Summary
The respondent was elected to a State Assembly Constituency. The appellant who had contested the election pleaded four items of corrupt practice in his Election Petition filed against the respondent.
The Legislative Assembly to which the respondent was elected has been dissolved and a fresh election has been held. Notwithstanding, the fresh election the appellant pursued his election petition in order to prove corrupt practice on the part of the respondent.In his election petition, the appellant pleaded that the respondent committed a corrupt practice falling under section 123 (5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 by procuring and using a jeep for the free conveyance of voters to the polling station on the date of poll. The respondent denied the charge and contended that the appellant had not complied with the mandatory provisions of sections 81, 82 and 83 of the Act read with Order VI, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure and section 117 of the Act and the election petition was therefore liable to be dismissed.The Judge who tried the petition, followed this Court's ruling in Rahim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed [1975] 1 SCR 653 that Proceedings arising out of 12election petitions are quasi-criminal in nature and that evidence relating to corrupt practices should be scrutinized with scrupulous care and merciless severity; considered the evidence adduced by the parties, and found that the jeep bearing No. USJ 5226 while carrying five ladies including P.Ws. 10, 11, 42 who were voters, free of cost, for casting votes on behalf of the respondent was seized by the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police about 1.5 miles from the polling booth and that at the time of the seizure, the jeep was driven by a close friend of the respondent and that this friend had worked for the respondent in the election and was present in the booth on the date of the polling and that the respondent's polling agent stood surety for the release of the jeep. The Judge held that these facts were not sufficient to hold that the respondent procured the jeep, and that since the jeep with the voters was caught not at the polling station but at some distance way from it, it was only a case of an attempt at corrupt practice and not corrupt practice itself under section 123 (5) of the Act, and dismissed the election petition.Allowing the appeal, this Court,^HELD: 1. The requirement of the law in regard to corrupt practice under section 123 (5) of the Representation of the People Act 1951 is that in addition to proving the hiring or procuring of any vehicle or vessel for the carriage of voters to and from any polling station it should also be proved that the electors used the vehicle or vessel free of cost to themselves. [17A-B]2. Section 123 (5) requires three things, (1) hiring or procuring of a vehicle; (2) by a candidate or his agent etc. and (3) for the free conveyance of an elector. [16H]Joshibhai Chunibhai Patel v. Anwar Beg Mirza, [1969] 2SCR 97, Razik Ram v. Jaswant Singh Chouhan, [1975] 4 SCC 769 at 775 and Dadasahib Dattatraya Pawar v. Pandurang Raoji Jagtap, [1978] 2 SCR 524 at 528, refereed to.3. The appellant has proved satisfactorily all the three requirements of clause (5) of section 123 of the Act.The respondent has therefore to be held guilty of corrupt practice falling under this clause which is ordinarily difficult to prove. [27F]In the instant case, the evidence of P.Ws. 6, 16 and 43 reveal that the respondent had procured the jeep USJ 5226 from his close friend, Kabir Ahmed for the free conveyance of his electors and that the jeep was, thereafter, used for that purpose on the day of poll, and seized by the officials, P. W 69 District Magistrate, P.W. 73- Superintendent of Police and P.W. 81-Station House Officer where it was being used for the conveyance of the electors P.Ws. 10, 11, 42 and others including P.W. 67 free of cost to themselves. The appellant s case that the respondent committed corrupt practice is clearly established. [27D-E]13 4. Corrupt practice such as in the instant case is very largely resorted to in the elections and could be avoided by either locating polling booths within walking distance of the electors or by having mobile polling stations. [27G]See the full content of this document
Extract
Dharmesh Prasad Verma VS. Faiyazal Azam
PETITIONER: DHARMESH PRASAD VERMA Vs.RESPONDENT: FAIYAZAL AZAMDATE OF JUDGMENT17/07/1984BENCH: VARADARAJAN, A. (J)BENCH: VARADARAJAN, A. (J)FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZAMISRA RANGNATHCITATION: 1984 AIR 1516 1985 SCR (1) 11 1984 SCC (4) 3 1984 SCALE (2)21CITATOR INFO : F 1987 SC1577 (26)ACT: The Representation of the People Act 1951, Section 123 (5).Corrupt practice-Procuring of vehicle for free conveyance of voters- Evidence and proof.Jeep belonging to friend of candidate-Carrying of voters in jeep-Whether corrupt practice.JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3011 of 1979.From the Judgment and Order dated the 7th September, 1979 of the Patna High Court in Election Petition No. 4 of 1977.Shanti Bhushan and M.P. Jha for the Appellant.S.K. Sinha for the Respondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byVARADARAJAN, J. This election appeal is directed against the judgment of the Patna High Court dismissing Election Petition No. 4 of 1977 with costs of Rs. 1000/-.The appellant Dharmesh Prasad Verma, who is stated to have contested the election as a Janata candidate, had pleaded four items of corrupt practice in his election petition filed against the respondent Faiyazal Azam who is stated to have contested the election as a Congress-I candidate. The poll in this case was held on 12.6.1977 for the election of a member of the Bihar Legislative Assembly from No. 5 Sikta Constituency in West Champaran district. The appellant secured 1795 votes while the respondent secured 28324 votes and was declared elected on 15.6.1977. The election petition was filed on 18.7.1977. The Legislative Assembly was dissolved in 1980 and fresh election had been held in t...
See the full content of this document