R. PUTHUNAINAR ALIHITHAN ETC. versus P.H. PANDIAN AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 932 · Decided: 26-03-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, S.P. BHARUCHA, K.S. PARIPOORNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
R. PUTHUNAINAR ALIHITHAN ETC. 
v. 
P.H. PANDIAN AND ORS. 
MARCH 26, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY, S.P. BHARUCHA AND 
K. S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
Representation of the People Act, 1951. 
C 
Ss.77, 123(6}-Corrnpt practice-Election expenses-Omission to 
produce correct statement of account-Election petitioner challenging election 
of retumed candidate on ground that the latter used two vehicles in election 
campaign and accounted for expenses incurred only on one vehicle and if he 
had shown expenses incurred on the other vehicle also, the expenses would . 
have exceeded the limit prescribed under the Act - High Court allowed the 
D election petition and set aside the election of the returned candidate-Held, 
the election petitioner had established that the returned candidate had com-
mitted corrupt practice under s.123(6)--iJeclaration of the result of the 
returned candidate as void is not vitiated by any error of law warranting 
inteiference. 
E 
Doctrine of preponderance of probabilitie~lained. 
Evidence Act, 1872 : 
S.3-Fact proved-To draw a11 inference that a fact in dispute has been 
F established, there must exist, 011 record some direct material facts or cir-
cumsta11ces from which such a11. i11fere11ce could be draw11-The probative 
value could be gauged from the facts and circumsta11ces i11 a give11 case. 
Burden of proof--111 an election petition, when election petitioner has 
adduced evidence to rove that the returned candidate had committed coTTUpt 
G practice, the burden shifts 011 the returned candidate to rebut the evidence. 
Maharashtra State Board of SecOlldary and High Secondary Education 
v. K. S. Gandhi & Ors., [1991] 2 SCC 716, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 877 of 
H 1994 Etc. 
932 
-..,' 
R.P. ALHITHANv. P.H. PANDIAN 
933 
. From the Judgment and Orde~ dated 31.1.94 of the Madras High A 
Court in E.P. No. 1 of 1991. 
D.D. Thakur, Anant Palli, Ms. Purnima Bhatt, Atul Sharma, E.C. 
Agarwala for th~ Appellants. 
' 
S. Sivasubramanaim, ,and R. Mohan, R. Nedumaran, R.A. Perumal, B 
V.G. ·Pragasam, A. Mariarputham and Ms. Aruna Mathur, for the Respon-
dents. 
. • 
• 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
" 
'.fhese two appeals, one by the returned candidate whose election was C 
set a5ide and the connected appeal. by the unsuccessful· candidate whose 
evidence in respect of other issues was not accepted by the High Court 
~rise from judgment of Madras High Court made 011 January 31, 1994 in 
Election Petition No. 1 of 1991. At an election to the Tamil Nadu Legislii-
tive Assembly held on June 15, .1991 from Assembly Constituency No. 220 D 
. 
. 
-
. 
·. 
. 
' 
' ., -' . 
- . 
Cheninmahadevi Constituency, the appell~t was declared to have been 
eleci~d. His election was chall~nged by the first respondent~ u~successful 
candidate, Several averments ~ere made under Section 123 of the R~pre­
sentation of People Act, 1951 (for· short, the 'Act') imputing corrupt 
practi;,,,s committed by the respondent in the said election. The High Court . 
found that the 'appellant had declared i~ his· return, the election expendi-
E 
ture as. Rs. 36, 350 wherein he had admitted that he had used the vehicle 
bearing registration No. TN-72 1909 and, had incur;ed an expenditure 
towa~ds the running of that vehicle durhtg the election campaii9i of Rs. 15, · 
875. He has also admitted in his w;.itten statement that he had used another 
vebi~Ie,"bearing regist~'ation No. TNH- 555. He did n~t account for the 
expenditure incur~ed .in that behalf. Ha.d lie shown the true account of 
expenditure, it would have been proved ihat he had , exceed~d the limit 
-
J 
~ 
• 
. 
. 
, 
• 
-
. 
F 
prescribed under Section 77 of the Act. Therefore,,, it was found that he 
had commltted corrupt practice under Section 123( 6) of the '.Act and his 
election was d~clared as void: 
· 
· 
· 
' 
, 
Shri D.D. Thakur, learned senior counsel appearing 'for the appel: 
Jani, contendid that the appellant had in his expendit~re return specifiCally 
stated that he had used one vehicle bearing registration No. TN 72 1909. 
In ,his Written' ~tatemerit, he had' stated that he had used another vehicl~. 
G 
In his pleading, 'he had not made any' admission that he had used more H 
934 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1996] 3 S.C.R. 
A than one vehicle. The High Court, therefore, was wrong in coming to the 
conclusion that the appellant had used two vehicles and he had not 
accounted for the expenditure incurred for the second vehicl

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