NANGTHOMBAM IBOMCHA SINGH versus LEISANGHEM CHANDRAMANI SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 573 · Decided: 13-09-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

' 
5 73 
NANGTHOMBAM IBOMCHA SINGH 
A 
v. 
LEISANGHEM CHANDRAMANI SINGH & ORS. 
September 13, 1976 
[H. R. KHANNA, N. L. UNTWALIA AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] 
B 
Representation of the People Act 1951-Sec. 77-Incurring expenses in exces~ 
of what is permissible-Interferenee by thi' Court with appreciation of evidence 
•. 
by High Court. 
Respondent No. 1 was declared elected to Manipur Legislative Assembly. 
The appellant who was one of the rival candidates filed an Election Petition on 
two grounds (1) Respondent No. 1 was holding office of profit inasmuch he 
was the speaker of the Assembly; and (2) the Respondent No. 1 incurred elec-
tion expenses in excess of what is permissible. The High Court negatived both 
the contentions and dismissed the Election Petition. 
In an appeal filed by the Election Petitioner to this Court in view of the 
change in law with retrospective effect the first ground was not available to the 
appellant in this Court. 
The appellant contended 
(1) The sum of Rs. 500 paid to his party by respondent No. 1 has been 
wrongly excluded by the High Court from the total expenditure. 
(2) The sum of Rs., 101.50 spent for the purchase of petrol and mobil 
oil was not shown by respondent No. 1 in his return. 
(3) Respondent No. 1 spent Rs. 1180/- on the microphone. 
He has, 
however, shown Rs. 720 only in the return. 
D 
(4) Respondent No. 1 used Jeep No. 7343 in addition to Jeep No. 194 
E 
and the expenses incurred on that jeep are not known. 
· Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : It is well settled that this Court does not normally interfere in an 
election appeal with the High Court's appraisement of oral evidence of witnesses 
unless such appraisement is vitiated by some glaring infirmity. In the present case 
no such infirmity is shown. The evidence led by the Election Petitioner is not 
cogent and sufficient to come to the conclusion that various amounts mentioned 
F 
by him were actually spent by Respondent No. 1. As far as the payment of 
Rs. 500/- is concerned, the same is admitted by respondent No. 1, but that was 
paid before the filing of the nomination and what the Statute requires is the 
expenses incurred from the date of nomination till the date of the declaration 
of the result. [575 B-C, 576G] 
Stray and solitary use of a jeep for visiting a place a few hundred yards away 
from the residence of the respondent where some untowards incident had taken 
G 
place cannot be held tantamount ta the use of the jeep for election purposes. 
[577B-CI 
Givn. APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 799 of 1975. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31-1-75 of the Gauhati High 
Court, Imphal Bench in Election Petition No. 2/74. 
Janardhan Sharma and !itendra Sharma; for the appellant. 
H 
s. V. Gupte Naunft Lal and (Miss) Lalita Kohli, for Respondent 
No. 1. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SH 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
11977) 1 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
~ANNA, J. In tho mid-term poll to Manipur Legislative Assembly 
held m February 1974, respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 
the ~espondent) was declared" elected from 
the Patsoi Assembly 
constituency. 
The appellant, who was one of the rival candidates, 
filed an election petition to challenge the election of the respondent. 
:The election petition was dismissed by the Gauhati High Court. 
The 
appellant has now come up in appeal against the judgment of the 
High Court. 
The respondent, who was • candidate spom;ored by the Manipur 
People's Party secured 5,033 votes, while the appellant who was his 
nearest rival secured 2,473 votes. 
The1e were ilome other candi-
dates, but we are not concerned with them. 
The respondent was the 
Speaker of Manipur Legislative Assembly ,\t the relevant time. 
The 
Assembly was dissolved in 1973. 
The respondent, however conti-
nued to hold the office of the Speak.er till March 8, 1974. 
The 
appellant challenged the election of 
the respondent on two main 
grounds. 
One of the grounds was that the respondent being Spea-
ker of the Assembly held an office of profit in the State Government 
and as such was disqualified to seek election. 
The other 
ground 
was 
that the election expensea of the respondent exceeded 
the prescribed limit of Rs. 
2,500. 
It was also stated that some of 
the expenses incurred by the respondent for the purpose of election 
had not been shown by him in tho retlim filed by him, and as such, lie 
was guilty of corrupt practice. 
The High Court repelled all the 
srounds, an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.