02 February 1971
Supreme Court
Download

T. N. ANGAMI Vs SMT. RAVOLUEU


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: T. N. ANGAMI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SMT. RAVOLUEU

DATE OF JUDGMENT02/02/1971

BENCH: RAY, A.N. BENCH: RAY, A.N. MITTER, G.K.

CITATION:  1972 AIR 2367            1971 SCR  (3) 659  1971 SCC  (1) 592

ACT: Representation  of  the People Act,  1951-Corrupt  Practice- Hospitality  and  courtesy cannot be  equated  with  corrupt practice-Chief   Ministetredressing  grievances  of   people cannot be said to offer inducement for getting votes.

HEADNOTE: The  appellant  was  elected  to  the  Nagaland  legislative assembly.  He was at the time of his election Chief Minister of  the State.  The, respondent challenged the  election  of the appellant on the grounds : (i) the appellant incurred or authorised   the   incurring  of  expenditure   beyond   the prescribed  limit in contravention of s. 77 of the  Act  and thereby committed corrupt practice within the meaning of  s. 123(6)  of  the  Act, (ii) he  offered  inducements  to  the electors by giving feasts and entertaining them and (iii) he distributed  bundles of Corrugated iron Sheets to a  Women’s Society, with the object of inducing the members thereof  to vote  for  him.   The High Court  held  that  the  appellant committed  corrupt practice within the meaning of s.  123(6) and  set  aside his election.  The other  corrupt  practices were  held not proved.  Allowing the appeal  and  dismissing the election petition, HELD:(i) The High Court was in error in holding on  the evidence  that expenditure beyond the prescribed  limit  was incurred or authorised by the appellant [663 F] (ii)There was no evidence to indicate that the appellant or any person with his consent or knowledge induced any of  the voters  to  vote  for him by offering  them  food.   On  the contrary  the evidence on both sides indicated that  it  was customary  practice in Nagaland to offer hospitality to  the people  who visit their house.  It would not be  correct  to equate  ordinary  hospitability  or  courtesy  with  corrupt practice. (iii)There was no corrupt motive in the distribution of bundles  of iron sheets.  The Society asked  for  corrugated iron sheets for a public cause.  The appellant was the Chief Minister  at  the time of the election and it would  not  be unnatural  for people to make request to the Chief  Minister for  a public cause.  It would also be reasonable to  expect that the Chief Minister would try to redress the  grievances of the people. [665 D]

2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1125 of 1970. Appeal  under s. 116-A of the, Representation of the  People Act,  1951 from the Judgment and order dated March  1970  of the Assam and Nagaland High Court in Election Petition No. 2 of 1969. S. V. Gupte, S. K. Ghose, Advocate-General, Nagaland, Naunit Lal,  A. R. Barthakar, R. C. Chowdhury and B. K.  Dass,  for the appellant. 660 D.P.  Singh, A. K. Gupta, V. J. Francis and S. P.  Singh, for A the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ray,  J. This is an appeal from the judgment dated 26  March 1970  of  the Assam and Nagaland High  Court  declaring  the election of the appellant void under section 1 00 ( 1 )  (b) of  the  Representation  of  the  People  Act   (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and further declaring the  appellant to  have committed a corrupt practice within the meaning  of section  123(6)  of  the Act for  incurring  or  authorising expenditure in contravention of section 77 of the Act. The  gist  of  the finding of the High  Court  is  that  the appellant  showed  in  his  return a sum  of  Rs.  900/-  as election  expenses after claiming a refund of Rs. 100/-  but the  appellant  is  found to have’  incurred  or  authorised expenditure  of  a further amount of Rs.  154.15  which  the appellant  did  not include in his return  and  thereby  the appellant exceeded the permissible limit of Rs. 1000/by  Rs. 54.15. The  finding  of  the  High Court  is,  that  the  appellant incurred or authorised the expenditure of Rs. 90/- for  what is described as pink identity cards and secondly incurred or authorised  the  expenditure  of Rs.  22.65  in  respect  of purchase   of  forms  and  election  handbooks   and,thirdly incurred  or authorised the expenditure of Rs. 42.50  on  18 trunk  calls between 15 January, 1969 and 11 February,  1969 aggregating  Rs.  154.15 which sum was not included  in  the return of election expenses. The appellant was at the time of the election Chief Minister of the State of Nagaland.  The appellant and the  respondent were two candidates at the General Election in the year 1969 to  the  Nagaland Legislative Assembly from  No.  6  Western Angami Constituency.  The polling took place on 6, 8 and  10 February,  1969  and  counting of votes  took  place  on  12 February,  1969.   The  appellant polled  1933  votes.   The respondent  polled  935  votes.  On 12  February,  1969  the result of the election was declared and the appellant having secured  the  majority  of valid votes was  declared  to  be elected. The  respondent  in the election petition alleged  that  the appellant  included in his return as election  expenses  the sum  of  Rs. 75/paid by him to Kohima Printing Press  on  17 January,  1969  for  printing blue identity  cards  but  the appellant  did not include in the said return a sum  of  Rs. 90/- by him to Kohima Printing Press on 29 January, 1969 for printing  a set of pink identity cards issued by  him.   The appellant  in his written. statement denied that  lie  spent IZs.  90/- for the purpose of printing identity  cards  that were                             661 used  by  him  in any way in his  election.   The  appellant stated that he spent Rs. 75/- only for printing the identity

