LexOM PRABHA JAIN versus CHARAN DAS & ANR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
> - OM PRABHA JAIN v. CHARAN DAS & ANR April 10, 1975 [M. H. BEG, Y. V. CHANDRACHUD AND A. C. GUPTA, JJ.] Representation of the People Act (43 of 1951) .Ss. 77, 116-A and 123 (6 )-Corr,upt Practice-Standard of proof. Practice and Procedure-Finding by High Court in election disputes-ln- terfrreiice by Supre1ne Court. 107 A B Section 77 of the, Represel1tation of the People Act, 1951, tirovides that every can"-idate at an election shall keep an account of e~penditure incurred C in connection with the election and that the total expenditure shall not ex- ceed the amount prescribed. The appellant and the first respondent contested the election to the State Legislature and the first respondent was successful. The appellant chal_lenged the election on the ground, inter alia, that the first respondent was guilty of corrupt practice having incurred or authorised expenditure in contravention D -0f s. 77. The election petition \Vas dismissed by the High Court. In appeal to this Court, it \Vas contended that there was evidence to show that the expenditure incurred by D, in connection with the use of t\VO jeeps during election \Vas authorised by the first respondent and if that expenditure was added to the amount shown by the first respondent as his expenditure, the total expenditure would exceed the prescribed limit of Rs. 9000. E During the pendency of the appeal. s. 77 was amended by inserting two Explanations in the section. Explanation 1 provides that the expenditure in- .curred or authorised in connection wtih the election of a candidate by a political party or by any other association or body of persons or by any indi- vidual other than the candidate or his election agent, shall not be deemed to be expenditure in connection with the election, incurred or authorised by the F candidate or his election agent. DismWiing the appeal, HELD: (Per curia1n) The allegation of corrupt practice af.[ainst the respondent has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. [109H & 123F] (Per ~I. H. Beg, J.)-If a charge of a corrupt practice is held to have G been cstablislv!d against a candidate, it may have grave repercussions on his reputation and poJitical future; and, therefore, prudence requires that the 'Stricter standard of proof of a criminal Charge should be applied. [109F] The High Court has held that as the precise connection. of D with the first respondent was not satisfactorily established, the charge of corrupt prac~ tice against the first respondent must fail. This Court will not, \Vithout a b:tter reason than i;ierely that another inference on the evidence is possibk~. disturb such a finding even on a statutory first appeal on facts. There is if a bare balance of probabilities could decide the case, sufficient circumstan~ H tial ev~dence to connect the expenditure incurred by D with the respondent who did not even produce any account books, though the law requires hin1 to maintain sat_isfactory ~ccon~ts to support hi~ return of expenses; yet, if the rules of c1rcum·stant1al evidence were applred with the strictness \\rith whi.ch they are applicable in criminal cases it must be held that the case against the first respondent has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt !109D-E-F-G-H] 108 SUPREME COURT REPORT~ [1975] SUPP. s.c.R. A B c (Per Y. V. Chandrachud and A. C. Gupta, JJ.) : (I) The appeal has to be decided in the light of the Explanation added to s. 77. (2) The findings of fact recorded by the High Court should not be disturbed in an appeal under s. 116-A, unless there was some serious error in the findings. Jn the present case, the Judge who tried the petition, had recorded his impression about the demeanour of the V.'itnesses whenever he thought necessary. The findings based solely on the demeanour of the wit- nesses cannot be reversed in appeal, but the conclusions of fac.t recorded upon a cons·ideration of the probabilities can be tested to see if they contain any serious error [121H 122A] (3) A charge of corrupt prnctice is quasi-criminal in nature and must be pro\ed beyond reasonable doubt. [122D1 ( 4) Before the High Court the parties proceeded on the footing that the question raised related to both .-illegations,, namely, that the respondent ir.curred or authorised the expenditure incurred on the two jeeps, and, therefore, the scope of the inquiry in appeal cannot be limited only to the question \Vhether the respondent himse
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.