RAHIM KHAN versus KHURSHID AHMED & ORS.

Citation: [1975] 1 S.C.R. 643 · Decided: 08-08-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.G. PALEKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
• 
I 
.,,,/ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
643 
RAHIM KHAN 
v. 
KHURSHID AHMED & ORS. 
August 8, 1974 
[D. G. PALEKAR, P. N. BHAGWATI AND V. R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.] 
The Representation of the People Act (43 of 1951) ss. 83, 84, 99(a) (ii), 116A and 
123(1) to (4)-Scope of Court's power to set aside election-Appellate Court's power 
to upset findings of trial Court-Bribery, ingredients-Divine displeasure and undue 
influence-Court's attitude to-Names of witnesses if should be mentioned in sources 
of information or as part of particulars. Appeal to religion what is-Duty of trial 
Court to name those found to have indulged in corrupt practices-Reform of election 
law to check contemporaneous corrupt practices suggested. 
In the General Election to a State Assembly held from a constituency where· the 
voting strength of Muslims was preponderant, the appeIJant was declared elected. 
The first respondent, who was a sitting minister before his defeat, challenged the 
election on various grounds of corrupt practices. The High Court set aside the 
appellant's election h~lding that he committed 4?0rrupt pr~tices under s. 123(1) to 
(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The High Court found (i) that 
the appellant placed at the disposal of another conte~ting candidate a car with a 
promise that the expenses incurred in hiring and running it in connection with his 
election campaign would be met by the appellant, so that, he may continue to contest 
the election and wean a~
1ay the Harija1.1 vo~es from the first respondent; and (ii 
that the appellant, and his supporters with his consent, delivered speeches appealing 
to the Muslim voters to vote for the appellant because he was a true Muslim while the 
first respondent was a Kafir ; that they distribut~d handbills containing the allega-
tions that (a) the first respondent, though a Mushm got the grave of another Muslim 
dug up on account of personal enmity; (b) as health minister he violated the mOd-
esty of lady doctors and nurses; (c) he got certain Muslims arrested on allegcrtions 
of cow slaughter and forced them to eat pork; and (d) if the voters voted for the first 
respondent they would become subject to divine displeasure. 
Dismissing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD :-(1) An appeal is a re-hearing but the trial Court's finding will be 
upset only when it is found that it is wrong. [647 BJ 
Laxminarayan v. Returning Officer, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 66, 78, Karemore's Case, 
A.l.R. 1974 S.C. 405, 413, 420 followed. 
(2) After an election had been held defeated candidates or disgruntled electors 
should not be allowed to treat it in a light-hearted manner by filing election petitions 
on unsubstantial grounds and irresponsible evidence. Courts must respect the ver-
dict rendered by the electorate and show extreme reluctance to set it aside or dedare 
it void unless clear and cogent testimony, compelling the court to uphold the corrupt 
practice alleged against the returned candidate, is adduced. Further, where corrupt 
practices are imputed the proceedings are of a quasi-criminal nature where strict 
proof is necessary and the burden is heavy on him who assails the election. In 
cases where the ¥.itnesses are partisans, being the polling agents or counting agents 
or workers of the candidates ; or of the turn coat type, who claimed to be the 
polling 
agents counting agents or workers of the returned candidate till the election was 
over but in the post·election period, when the defeated candidate's party had formed 
a go~~ent, shifted.their loy~ty and gav~ ~viden~e. in.proof Of the averments in 
the petition ; or officials working un~er sitting Mmtstnes who are candidates for 
election, the Court must scan the ev14ence of the corrupt practices alleged with 
scrupulous care and severity. [650 E-H, 655 F-HJ 
H 
(3) The corrupt practice of bribery unders. 123(1) by placing a carat the disposal 
of another candidate, is not proved. Assuming _that such candidate got the use of 
a car at the expense of the appelJant such financial aid would not amount to corrupt 
practice unless it was to induce t~at candidate not to withdr«»? from the. election. 
644 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1975] 1 S.C.R. 
In the present case, there is no proof on this aspect and there is no finding to that 
effect by the High Court. [652 H, 654 B-C] 
(4) Divine displeasure on account of prandial impropriety and undue influence 
for fear of forced pork eating, cannot be inferred from the allegations in the han

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