TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the allegations of corrupt practice under Section 123(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, in respect of Truck No. HRR-5167 were proved; (ii) Whether the alleged payment of compensation to Mange Ram and the omission to include it in election expenses were proved; (iii) Whether the allegations of corrupt practice under Section 123(5) in respect of Tractor No. DLL-9 and Trailer No. MPE-8748 were proved.
Issue (i): Whether the allegations of corrupt practice under Section 123(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, in respect of Truck No. HRR-5167 were proved.
Analysis: The charge required proof that the vehicle was hired or procured by the candidate or with his consent, that it was used for carrying electors to the polling station, and that such conveyance was free of cost. The evidence relied upon for hiring and use was found unreliable, partisan, and uncorroborated on the essential ingredients. The Court applied the principle that a charge of corrupt practice must be established by clear and convincing proof, and that suspicion or probability cannot substitute for proof. The evidence did not satisfactorily establish hiring by the appellant, his knowledge or consent, or free conveyance of voters.
Conclusion: The allegation of corrupt practice in relation to Truck No. HRR-5167 was not proved and was decided in favour of the appellant.
Issue (ii): Whether the alleged payment of compensation to Mange Ram and the omission to include it in election expenses were proved.
Analysis: The alleged settlement and payment of compensation rested on weak and inconsistent testimony and on a disputed statement recorded by the police. The Court found that the supporting material was created for the litigation, lacked reliability as substantive proof, and did not establish that the appellant paid the amount or that any undisclosed expenditure was incurred by him. In the absence of proof of the foundational fact of payment, the question of its effect on election expenses did not survive for decision.
Conclusion: The alleged payment and the alleged suppression in election expenses were not proved and the issue was decided in favour of the appellant.
Issue (iii): Whether the allegations of corrupt practice under Section 123(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, in respect of Tractor No. DLL-9 and Trailer No. MPE-8748 were proved.
Analysis: The evidence consisted mainly of interested or accomplice testimony and an allegedly official police version that was found unreliable and unsupported by regular investigative records. The Court held that the petitioner had failed to lay any satisfactory factual foundation to show hiring by the appellant, his consent or knowledge, or that the voters were carried free of charge. The burden remained on the petitioner throughout and was not shifted merely because the respondents denied the allegation.
Conclusion: The charge relating to Tractor No. DLL-9 and Trailer No. MPE-8748 was not proved and was decided in favour of the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The election petition failed on all surviving substantive charges, the High Court's findings were reversed, and the returned candidate's election was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: A charge of corrupt practice under Section 123(5) must be proved by the petitioner on reliable, corroborated evidence establishing every essential ingredient, including hiring or procurement, candidate's consent or knowledge, and free conveyance of electors; mere suspicion, interested testimony, or post hoc material cannot sustain the charge.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
