http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: AVTAR SINGH BRAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: TAJ SINGH & OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT16/01/1984

BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA VARADARAJAN, A. (J) MISRA RANGNATH

CITATION:  1984 AIR  619            1984 SCR  (2) 415  1984 SCC  (1) 752        1984 SCALE  (1)79  CITATOR INFO :  D          1990 SC1731  (9)

ACT:      Representation of the People Act, 1951-S.123(2)-Corrupt practice-Scope of

HEADNOTE:      The first  respondent, Tej  Singh, won  in  legislative assembly election  defeating the  appellant by 123 votes and also 3  other candidates  including  Ruplal.  The  appellant challenged the  election of  Tej Singh on the ground that he was guilty of committing corrupt practices. The main corrupt practice said to have been indulged in by Tej Singh was that he had got circulated pamphlets and posters among the voters of the constituency wherein he had mentioned that Ruplal had withdrawn his  candidature and  any vote  given to  him (Tej Singh) would be deemed to be a vote for Ruplal, and the said posters were  printed not  by Ruplal  but at the instance of Tej Singh.      Allowing the appeal, ^      HELD .  The effect  of the  posters was  to mislead the voters  so   as  to  make  them  believe  that  one  of  the candidates, viz.,  Ruplal, had  withdrawn and any vote given to Tej  Singh would be considered as a vote given to Ruplal. in other  words the  effect of  the posters  was that    the voters who  would have voted for Ruplal would now cast their votes in favour of Tej Singh. As the margin of votes between the defeated  and the  returned candidates  was very  small, viz., 123  votes, if  such a misrepresentation was not made, in  all  probability  the  votes  would  have  gone  to  the appellant (Avtar  Singh) and,  therefore, the  result of the election-would have been materially altered. On a perusal of the  evidence-both   oral  and  documentary-adduced  by  the parties  and   in  the   circumstances  of   the  case,  the irresistible inference  and inescapable  conclusion that can be arrived  at is  that Tej  Singh had actually paid for the posters which  were printed  at his  instance and Ruplal was not connected  p with  the printing of the posters. In these circumstances the  appellant has  proved  beyond  reasonable doubt that  Tej Singh  had  indulged  in  corrupt  practices

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

particularly when  the printing  of the posters by Tej Singh has been clearly admitted by him. [417 D-E; G; 418 B]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal (NCE)  No. 735 of 1982.      From the  Judgment and order dated the 22nd April, 1981 of the Punjab &; Haryana High Court in Election Petition No. 6 of 1980.      K.L.  Sharma,   A.S.  Sohal  and  MC  Phingra  for  the Appellant.      M. Yeerappa  and Ashok  Kumar Sharma for Respondent No. 1. 416      A.S. Pundir for Respondent No. 2.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      FAZAL ALI,  J. This  election appeal  arises out  of an election to the Baghapurana Constituency (District Faridkot) to the  Punjab Legislative  Assembly. The polling took place on May  31, 1980  and the counting was done on June 1, 1980. Tej Singh,  respondent, secured  25694 votes  whereas  Avtar Singh (appellant)  secured 25571  votes.  There  were  three other candidates  also in the field, viz., (1) Sathi Ruplal, (2) Bhagat  Puran Singh,  and (3)  Jagdish  Chander.  Ruplal secured,. 1347  votes while  Bhagat Puran  Singh and Jagdish Chander secured 140 and 2856 votes. respectively. It appears that the  margin between  the votes  secured  by  Tej  Singh (respondent) and . Avtar Singh (appellant) was only 123.      Avtar Singh  filed an election petition in the Punjab & Haryana High  Court against  Tej Singh  alleging that he was guilty of  committing corrupt  practices,  detailed  in  the petition an(l  in the  Statement of  facts. Ruplal supported the appellant but Bhagat Puran Singh and Jagdish did not put in  any  appearance  despite  service  and,  therefore,  the proceedings. were  taken ex  parte against  them. Tej  Singh denied having indulged in any corrupt practice as alleged by Avtar Singh.      It is not necessary for us to . go into further details because, in  our opinion, the appeal must succeed on a short point. The  main corrupt practice said to have been indulged in Tej  Singh was  that he  had got circulated pamphlets and posters among  the voters of the constituency wherein he had mentioned that Ruplal: had withdrawn his candidature and any vote given  to him  (Tej Singh) would be deemed to be a vote for Ruplal,  and the said posters were printed not by Ruplal but at the instance of Tej Singh.,      on a perusal of the evidence-both oral and documentary- adduced by  the parties,  we are clearly of the opinion that the allegations  of corrupt  practices indulged  in  by  Tej Singh have  been clearly  proved. The  posters said. to have been printed  and circulated are Annexures P-1 and P:2 which appear at  page 42  of the  second paper  book and it may be necessary to extract certain portions thereof           "Keeping in  view the  present conditions  in  the      country it  is imperative  to  defeat  the  dictatorial      Congress in these elections. 417           Therefore, I fervently appeal to all the voters of      Baghapurana Constituency  to vote  and elect  Shri Tej.      Singh, the  joint .  front candidate  of the Akali Dal,      because Shri  Tej Singh  is the  only candidate who can      defeat the  Congress.. In  the end  r submit that every      vote. cast  in favour of S. Tej Singh will be deemed to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

