SURINDER SINGH versus HARDIAL SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1985] 1 S.C.R. 1059 · Decided: 29-10-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SURINDER SINGH 
v. 
HARDIAL SINGH AND ORS. 
October 29, 1984 
[P.N. BHAGWATI, V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI AND 
RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.J 
1059 
Constitutioii of India-Art. 136-Supreme Court-When would interfere 
with findings of the High Court reached on assessmeni of evidence. 
Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 
i-Section 123-Allegation of Corrupt Practice made in an election petition 
-How should be established-Whether on basis of preponderance of probabilities 
as in civil litigation or "proof beyond reasonable doubt" as in Criminal trials. 
ii-Section 1 !6A (1)-Election appeal-Nature of findings of facts-If could 
be interfered with by Supreme Court. 
iii-Sec. 12 3 (2)-Corrupt Practice of" Undue influence" -Nature and proof 
of-Whether disturbing election meeting a corrupt practice u/s.123(2)-Whether 
appointment by the returned candidate of a person charged for murder as his 
polling agent amounts to exercise of"undue 1"nfluence". 
iv-Sec. 123 (/) (A)-Corrupt Practice of "Bribe"-Whether ameliorating 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
grievances of the public while canvassing for votes amounts to corrupt practice. 
F 
The appellant was declared elected on May 31; 1980 to the Punjab 
Legis1ative Assembly from a constituency known as Non-sbehra-Pamuan 
Assembly Constituency. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, two voters of the Consti-
tuency challenged his election before the High Court on two grounds, namely, 
(t) that the appellant's supporters disturbed a meeting of the Akali Party by 
using fire arms and fatally injuring one and otherwise inflicting injuries on many 
others and thus he committed a corrupt practice of ''undue influence" u/s. 
123 (2) of the Representation of the Peoples Act 1951 ; and (2) that the appellant 
in order to get the votes of one Bagicha Singh Chakiwala and his family 
members as also of his brotherhood, promised to Bagicha. Singh to get the 
uncovered electric wires, which were dangerously passing over his house, 
removed aflcr paying its expenses etc. and so he approached the Punjab State 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1060 
SUPREME cotlR T REPORTS 
[1985)'1 s.c.tt. 
Electricity Board employees, put pressure on them and got the amount of ex· 
penses deposited and the wires removed on 30th May 1980 i.e. one day before 
the poll. Thus, the appellant had committed a corrupt practice of 'Bribery' 
u/s. 123 (l) (A) of the Act. The High Court declared the election of the 
appellant void holding that both the corrupt practices had been committed by 
the appellant himself or through others with his consent and were covered by 
ss. 123 (I) (A), (B) and (2) of the Act. Hence this appeal, 
The respondent-petitioners in addition to the above-mentioned two 
grounds of challenge contended, (i) that the charges of corrupt practice should 
be allowed to be estabJished .arr the basi-; of preponderance of probabilities as 
in civil litigation and not by asking for proof of the alJegation beyond reason-
able doubt as in a criminal case ; (ii) that it was the practice of the Supreme 
Court in election appeals not to enter into reappreciation of evidence and dis-
turb findings of fact reached by the High Court and therefore the Supreme 
Court should not attempt a re-appreciation of the evidence while dealing with 
this appeal ; and (iii) that the appointment of Gurdial Singh, who had disturbed 
the Akali Meeting and had also been charged for murder, by the appellant as 
bis polling agent in the Gandiwind Polling Booth amounted to exercise of 
"undue influence" within the meaning of the Act. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : (1) Section 116-C makes it clear that an appeal to the Supreme 
Court under the Act is to be treated as a Civil appeal and the jurisdiction to be 
exercised is as extensive as in the case of an appeal from a matter disposed of 
in exercise of original civil jurisdiction of the High Court. Section 116-A (1) of 
the Act clearly indicates that the appeal to this Court has to be disposed of by 
e:ii;ercising the same jurisdiction as is exercised in an appeal against the original 
judgment of the High Court. In this view of the matter there can really be no 
rule, whether statutory or evolved by this Court by long usage as alleged, that 
the Court would not interfere with the findings of fact reached at the trial stage. 
Ordinarily a finding reached on assessment of the eviden ce particularly 
when it is oral would not be interfered with but where the Court is satisfied that 
0~ account of a wrong approach to a matter, injust

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