P. C. PURUSHOTHAMA REDDIAR versus S. PERUMAL

Citation: [1972] 2 S.C.R. 646 · Decided: 02-12-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

646 
P. C. PURUSHOTIIAMA REDDIAR 
v. 
S~PERUMAL 
December 2, 1971 
[K. S. IiEGDE, A. N. GROVER AND A. N. RAY, JJ.J 
Representation of the People A.ct 1951---S. 
123(6)-Whe11 cor1·upt 
pr"ctice-Evidence A.ct-S. 35-When police report !ldmissible in 
evi~ 
dencB where the officer concerned not examined perJonally. 
The appellant challenaed the validity of the election of the re•pondcnt 
to the Pondicherry Lagislatu!':! A=mbly on variou• grounds includibg 
corrupt practices. The High Court dismisse<l the election petition. 
ln 
lhC' appeal to this Court, the appellant contended 
(i) that the appellant's cmen<lment 3pplicat;on of the ele::tion petition 
giving some more particulars of mc.etings held by the respondent was 
wrongfully rejected by the Trial Court on the sole ground that it wught 
10 include additional &rounds of corrupt practice and 
(ii) that the respondent bad actually incurred expenses in connection 
1vith 4 more meetings thereby exceedin2 the prescribed limit. 
The re•pondent, on the other hand, contended that .the various police 
reports about the meetin23 relied on by the appellant were not admisoible 
1n evidence as the head constable who covered the mcetinas had not been 
~:xamined in the case: that even if the reports were admWible. the C.Ourt 
could not look ioto the content'! of those docun1ents and that the evidence 
ofTorded by the police reports was not relevant, 
-" llowing the appeal, 
HELD : 
(i) The incurri...ng or authorising of an expenditure in con-
travention of s .. 77 of the Act is one single corrupt practice. The incilrr~ 
1ng or authorising of an expenditure in connection with the election is not 
~1y itself a corrupt practice. The corrupt practice is the incurrina 
or 
,H1lhorising the expenditure of n1ore than the prescribed limit. Hence, the 
·r rial C.ourt erred in thinking that each item of expenditure is a corrupt 
practice by itself. The particulars of corrupt practice fallin& under sec· 
rions 123(6) Of the Act rn~v. i11 an appropriate case, be introduced by 
;1n1cndment. 
B_v doinR so. no additional ground of corrupt practice can 
he said to have been introduced. [b50 HJ 
D. P. lvffa"rt1 and Anr. v.. Kt11nhl Narayan Shanna and Anr. J.1971] 1 
'>.C.R. 8, referred to. 
(ii) As regards the nu1nber of meetings held bv the respondent, 
al-
rhough he denied having be1d any meetin2 at all however admitted in bi~ 
.:.·vidence that he had arranged seven meetings between, February 27, 1969 
:o M"..lrch 6. 1969. 
Thi:! appeJlant, however, had been able to prove that 
the respondent had held four more meetings between February 23, 1968 
:o March 6, 1969. In support of his claim, the appellant examined " 
atnnber of witnesses and their evidence was corroborated by a number of 
applications (\\·hich th~ respondent made to the Inspector of Police. asking 
permission to hold the meetings) and by the police .reports (wh1c~ the 
l·Jead constable1s made to their superior after attending· the 1neettng."; I. 
Therefore on an avera2e, if the respondent spent· Rs. 32/- per meeting. 
(which h~ admitted), the total for the 4 extra meetings must have cost tb~ 
Respondent Rs .. 128/ -. If this ex.Jll:nse 
was 
add~d to. the s_um of 
Rs. 18,86.09 which the respondent had spent for hts entire election, the 
A 
B 
c 
ll 
E 
F 
H 
A 
B 
c 
0 
E 
F 
G 
H 
P. c. P, REDDIAR v. s. PERUMAL (Hegde, J.) 
6'47 
total expenditure would exceed the prescribed limit of Ro. 2,000/ -
Hence, 
the respondenj was clearly guilty of corrupt practices mentioned in. 
S. !23(6). [652. HJ 
(iii) The police reports were marked without any objection. Hence. 
it was not open to the respondent to object to their admissibility at a later 
stage. 
Bhagat Ram v. Khetu Ram and A nr., A.I.R. 1929 P.C. 110, referred 
to., 
(iv) Further as reg::i.l·ds the contents of the document, once a doeu-
ment is properly admitted the contents of that document are a1"o ad-
mitted in evidence although the contents may not be conclu.<ivc evidence. 
!654 FJ 
(v) The first part of S. 35 of the Evidence Act says that an entry in 
any public record stating a fact in wue or relevant fact made by a public 
servant in discharge of his official duties is relevant evidence. Quite clearly 
the· reports in question were made by public servants in d;..charge of tbeir 
official duty. 
The issue before the Court was whether the respondent had ar.lllged 
eertain election meetings on certain dates. The police reports in question 
were extremely relevant to establish 

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