SHIV CHARAN SINGH versus MAHARAJ KUMAR SRI BRIJENDRA PAL

Citation: [1976] 1 S.C.R. 416 · Decided: 26-08-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

41 (i 
SHIV CHARAN SINGH 
V. 
MAHARAJ KUMAR SRI BRIJENDRA PAL 
August 26, 1975 
[ff R. KHANNA, V. R. KRISHNA !YER AND A. C. GUPTA, JJ.] 
Election Law-
Findlng of fact recorded by High Court-Suprenzc Court, if 
can interfere with appraisc1ne11t of evidence. 
Representation of the People Act, 1951, s.77-Election expenses-Failure of 
s11coessful candidate to n1aintain account in prescribed 1nan11er, if constitlltcJ 
L'Otrupt practice. 
The appellant and the respondent were the main candidates in the election 
A 
B 
to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly fron1 the Karauli constituency. The 
C 
result of the election was declared on March 12, 1972 and the respondent \Vas 
declared elected. The· appellant challenged the election of the respondent on 
the ground that the· respondent and his election agent Jagdish Pal published 
and got published statements of fact in relation! to the pers_onal character and 
conduct of the appellant which were false and which they believed to be false 
or did not believe to be true and which statements were reasonably calculated 
to prejudice the prospects of the appellant's election. The second ground on 
which the election of the respondent was assailed was that the I'espondent and 
his election agent deliberately failed to maintain regular and ..:orrect account 
D 
of expenses incun'ed by them. in connection with the election and that they 
incurred or authorised expenditure in contravention of s.77 of the Representa-
tation of the People Act, 1951. The petition was resis.ted by the respondent 
.and he denied the variOus allegations made by the appellant. 
Five issues were 
framed on the basis of the pleadings before the High Court Issues ( 1) and (2) 
were decided against the appellant. These issues related to the first ground. 
In 
view of the findings on these issues, issue (3) was held not to arise. Issues 
(4) and (5) relating to expenses were also decided against the appellant. As 
a result. the election petition was dismissed. This appeal has been pref'erred 
E 
by the appellant against the judgment of the High Court dismissing his election 
petition. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD: (i) It is well established that in an election appeal Supreme Court 
should not interfere with a finding of fact recorded by the High Court based 
upon the appraisement of evidence unless such finding is vitiated by some glaring 
infirmity. 
[420FJ 
F 
(ii) Even if the account of election expenses was not maintained in the pres-
cribed manner, that fact would not constitute: a corrupt practice. 
[4190] 
(iii) The High Court has corisidered the evidence brought on record <ind 
bas held on apprai&ement of that evidence that there was no cogent material to 
show that the respondent had incurred any expenditure over and above what 
had been shown in his return. No cogent ground whatsoever has been malle 
out to f11terfere with the appraisemknt of the evidence by the High Court. 
[-ll 9H-420A] 
(iv) The correctness of the figure of Rs. 3,523.27 as expenses incurred 
for the purchase of petrol is vouch-safed bv the statement of account filoed by 
Karauli Auto Stores. a family concern of the respondent. 
Nothing has been 
shown as to why the statement of account filed by that concern cannot be 
accepted. 
During the pendcncy of the trial on application filed by the appellant. 
the High Court directed that the ac~ount books maintained by the ~espondent as 
\\'e1l as the cash book and the credit and cash vouchers of Karauh t-\Uto S.to1es 
might be shown to the appellant'~ counsel. 
Tn spite of that order the appel-
Jant or his counsel did not examine those account books and documents. Nothin'.:'. 
was consequently brought on record to question the correctness of the entries 
in the account books. [ 420B-C] 
G 
II 
.. 
,,,_
• 
--~ 
• 
• 
.... _ 
• 
A 
B 
c 
SHIV CHARAN v. BRIJENDRA PAL (Khanna, J.) 
417 
(v) The High c·uurt declined to accept the oral evidence adduced by the 
appellant in support of his plea that the account does not .:orrectly show 'the 
expenses regarding certain number of vehicles engaged by him. 
The evideuce 
adduced by the appellant was not only not supported by any dol'.un1ents, it ran 
..:ounter to the documents which were· produced by the respondent and some of 
which had been signed by the witnesses produced by the appellant. 
[420EFJ 
t vi) The plea of the respondent that he was charged only Rs. 35 / - as daily 
hiring charge for the truck because he prevented the requisitioning of thos

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