TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellant's Corruption Allegations Dismissed for Lack of Evidence</h1> <h3>BALDEV SINGH MANN Versus SURJIT SINGH DHIMAN</h3> BALDEV SINGH MANN Versus SURJIT SINGH DHIMAN - 2009 (1) SCC 633 Issues Involved:1. Whether the election petition and the affidavit in support of the election petition were properly verified.2. Whether the election petition lacked material facts.3. Whether the copy of the election petition supplied to the respondent was complete.4. Whether the election petition disclosed any cause of action.5. Whether the returned candidate obtained assistance from government officers for the furtherance of his election prospects, constituting corrupt practices under section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.Comprehensive, Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Verification of the Election Petition and AffidavitThe respondent argued that the election petition was not maintainable as the affidavit attached was not properly verified. The High Court treated this as a preliminary issue and decided against the respondent, indicating that the verification was deemed sufficient.Issue 2: Material Facts in the Election PetitionThe respondent claimed that the election petition lacked material facts. The High Court, upon examining the preliminary issues, found that the petition contained sufficient material facts to proceed with the case. This issue was also decided against the respondent.Issue 3: Completeness of the Election Petition CopyThe respondent contended that the copy of the election petition supplied to him was incomplete as it did not include alleged complaints and news items. The High Court treated this as a preliminary issue and ruled that the petition was complete, deciding this issue against the respondent.Issue 4: Cause of ActionThe respondent argued that the election petition did not disclose any cause of action, particularly because Bachhi was not in the service of the Government and Shergill was not a gazetted officer. The High Court, after considering the preliminary issues, decided that the petition did disclose a cause of action, ruling against the respondent.Issue 5: Corrupt Practices Under Section 123(7)The appellant alleged that the respondent committed corrupt practices by obtaining assistance from government officers Bachhi and Shergill. The specific instances included meetings and canvassing activities where these officers allegedly supported the respondent. The High Court examined the evidence and concluded that the appellant failed to prove the allegations of corrupt practices to the required standard. The court emphasized that charges of corrupt practices must be proved almost like a criminal charge, requiring clear, cogent, and credible evidence.The High Court noted that the will of the people who exercised their franchise must be respected, and the election of a returned candidate should not be lightly interfered with. The court found that the evidence presented by the appellant was insufficient to prove the charges of corrupt practices under section 123(7) of the Act.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, agreeing that the appellant failed to prove the basic ingredients of corrupt practices under section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The appeal was dismissed, emphasizing the importance of respecting the will of the electorate while ensuring the purity of the election process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
