LexP.C. THOMAS versus P.M. ISMAIL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 125
·-
.,
P.C. THOMAS
A
v.
P.M. ISMAIL & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5033 of 2006 etc.)
SEPTEMBER 4, 2009
B
[D.K. JAIN AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.]
)
Representation of the People Act, 1951:
ss. 123(3) and (5); 100(1 )(b) - Election petition -Alleging c
Corrupt practice by printing and publishing, distributing and
circulating by himself, his election agents and workers, notice
and calender - High Court setting aside the election holding
~
the allegation proved - On appeal, held: The conduct of the
returned candidate amounted to corrupt practice - Case
D
proved by witnesses.
s. 101(b) - Claim of election petitioner and another
candidate of the election, to be declared elected, on setting
aside of election of returned candidate - Held: Election in the
constituency in question having already been conducted, E
case becomes infructuous.
'f
Election Laws - Charge of corrupt practice - Nature,
standard of proof and onus to prove - Held: Such charge
under Representation of People Act to be equated with
F
...
criminal charge - Standard of proof thereof is proof beyond
reasonable doubt - The onus lies on the election petitioner
- Representation of the People Act, 1950 - Evidence -
Standard of proof - Onus to prove.
Appeal - First appellate court - Power of- To intetfere
G
with order of trial court - Held: Supreme Court as a first
-appellate court should not interfere with the finding of fact
....
unless there are compelling reasons to do so .
125
H
126
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
-
A
Election of the appellant to Lok Sabha was
t·
challenged by the respondent No.1-election petitioner
(the candidate who had got second highest number of
votes). It was interalia alleged that appellant had
committed corrupt practices as enumerated u/ss. 123(3)
B and 123(5) of Representation of the People Act, 1951, and
therefore his election was liable to be declared void u/s
100(1)(b) of the Act. He also prayed that he should be
declared elected in terms of s.101(b) of the Act.
{
c
High Court sustained the maintainability of the
Election Petition on the grounds of corrupt practice
falling u/ss. 123(3) and 123(5) of the Act. Electi.on of the
appellant was set aside. Hence the Civil Appeal No. 5033
of 2006.
!"
D
Civil Appeal No. 5777 of 2006 was ·preferred by·
second respondent therein. He claimed that he having
got higher number of votes in the said election, on the
election of returned candidate having been set aside,
should have been declared as elected, instead of the
·E election petitioner in Civil Appeal No. 5033 of 2006 .
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD:
F Civil Appeal No. 5033 of 2006:
1. A charge of corrupt practice envisaged by
Representation of the People Act, 1951, is to be equated
with a criminal charge and the standard of proof thereof
G would not be preponderance of probabilities as in a civil
action but proof beyond reasonable doubt as in a criminal
•
trial. If this test is not applied, a very serious prejudice is
likely to be caused to the successful candidate whose
election would not only be set aside, he may also incur
H
·disqualification to contest an election for a certain period
1
'
"· .
P.C. THOMAS v. P.M. ISMAIL & ORS.
127
entailing even extinction of his political-career. The onus
A
lies heavily on the election petitioner to make out a strong
case for setting aside an election. [Para 10] [138-A-C]
Ch. Razik Ram vs. Ch. Jaswant Singh Chauhan and Ors.
1975 (4) SCC 769; Jeet Mohinder Singh vs. Harminder Singh . B
Jassi 1999 (9) SCC 386; Surinder Singh vs. Hardial Singh
and Ors. 1985 (1) sec 91, relied on.
2.1. The High Court was satisfied that notice (Ext.P1)
and calenda~ (Ext.P2) were distributed by workers of the
appellant. Applying the test of common man's C
understanding and the effect of the said documents on
the mind and feelings of an ordinary average voter, the
court agrees with the High Court that the said notice/
statement (Ext.P1) did constitute an appeal to the
members of the Christian community, particularly, the D
Catholics to seek their votes for the appellant, being a
Catholic, on the ground of religion, caste and community.
Calendar (Ext.P2}, does not per se fall within the mischief
of Section 123(3) of the Act but taken along with Exhibit
P1 does serve as a statement to strengthen the appeal
E
in notice (Ext.P1). The circulation of the said exhibits
amounted to viExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.