Undue influence in elections proved where credible evidence showed interference with voters' free choice and booth capture by the candidate's side.

A charge of corrupt practice by undue influence under the Representation of the People Act is proved only on convincing evidence, at a standard akin to criminal proof. Undue influence exists where the candidate, or persons acting with his consent, interferes with voters' free exercise of electoral rights. On the evidence of independent voters, corroborated by the FIR and surrounding circumstances, the candidate was found present at the polling booth, to have directed his men to capture it, and to have caused voters to be threatened, assaulted, and prevented from voting. The alibi defence was rejected as an afterthought, and the High Court's appraisal of the evidence was held not to call for interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether the returned candidate was guilty of corrupt practice by undue influence under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and whether the High Court's finding setting aside the election called for interference.

Analysis: A charge of corrupt practice in an election dispute requires convincing evidence and is to be established by a standard akin to criminal proof. Undue influence is made out where the evidence shows interference with the free exercise of electoral rights by the candidate himself, his agents, supporters, or others acting with his consent. The evidence of independent voters, corroborated by the FIR and surrounding circumstances, showed that the appellant was present at the polling booth, directed his men to capture the booth, and that voters were threatened, assaulted, and prevented from voting. The appellant's plea of alibi was found to be an afterthought and was not supported by reliable evidence. The High Court's appreciation of evidence was careful and no ground existed to take a different view in appeal.

Conclusion: The corrupt practice of undue influence was proved against the appellant, and the finding of the High Court did not warrant interference.

Final Conclusion: The election of the appellant remained set aside and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A corrupt practice of undue influence is established where reliable evidence shows that the candidate, directly or through persons acting with his consent, interfered with the voters' free choice and prevented the free exercise of electoral rights.

---