3

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

cards which were used in the election and the same has  been properly  accounted  for in his statement for  his  election expenses. Under section 123(6) of the Representation of the People Act the incurring or authorising of expenditure in contravention of  section 77 is a corrupt practice for the purpose of  the Act.  Section 77 deals with account of election expenses and maximum  thereof.  The first sub-section states  that  every candidate at an election shall, either by himself or by  his election  agent, keep a separate and correct account of  all expenditure  in  connection with the  election  incurred  or authorised by him or by his election agent between the  date of publication of the notification calling the election  and ,the  date of declaration of the result thereof  both  dates inclusive.   The second sub-section states that the  account shall contain such particulars’ as may’ be prescribed.   The third  subjection  states that the total  amount  shall  not exceed  such  amount as may be prescribed.   The  prescribed maximum  for  election expenses is the sum of Rs.  1,000  as will  be  found  in Rule 90(2) of the  Conduct  of  Election Rules.  That is the sum prescribed for the State of Nagaland for  State  Assembly Election.  For other  States  different amounts  are prescribed as the maximum of election  expenses for the State Assemblies. The relevant issue with regard to the alleged expenditure of Rs.  90  raises  the question as to  whether  the  appellant incurred or authorised the expenditure of the, said  amount. On  behalf of the appellant the owner of the printing  press Vipikejeye gave evidence.  He said that the appellant placed an  order (Ex. 10) for 5000 identity cards for election  and he  also said that Exhibit 1 1 the blue identity cards  were printed  in his press.  The owner of the press further  said that  the  appellant did not personally come  to  place  the order but his party-men came and placed the order’ The  blue identity  card was not found suitable and the owner  of  the printing  press printed the pink identity card.   The  owner was  paid Rs. 75 for printing 5000 blue identity cards.   As for the pinkcards the evidence of the owner of the  printing press was that the order for the pink cards was placed on 29 January,  1969  "by the young man" of  the  appellant.   The owner  of the press supplied the pink cards  numbering  6000 and  be received the sum of Rs. 90 on 1 February,  1969  and one  Pralie  Peseyie paid that sum and took  away  the  pink identity cards.  Pralie Peseyie was said to be a man of  the appellant.  There was no written order for the printing job. The  owner  of the press specifically said that he  did  not receive Rs. 90 from the appellant, 662 The  appellant  in  his oral evidence  said  that  the  blue identity  card  was  ordered by him to  be  printed  and  he entrusted  one  of his worker to do it.  On his  return  the appellant  found that there was something wrong in the  blue identity  cards  which contained the words ’Vote for  T.  N. Angami’.   The  appellant said that he  became  annoyed  and asked.  the,  person  entrusted with  the  printing  of  the identity cards to, go immediately to the printing press  and get the cards "reprinted correctly".  After- that "the  man" brought the pink identity card but he did not tell  anything about the payment of such printing work and that is how  the appellant did not account for them.  The-appellant accounted for Rs. 75 as the cost of printing identity cards. In  cross-examination  the appellant was  asked  whether  he asked  Pralie Peseyie to pay the cost of the  blue  identity card  because of the appellant’s annoyance.  His answer  was that he did not say anything specifically but Pralie Peseyie

