VIRENDRA KUMAR SAKLECHA versus JAGJIWAN AND ORS.

Citation: [1972] 3 S.C.R. 955 · Decided: 22-03-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. GROVER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
ID 
E 
955 
VIRENDRA KUMAR SAKLECHA 
v. 
JAGJIWAN AND ORS. 
March 22, 1972 
!A. N. GROVER AND A. N. RAY, JJ.J 
E/ection'Peti.don~orrupt practices under s, 123 (2), <3) and (4) 
alle1?ed-Proof_.:._Atfidavit i.'1 suvvort of petition alle1?in1? a fact on in}or-
n1ation must give .source of i11for1nation. (-) There is. no inconSistency 
between form 25 of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and Rule 7 of 
Madhya Pradesh HiRh Court Rules. 
The appellant and the three respondents were candidates for election 
to the Madhya Pradesh Assembly at the general election held in. 1967. 
The appellant was succe¥ful at the· eleotion. 
Respondent no. I chal-
lenged .bis election in an election pet:tion charging him with corrupt 
practices. It was alleaed by the election petitioner that in speeche. made 
to the voters on the basis of religion w.thin the meaning of s. 123 (3) 
of the Representation of the People Act 195 J; the voters were threatened 
with divine displeasure within the meaning of s. 123 (2), a•d also &tale· 
meots were made about the election petitioner within the meaning of 
s. 123 ( 4). The affidavit in support of the petition did not disclote the 
source \Of information whereby respoident no. 1 learnt the speeches ton· 
stituting corrupt practice. 
The High Court however believed the ma! 
ev:dence produced on behalf of the respondent, disbel eved that produced 
on behal'f of the appella"t and allowed the election petition. ·Appeal to 
this Court was fi:ed under s. 116-A of the Representatio~ of the People 
Act, 1951. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD: (i) The affidavit filed by the respoodent aloog with the elec-
tion petition ~·'d not disclose the source of information in respect of the 
speeches alleged to have beei made by Jhe appellant. Although the res· 
F 
p. an(fent c. !aim. ed in his evidence that he ~am. e to know. of the speeohes 
tJir<zilg!i notes made by certain persons wh6 heard them, neither the 
\11Q.t.et- nor these perso'ls were produced in Court. The non-,prodU'"'HO., of 
thee notes and the persons who made them must lead to an irresistible 
inference against -the m~onde"t th•t ·the same would not have supported 
, 
responde_nt's cas~. [959 H; 962 A-BJ 
Rule 7 of the Madhya_ Pradesh High Court Rules states that every 
G affidavit should clearly express how much is a statement and declaratioi 
·from knowledge and" how much .is a statement made on information or 
:belief.and must also state the source or l!rOU"ds of info•mation or belief 
will! sufficient particularity. Form No. 25 of •he Conduct of Ele"fon 
Rules, 1961 requires the deoonent of an affidavit to set out which 
statements are true to the knowledge of the depcMent and wltich sta•e· 
mentil are true tn his i.rforma'ion. 
Jn so far as form No ... 25 requireil 
the deoondent to state which stateme,ts· are true· .to knowledge there is 
01l-
no soei:iftc mentioi of the sources of informaticm in the form. The form 
of the affidavit and the Hieb Court Rules are not ;,co"si•te0 t. 
'fhe 1"'eh 
Court Rliles l!iv,e effect to- pto'lisions of Order 19 of the Code of Cid 
Procedure .. [960 C-1'] 
. 
' 
956 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[197Z] 3 s.c.R. 
The non-disclosure of grounds or sources of information in an election 
A 
peti 'ion which is to be fi1ed within 45 days from the date of elec;tion of 
the returned candidate, will have to be scrutinised from two points ~of 
view. 
'fhe non-d,sclosu -e df the grounds will indicate that the elect:on 
petitioner did not come forwa d with the sources of information at the 
first oppor-tunit~! The real 1n1portance of setting QUt th~ sources of in-
formatio 1 at the time of the presentation. of the peti'rion is ·to give the 
other side notice of the co.1temporaneous evidence o:i. which the elet-
B 
tion petition is based. 
That will give an opportunity to the other s:de 
to test the genuineness and varacity of the sources of informati;)1. T~ 
other point of view is that he election petitioner will not be able to make 
any departure from the sources· of grou'lds. 
If there is· any embellis~ 
ment of the case it wJl be discovered ... 961 E-F] 
State of Bombay v .. Parshottam Jog Naik, [19521 S.C.R. 674, Padma-
bati Das" v. Ra ik Lal Dhar, I.L.R. 37 Cal. 259, Barium Chemicals Ltd. & 
C 
Anr. v. Company Law Board and Ors., [19661 Supp. S.C.R. 331 ·a~d 
A. K. K. Nambiar v. Union of India, f.1970] 3 S.C.R. 121, referred to. 
(ii) The High Court was wrong in pronouncing observations· O'l the 
First Informafon Report relati

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