S. BALDEV SINGH MANN versus S. GURCHARAN SINGH, MLA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 99 · Decided: 05-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

j 
S. BALDEV SINGH MANN 
v. 
S. GURCHARAN SINGH, MLA AND ORS.' 
FEBRUARY 5, 1996 
[J.S. VERMA, N.P. SINGH AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.] 
Representation of People Act, 1951-Section 123 r/ws 135-A-Conupt 
Practices-Standard of proof-Strict proof required. 
A 
B 
Sections 123(8) & 135-A-Booth capturing-Offence of-Act of C 
threatening polling agent of a candidate-Whether amounts to conupt practice 
of booth capturing-Held, No. 
Representation of the People Conduct of Election Rules, 1961-Rule 
9rlnspection of marked copies of electoral rolls and packets of counterfoils 
of used ballot papers-Prayer f 01~Allegation of booth capturing not estab-
D 
lished-Non-compliance of P & H High Court Rules-Application for inspec-
tion liable to be dismissed. 
The appellant challenged the election of the returned candidate, 
respondent No. 1 to the Punjab Legislative Assembly, by presenting an 
election petition under Part VI of the Representation of People Act, 1951, 
for declaring his election as void and to declare that the appellant was the 
duly elected candidate in place of the first respondent. The appellant 
questioned the election of the respondent on the allegations that he had 
indulged in the commission of the corrupt practice of booth capturing by 
himself and through his agents within the meaning of Section 123(B) r/ws 
135-A of the Act and that the respondent No. 1 had spent over Rs. 2,00,000 
on his election in violation of the ceiling limit on expenses provided u/s 77 
of the Act r/w rule 90 and the return of expenses filed by the first 
respondent was totally false. The High Court dismissed the election peti-
E 
F 
tion while holding that the allegations of the corrupt practice levelled G 
against the returned candidate were not only vague but indefinite and that 
the appellant had failed to substantiate the same against the first respon-
dent. Hence this appeal. 
The appellant submitted that there was sufficient and reliable 
evidence on record to establish the allegations of booth capturing by the H 
99 
100 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996) 2 S.C.R. 
A respondent No. 1 himself and through his agents. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. An allegation of corrupt practices within the meaning 
of sub-sections (1) to (8) of section 123 of the Representation of People 
B Act, made in the election petition are regarded quasi-criminal in nature 
requiring a strict_proof of the same because the consequences are not only 
very serious but also penal in nature. On the proof of any of the corrupt 
practices as alleged in the election petition it is not only the election of the 
returned candidate which is declared void and set aside but besides the 
C dis-qualification of the returned candidate, the candidate himself or his 
agent or any other person as the case may be, if found to have committed 
corrupt practice may be punished with imprisonment under Section 135-A 
of the Act. Therefore, the Court insists upon a strict proof of such 
allegation of corrupt practice and not to decide the case on preponderence . 
or probabilities. The evidence has, therefore, to be judged having regard 
D to these well settled principles. (105-B-D] 
1.2. In the election petition the allegation made is that the respondent 
No. 1 in the company of 50 supporters went to the polling booth and 
threatened polling agent of the appellant in the presence of some electors 
E and asked him not to go inside the polling station and not to raise objec-
tions regarding the identity of persons. The High Court took the view that 
these allegations could not be treated to be a corrupt practice of booth 
capturing. Appellant was unable to specify as to under which sub-section of 
Section 123 these allegations amounted to a corrupt practice. The alleged 
threat may be an offence but it does not fall within the ambit of corrupt 
F . practice as defined in sub-section (8) of Section 123. The election agent of 
the appellant who was said to have been threatened was not examined by the 
appellant as a witness to support this allegation. (105-E-G) 
1.3. According to the allegations made in the election petition there 
were incidents of a large number of booth capturing by the respondent No. 
G 1, his agent and supporters who were alleged to be variously armed but 
neither any oral nor a written complaint was made to the Returning 
Officer, Presiding Officer, or other officers and police personnel who ~ere 
on election duty at the respective polling booths. The ap

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