4

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

did something wrong and the latter felt shy and did not  ask any money from the appellant.  The appellant’s evidence  was that  the press submitted the bill for the printing  of  the blue  identity  card  and  the  payment  was  made  by,  the appellant  but he did not personally go and pay.  In  cross- examination the appellant was specifically asked whether the pink identity cards were produced before him with the  bill. The appellant, answered in the negative.  The appellant  was then  asked whether before filing the return  the  appellant had asked from the press as to what the cost of the printing of the pink identity cards was.  The, appellant’s answer was "I  bad  not paid personally and the bill was  not  produced before me I did not enquire".  The appellant was again asked whether  the  amount for printing pink  identity  cards  was paid.  , His answer was that the amount was paid  by  Pralie Peseyie. Pralie Peseyie gave evidence on behalf of the appellant  and said  that the appellant was "much annoyed"  because  Pralie Peseyie  without  the appellant’s knowledge  put  the  words "Please  vote for T. N. Angami" on the blue  identity  cards and  the appellant asked Pralie Peseyie to get the  identity cards  reprinted.  Pralie Peseyie therefore placed order  to get 6000 identity cards printed again.  He said that he paid Rs.  90  from  his own pocket as he felt  that  it  was  his responsibility to get the cards printed correctly.  He  also said that he never asked the appellant to reimburse him  for that  amount of Rs. 90.  In cross-examination he  was  asked whether  he  told the appellant that he paid  Rs.  90.   His answer  was in ,the negative.  Pralie Peseyie  further  said that  the words "Please vote for T. N. Angami" were  not  on the  sample  that the appellant gave but the  witness  added those  words  without the knowledge of the  appellant.   The witness  was asked a direct question as to what  amount  the witness spent for the appellant in the election and his 663 answer  was  "I  paid Rs. 90 for the printing  of  the  pink identity cards and no more". The High Court held that the amount of Rs. 90 must have been paid  to  the-press  by  Pralie Peseyie  on  behalf  of  the appellant and therefore the expenditure was incurred by  the appellant  as well as authorised by him in  connection  with his election. The  respondent  in the election petition alleged  that  the appellant paid Rs. 90.  The Representation of the People Act uses  the words incuffing and authorising  the  expenditure. The  appellant  denied that he paid Rs. 90.   It  was  never suggested  to  the  appellant that  he  had  authorised  the expenditure  of  Rs.  90.  On  the  contrary,  the  positive evidence of the appellant is that he was annoyed with Pralie Peseyie  for introducing the words ’Vote for ’F. N.  Angami’ on  the  blue  identity cards and  therefore  the  appellant wanted Pralie Peseyie to get the cards reprinted  correctly. It  is  also  the evidence of Pralie  Peseyie  that  he  did something  wrong  and  he  had to  have  it  corrected.   He therefore  paid  Rs.  90 out of his own  pocket.   The  most significant  feature in ’,he evidence is, that the bill  for Rs.  90 was never produced or sent to the appellant  whereas the  ’bill  for  the blue identity cards  was  sent  to  the appellant.   The manner in which the  appellant  reprimanded Pralie Peseyie for adding the words "Vote for T. N.  Angami" would  not  necessarily  involve an obligation  to  pay  and authorise  an  expenditure for getting the  cards  reprinted correctly.   If  it were the fault of the press,  the  press would  have to rectify the same.  On the other hand, if  the blame  fell  on  Pralie Peseyie he would have  to  bear  the

