R. M. SESHADRI versus G. VASANTHA PAI

Citation: [1969] 2 S.C.R. 1019 · Decided: 29-11-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
, 
G 
• 
II 
R. M. SESHADRI 
G. VASANTHA PAI 
November 29, 1968 
1019 
[M, HIDAYATULLAH, C.J. AND 0. K. .MITTER., J.] 
Representation of the People Act, 1951 s. 123(5)-Employment of 
cars for conveyance of voters-If adequately pleaded and proved. 
Election /aw-Trial I udge calling witnes.es and examining documents 
suo motu-/f empowered to do so. 
Code of Civil Procedure 0. XVI r. 14-A.pp/icabi/ity and scope of. 
The appellant. was elected to th~ Madras Llgislath:e Council from 
the Madras District Graduates Conslltuency. 
His elec!Ion was challeng-
ed by the Respondent, his nearest rival candidate by an election petition 
alleging, mainly, that a large number of cars bad been employed for 
the conveyance of voters to the polling booths in violation of s. 123(5) 
of the Representation of the People Act, 195 I. The High Court bJld that 
the corrupt practice was established and set aside the appellant's elec-
tion. It also declared the respondent elected in bis place. The o~ginal 
order passed by the High Court did not name the appellai;it ~ ~lty of 
corrupt practice but the Court, by a subsequent order rev1ewmg its pre-
. vious order, gave a declaration to that effect. 
In the appeal to this Court, it was .ontended by the appellant that 
the plea in the petition regarding violation of s. 123 ( 5) was va1111e and 
not sufficiently defined so as to Jl.ive him notice of the cbarge be bad to 
meet, and furthermore, that the learned Judge who tried the case improv-
ed both the pleading on the subject and the evidence led by the election 
petitioner by calling certain witnesses and looking into documents which 
he bad no power to do. It was therefore contended that all 
the 
evidence which the learned Judge collected suo motu should not be look-
ed at and if the case .of the petitioner was confined to the bare plea rais-
ed, the petition would deserve to be dismis.sed because it was not clear in 
the plea and was Jacking in proof. 
HELD : dismissing the appeal : On the facts, the High Court bad 
rightly found that many cars were employed for 
the conveyance of 
voters in the constituency. 
The circumstantial chain of evidence was 
sufficient to show the connection between the appellant and the use of 
the cars for the conveyance of 
voters. The corrupt practice under 
s. 123(5) was therefore brought home. [1031 F; 1032 A-Bl 
( i) The plea in the petition in essence was that cars were used for 
the purpose of conveying voters contrary to the prohibition contained in 
the Election Law. The names of the booths and the divisions in which 
the booths were situated together with the particulars of the cars and 
the persons primarily concerned with cars at the polling booths 
had 
been mentioned. 
The connection of the appellant with the use of the 
c_ars had been specifically .Pleaded. Sufficient particulars of the allega-
tton had therefore been given and the 
rest were matters of evidence 
which did not require to bo pleaded. 
. (iil. The power of a Civil Court to summon court witnesses is con-
t~10ed rn 0. XVI r. 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Representa-
tton ?f People Act enjoins that all the powers under the Code can be 
exercised and all the procedure as far as may be applicable to the trial 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1969) 2 s.c.11.. 
of civil suits may be followed 
in the trial of election petitions. The 
A 
Court trying an election petition therefore bas the power to summon a 
_;_,,,, 
court witness if it thinks mat the ends of jusuce require or that the case 
before it needs that kind of evidence. The policy of election. law seems 
to be that 'for the establishment of purity o! elections, investigation into 
all allegations of malpractices including 
corrupt practices at elections 
should be thoroughly made. In the present case a large number of cars 
were obviously used presumably for the purpose of carrying voters to 
the booths. 
ln the face ot this volummous evidence it was open to the 
B 
judge, if evidence was availabh: to establish who bad procured or hired 
vehicles, to summon witnesses who could depose to the same. 
Such a 
power was therefore properly ex.ercised by the learned judge. [1028 B-F) 
~· 
(iii) In the present case it was not possible to reach the conclusion 
that as the voters were brought to the polhng 
booths in 11iolat10n of 
s. 123(5), the result of the election had been materially affec<ed. 
In a 
single transferable vote, it is very difficult to say how the voting wou

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