeilant was the official Congress candidate and the res-
pondent an independent candidate though 
both belonged 
to 
the 
Congress PartY. The respondent obtained 25,654 votes as against 23,940 
G 
H 
VIMALA DBYl v. JC, M. REDDY (Alagiriswami, !.) 
129 
A 
votes obtained by the appelfant and was declared elected. Thereupan 
the appellant filed an election petition which was dismissed by the, 
.. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Andhra Pradesh Hi~ Court. This appeal is against that decision. 
Though a number of corrupt practices were alleged in the election 
petition the only one pressed before this Court was that relating to 
the distribution of a pamphlet defamatory of the appellant falling 
under section 123( 4). That leaflet marked Ex.A-1 purports to have 
been issued by the Yuvajana Congress, Thorrur. It does not bear .the 
name of the printer or the publisher. But the allegation in the election 
petition was that it was published by the respondent and his agents 
throughout the' constituency. In Schedule I. to the election petition 
were given the ·uamcs of villages where the distribution was made, the 
penons who distributed, the date of distribution as well as the names 
of persons who received the pamphlet. Certain other. details were 
also given. 
It was further alleged that the appellant received letters 
in this regard from some of her supporters in the constituency. These 
were marked as Exs. A-2, A-3 and A-4. It was stated that the Prelli-
dent of the Yuvajana Congress, Thorrur was

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