    have been cast in my favour,"      According to  PW  4  (Roshanlal)  in  whose  press  the posters-were printed,  the order for the printing was placed by Darshan  Singh and  Mukhtiar Singh. - The witness goes on to state  that a  few (lays before Tej Singh had come to his printing press and informed him that he (Tej Singh) would be sending some  work for printing. Soon thereafter the witness was approached  by Darshan Singh and Mukhtiar  Singh. Roshan Lal also  admitted that  Tej Singh  was known  to  him.  The witness further proved Ex. P-5 and P-6 (vouchers) which were issued by  his press  and signed  by him, and he stated that the payment  was made  to him  by Darshan Singh and Mukhtiar Singh.      The effect  of the posters was to mislead the voters so as to  make them  believe that  one of the candidates, viz.; Ruplal, had  withdrawn and any vote given to Tej Singh would be considered as a vote given to Ruplal. In other words, the effect of the posters was that all the voters who would have voted for Ruplal would now cast their votes in favour of Tej Singh. As  the margin  of votes between the defeated and the returned candidates  was very small, viz. 123 votes, if such a misrepresentation  was not  made, in  all probability  the votes would  have gone  to the  appellant (Avtar Singh) and, therefore, the  result  of  the  election  would  have  been materially altered.  We find a good deal of substance in the argument of  the appellant.  Tej  Singh  (R.W.  2)  has  not disputed that the payment-of the vouchers .(Ex. P-5 and P-6) was made  by him and the vouchers were appended by him along with the  return of  expenses incurred  during his  election campaign, which was verified by him to be a true and correct statement.      In these  circumstances,  therefore,  the  irresistible inference and  inescapable conclusion that can be arrived at is that  Tej Singh  had actually  paid for the posters which were printed  at his  instance and Rup Lal was not collected with the printing of the posters. Tej Singh further admitted that Bhum  Raj-was incharge  of his  election office at Moga and that  Exs. P-5  and P-6 were taken by him from Bhum Raj. He further  admits that  whatever expenses  were incurred by Bhum Raj  were incurred  on his  behalf. In other words, Tej Singh. falsely  represented to  the voters  that the posters were circulated by 418 Ruplal whereas  the same  was done by or with the consent of Tej Singh.  Therefore, it is clear that Ex-P-1 and P-2 which contained the appeal purporting to be of Ruplal were in fact printed at  the instance  of Tej  Singh and  Ruplal  had  no connection with the same.      In these  circumstances,  we  are  satisfied  that  the appellant has  , proved  beyond reasonable  doubt  that  Tej Singh had  indulged in  corrupt practices  particularly when the printing  of the  posters by Tej. Singh has been clearly admitted by  him, as indicated above. It is also clear to us that in  view of  the very  narrow  margin  of  votes  (123) between Tej  Singh and Avtar Singh, a strong presumption and possibility that the votes polled in favour of Rup Lal would have gone  to Avtar Singh cannot be ruled out and that would have  doubtless   materially  altered   the  result  of  the election. Leaving aside other grounds taken by the appellant which were  in fact  not pressed before us, the appellant is entitled to  succeed on  the  ground  of  corrupt  practices (referred to  above) as contemplated by S. 123(2) of the Act having been  adopted by  the first  respondent (Tej.  Singh) which have been fully proved.      The result  is that the appeal is allowed, the judgment

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

of the  High Court  is quashed and the election of the first respondent (Tej  Singh) is  set aside. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs. H.S.K.                                      Appeal allowed. 419