5

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

brunt.  The fact that the bill was not sent to the appellant shows  that the fault was of the witness Pralie Peseyie  The oral evidence also points to that inescapable conclusion. The High Court was in error in holding on the evidence  that the expenditure for Rs. 90 was incurred or authorised by the appellant.   This finding is not supported by  the  evidence and  on  the contrary it is repelled by  the  evidence.   We cannot  help  observing that both the appellant  and  Pralie Peseyie gave evidence in a very straightforward and truthful Manner.   They  narrated the correct course of  events.   We accept  their evidence and hold that the  appellant  neither incurred  nor authorised the expenditure of Rs. 90  for  the pink identity cards. It would, therefore, not be necessary for us to go into  the question  whether, the sum of Rs. 41.50 for trunk calls  and the  sum of Rs. 22.65 for purchase of forms  and  hand-books were incurred or authorised by the appellant.  Even if those two  sums  of money were added, the return would not  be  in violation of the maximum amount of Rs. 1000/-. 664 Counsel  for the respondent contended that the  findings  of the  High Court on allegations contained in paragraph  1(a), (f) and (j)    of particulars of corrupt practice  mentioned in paragraph 6 of the    petition  were  incorrect  and  the High Court should have held that   the appellant was  guilty of  corrupt practice.  Paragraph 1 (a) relates to  a  charge against  the  appellant of having paid Rs. 200  in  cash  to Dolhoutha  Gaonbura  of  Zubra  and one  bag  of  sugar  for entertainment  of electors attending a function at Zubra  on 25 January, 1969.  Paragraph 1 (f) alleges that on 27  Janu- ary, 1969 a women’s meeting was held at Daklane when it  was announced  that  a  procession  would  be  taken  out  on  1 February,  1969.   About 200 people mostly  women  formed  a procession shouted slogans to vote for the appellant and the appellant asked them to vote for him and after the meeting a feast was held at the appellant’s house at which drinks were served  to the people.  Paragraph 1 (j) alleges that  on  27 January,  1969  the appellant and his wife  and  some  other persons  came to the village Pedugei in connection with  the election and held a meeting where the appellant and his wife promised  8 bundles of corrugated iron sheets for the  women of  Kiruphema with the object of inducing them to  vote  for the  appellant  and  corrugated iron sheets  were  later  on brought from Dimapur by a truck belonging to Mizielhouto and divided  amongst three groups of people.  The  appellant  in the written statement denied the charges. The respondent did not have personal knowledge of the  feast alleged  in  paragraph I (a) of the  particulars  but  three witnesses  were  examined on behalf of the  respondent.   On behalf of ’the appellant there was the evidence of Dolhoutha and  Shitovi  Hesso.   The High Court held  that  the  three witnesses on behalf of the respondent were interested in the success of the respondent and the three witnesses attributed statements   about  feast  and  distribution  of  sugar   to Dolhoutha  who denied the same and said that the  people  of the village organised the feast with their money.  The  High Court correctly found that the quality of evidence on behalf of the respondent was such that no reliance could be  placed upon it. As  to  allegations of corrupt practice in paragraph  1  (f) about the women’s meeting the High Court held that there was no  evidence to indicate that the. respondent or any  person induced the persons present to vote or offered them food and fruit.  On the contrary, the High Court found that  evidence of  both- sides indicated that it was customary practice  in

6

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

Nagaland to offer hospitality to the people who visit  their house.    It  will  not  be  correct  to   equate   ordinary hospitality or courtesy with corrupt practice. With regard to allegations mentioned in paragraph I (j)  and the  distribution of bundles of corrugated iron  sheets  the High Court 665 held  that the women’s society asked for  corrugated  sheets for  a public cause.  The ’appellant was the Chief  Minister at the time of the election.  It would not be unnatural  for people  to make requests to the Chief Minister for a  public cause.  It would also be reasonable to expect that the Chief Minister  would  try to redress grievances  of  the  people. There is no proof of corrupt motive.  We agree with the High Court that there is no proof of corrupt practice alleged  in paragraphs 1 (a), (f) and (j) of the particulars dealt  with above. For  these  reasons we accept the appeal and hold  that  the appellant is not guilty of any violation of section 123  (6) and section 77 of the Representation of the People Act.  The judgment  of  the High Court is set aside.  The  charge,  of corrupt  practice  under section 123(6) is set  aside.   The order  setting aside the election of, the appellant and  the declaration avoiding the election under section 100(1)(b) of the  Act are both set aside.  The election petition  of  the respondent is dismissed.  The appellant will be entitled  to costs. K.B.N.                                  Appeal allowed. 666