TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1978 (2) TMI 233
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lection as an Independent candidate and out of the unsuccessful candidates, respondent No. 3 was a candidate set up by the Congress Party then known as the Ruling Congress. The election petition to all intents and purposes seems to have been Bled at the instance and for the bent tit of respondent No 3. 2. The polling took place on the 8th of June, 1975. The results were declared on the 12th June, 1975. The appellant was declared elected to the Gujarat Assembly from the Constituency aforesaid. Election Petition No 7 of 1975 was filed by one Ramabhai Punjabhai. But this election petition was not proceeded with Respondent No. 1 filed Election Petition No. 8 of 1975 on the 28tb of July, 1975. The High Court, by its judgment under appeal, allowed the said election petition and set aside the election of the appellant finding, him guilty of having committed a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123(1)(a)(b) of the Act. There were several allegations in the election petition alleging commission of several corrupt practices by the appellant. But all were decided in his favour except the one which will be alluded to hereinafter. On behalf of the first respondent, the judgment o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at about noon. Since no body was present there, he proceeded to Moti Abdoli in the company of P.W. 10. On reaching the chora of Moti Abdoli, he found about 15 persons including some voters present there. The persons present complained to him that no body was taking care for the welfare of the village after the election was held. The School building required repair and re-construction. Thereupon the appellant is said to have promised before the persons present in the chora that he would try to get the work done if he was elected. Shortly thereafter, he took the Sarpanch of Moti Abdoli aside and paid him a sum of Rs. 501/- on 5.6.1975 for the purpose of the School. The said Sarpanch in the afternoon passed on that money to the Talati of the village, examined as P.W. 9, P.W. 9 prepared a receipt for Rs. 501/-, the carbon copy of which was produced and marked as Ext. 32. It was signed by P.W. 9 as also by the Sarpanch of Moti Abdoli P.W. 9 made an entry an 5.6.1975 in the Rojmel, which entry also was signed by she Sarpanch. The said entry was marked Ext. 31. Thus the negation is that the appellant on the eye of the election paid a sum of Rs. 501/- on 5.6.1975 to the Sarpanch of Moti Ab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., is reluctant to do so. But where a charge of corrupt practice is held to have been proved beyond doubt against a person by the High Court, this Court cannot lightly uphold that finding when it finds that it is not sustainable. 8. It is not necessary to give a list of all the cases and to discuss them in each and every election appsa1 decided by this Court. On the basis of the decisions of this Court in Rahim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed and Ors. 1975 .SCR 64(SIC); D Venkata Reddy v. R. Sultan and Ors.: [1976]3SCR445 Ramji Prasad Singh v. Ram Bilas Jha and Four Ors. [1977]1SCR741 we may state that the charge of bribers is in the nature of a criminal charge and has got to be proved beyond doubt. The standard of proof requited is that of proving a criminal or a quasi-criminal charge. A clear cut evidence, wholly credible and reliable, is required to prove the charge beyond doubt. Evidence merely prohibiting and endeavoring to prove the fact on the basis of pre-ponderence of probability is not sufficient to establish such a charge. 9. Mr. Tarkunde leveled several criticisms against the evidence' adduced by respondent No. 1 to prove the charge of bribery against the appellant We s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt has committed a serious error in brushing aside the evidence of P.W. 9 in regard to the interest entry made on 10.6.1975 in the Rojmel. The said entry was not claimed to have been made on the basis of any slip sent by the Bank. The definite evidence of P.W. 9 was that it was made on the basis of the entry in the Pass Book, which entry was made on 27.6.1975. If that was so, then the entry purported to have been made on 10.6.1975 was clearly an ante dated entry, yet the High Court thought that entries made on 10.6.1975 in the Rojmel were made on the day they purported to have been made. It, therefore, does, create a serious doubt in our mind whether the money said to have been paid on 5.6.1975 by the appellant was actually paid at all. The entry in the Rojmel is very suspicious, the keeping of the money for about three weeks without sending it to the bank makes at all the more suspicious. It has to be remembered that the result of the election was declared on 12.6.1975 and in about two weeks time it was not at all difficult to hatch up a plan to challenge the election by forging some receipts or entries in the papers of the Gram Panchayat. 12. The carbon copy of the receipt E....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... P.W. 10 was that the appellant had gone to Nani and Moti Abdolis on 5.6.1975 in a taxi. 14. The evidence on the question of actual payment of the money consists only of P.W. 10. Support was lent to his evidence by that of P.W. 9 who had proved Exts. 32 and 31. The High Court says that apparently there was no reason as to why these two persons would come to depose against the appellant and in favour of respondent No. 1. Mr. Tarkunde submitted that both belong to Kchatriya caste to which caste the real person behind this election dispute, namely, respondents, belonged. Majority of voters in Moti Abdoli belong to this caste. Counsel, therefore, submitted that P.Ws 9 and 10 were highly interested in respondent No. 3. Although the explanation so given seems to be plausible, howsoever unfortunate it may be to take notice of such facts, we have thought it better not to find the interestedness of P.Ws 9 and 10 on the basis of the caste. But the very nature of their evidence, and when read as a whole, leaves an impression in cur mind that they were out to support the interest of respondent No. 3 and hence deposed against the appellant. Any way, she question of their specific interest is....