NARENDER SINGH versus MALA RAM AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 438 · Decided: 15-09-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
NARENDER SINGH 
v. 
MALA RAM AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 15, 1999 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., S. RAJENDRA BABU AND 
R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.] 
Representation of the People Act, 1951: 
C 
Sections 83(1) and 123-Election PetitiOn-Corrupt practice-
Affidavit-In support of-Requirement of filing-Allegations of improper 
rejection of nomination papers of some candidates and improper acceptance 
of nomination papers of the returned candidate by the Returning Officer in" 
collusion with him-High Court held that the said allegations did not amount 
to corrupt practices and the so called collusion was merely embellishment 
D to the said allegation-Held: High Court's view justified and reasonable-
Where no corrupt practice arising under S.123 is put to issue or any trial 
held thereon, preliminary objection that such allegation is not supported by 
affidavit as required under S.83(1), not sustainable. 
Election petition-Nomination papers-Improper rejection and 
E acceptance-Insufficient evidence-Effect of-Allegations of improper 
rejection of nomination papers of some candidates and improper acceptance 
of nomination papers of the· returned candidate-Evidence of Returning 
Officer corroborated by other witnesses on several aspects particularly in 
regard to procedure adopted by him for acceptance or rejection of the 
F nomination papers-No clinching material to hold in favour of the election 
petitioner-Evidence on record capable of two interpretations-One in favour 
of the returned candidate and the other in favour of the election petitioner. 
Held : Under these circumstances, the High Court erred in upsetting the 
election of the returned candidate on the basis of such testimony. 
Election-Trial of-Burden of proof-Held : Onus to prove essential 
G facts, which constitute cause of action, is upon election petitioner. Oral 
evidence should be assessed carefully. 
Election Petition-Trial of-Evidence-Appreciation of-Held : If the 
evidence adduced is capable of drawing two inferences, one in favour of the 
returned candidate and the other in favour of the election petitioner, the 
H 
o 
438 
NARENDER SINGH v. MALA RAM 
439 
· former should be preferred. 
The appellant was eiected to the State Legislative Assembly. The 
respondent, defeated candidate, filed an Election Petition before the High 
Court challenging the election of the appellant on the grounds of improper 
rejection of nomination papers of some candidates and improper acceptance 
A 
of nomination papers of the appellant by the Returning Officer in collusion B 
with the appellant. 
The appellant raised a preliminary objection that the allegations raised 
in the election petition amounted to corrupt practices and inasmuch as no 
affidavit was filed in support of such corrupt practices, the election petition 
could not be tried. 
The High Court held that the allegations did not amount to corrupt 
practices and, therefore, even if the petition was not supported by an affidavit, 
the petition must be deemed to be properly filed. However, the High Court 
examined the Returning Officer and other witnesses and allowed the election 
c 
petition on the basis of such evidence. Hence this appeal. 
D 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court's view that the election of the returned 
candidate was being challenged on the ground of improper rejection of 
nomination papers of some of the candidates and improper acceptance of the E 
nomination papers of the returned candidate and all other allegations were 
mere embellishment to the same is justified and reasonable.[443-H; 444-A) 
1.2. When no corrupt practice arising under Section 123 of the 
Representation of the People Act, J 951 was put in issue or any trial held 
thereon, the preliminary objection that the allegations of corrupt practice F 
were not supported by an affidavit as required under Section 83(1) of the R.P. 
Act cannot be sustained. (444-BI 
2. In the instant case the evidence of the Returning Officer is 
corroborated by other witnesses on several aspects particularly in regard to 
the procedure adopted by him for rejection or acceptance of the nomination G 
papers. On the basis of the evidence on record two inferences are possible-
to ac.~ept either the version of the Returning Officer or that given by the 
election petitioner and his witnesses. There is no clinching material at all 
to hold in favour of the election petitioner. Hence, High Court erred in 
upsetting the election of the returned candidate on the bas

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