Strict proof of corrupt practice required in election disputes; allegations of disturbance and bribery were not established.

A charge of corrupt practice in an election dispute must be strictly pleaded and proved by clear, cogent evidence beyond reasonable doubt, with any reasonable doubt favouring the returned candidate. On the alleged Gandiwind disturbance, the pleaded link of consent by the returned candidate was insufficient and the oral evidence from interested witnesses did not establish undue influence. On the Bagicha Singh episode, the materials did not satisfactorily prove bribery, the source of the payment, or a corrupt bargain for votes. The election challenge therefore failed because no proved corrupt practice was established.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the disturbance of the election meeting at Village Gandiwind amounted to corrupt practice or undue influence attributable to the returned candidate; (ii) Whether the Bagicha Singh episode constituted bribery or any other corrupt practice sufficient to void the election.

Issue (i): Whether the disturbance of the election meeting at Village Gandiwind amounted to corrupt practice or undue influence attributable to the returned candidate.

Analysis: A public meeting may attract liability if a candidate, his election agent, or another person acting with his consent interferes with the free exercise of electoral rights. Disturbance of a political meeting is also separately dealt with as an electoral offence under the Act. On the pleadings and evidence, the alleged role of the returned candidate in the disturbance was not specifically and sufficiently pleaded so as to establish the necessary link of consent. The evidence on that aspect was oral, came largely from interested witnesses, and did not satisfy the strict standard required for proving corrupt practice. The incident, even if accepted, was treated as a disturbance of a meeting and not as undue influence within the meaning of the Act.

Conclusion: The allegation based on the Gandiwind incident was not proved as corrupt practice against the returned candidate.

Issue (ii): Whether the Bagicha Singh episode constituted bribery or any other corrupt practice sufficient to void the election.

Analysis: Bribery under the Act requires proof that gratification or an equivalent benefit was offered, promised, or procured with the object of inducing electoral support, and the charge had to be established beyond reasonable doubt. The materials showed that Bagicha Singh had a pending electricity-related grievance and that the work was done quickly before polling, but the evidence did not satisfactorily prove that the returned candidate caused the deposit to be made or that the action amounted to a corrupt bargain for votes. The documentary record and oral testimony did not firmly establish the source of the payment or the essential elements of the alleged corrupt practice, and any doubt had to operate in favour of the returned candidate.

Conclusion: The Bagicha Singh episode was not proved to be bribery or any other corrupt practice.

Final Conclusion: The election petition failed to establish any proved corrupt practice against the returned candidate, and the declaration setting aside the election could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: A charge of corrupt practice in an election dispute is quasi-criminal and must be strictly pleaded and proved by clear, cogent evidence beyond reasonable doubt, with any reasonable doubt resolving in favour of the returned candidate.

---