REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3700 OF 2007

Baldev Singh Mann .. Appellant

Versus

Surjit Singh Dhiman ..

Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred under section 116A of the

Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to

as the said Act) against the judgment dated 8.12.2006 passed

by  the  High  Court  of  Punjab  &  Haryana  at  Chandigarh  in

Election Petition No. 16 of 2002.

2. The facts which are necessary to dispose of the appeal

are recapitulated as under:

The  Election  Petition No.  16  of  2002  was  filed  by  the

defeated candidate appellant Baldev Singh Mann who lost the

election from 87-Dirba (Punjab) Assembly Constituency which

was held on 13.2.2002.    

3. The appellant Baldev Singh Mann filed  his nomination

papers as a candidate  of Shiromani Akali  Dal  (B)  (for short

“SAD”),  whereas  respondent  Surjit  Singh  Dhiman  filed  his

nomination  papers  as  an  independent  candidate.   In  the

election,  respondent  Surjit  Singh  Dhiman  got  35,099  votes

and  appellant  Baldev  Singh  Mann  got  34,103  votes  and

consequently, the respondent was declared elected.

4. The appellant filed this election petition under sections

80 and 81 read with sections 98, 99 and 100 of the said Act

before  the  Punjab  &  Haryana  High  Court.   By  a

comprehensive judgment, the election petition was dismissed.

2

Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has preferred

this appeal.

5. The appellant pleaded that the respondent’s election was

liable to be declared void as the respondent had committed

corrupt practices by obtaining and procuring assistance, for

the  furtherance  of  the  prospects  of  his  election,  from

Gurbachan Singh Bachhi (hereinafter referred to as “Bachhi”)

and  B.S.  Shergill  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  “Shergill”)  who

were  in  the  service  of  the  government  and  were  gazetted

officers.

6. According  to  the  appellant,  Bachhi  was  Administrative

Member  of  the  Punjab  State  Electricity  Board.   He  was

appointed on 24.12.2001 and belonged to Bhattiwal Khurd, a

village falling in Dirba Constituency.

7. Shergill  was  posted  as  Deputy  Director,  Panchayats,

Punjab  and  was  a  gazetted  officer  in  the  service  of  the

government.  He had also remained as the Additional Deputy

3

Commissioner,  Sangrur  for  four  years  and  belonged  to

Rajpura, a village in Dirba Constituency.

8. According  to  the  appellant,  the  role  of  Dhiman  and

Bachhi  which amounted  to  corrupt  practices  under  section

123(7) of the said Act are as under:

(A)On  23.1.2002  respondent  met  Bachhi  at  the  office  of

Executive  Engineer,  Punjab  State  Electricity  Board

(P.S.E.B), Dirba at 7 p.m. in the presence of Kirpal Singh,

Sarpanch of Ladbanjara Kalan and Gurtej Singh, Sarpanch

of  Karyal  and  had  asked  Bachhi  to  help  him  in  the

elections.  After detailed deliberations Bachhi agreed to help

and support  Dhiman.  From 24.1.2002 to 26.1.2002,  the

respondent  and  Bachhi  were  seen  by  Karnail  Singh  of

Chatha  Nanhera,  Upender  Singh  Honey  and  Teja  Singh

Tiwana of Chajjli, Kashmira Singh of Karyal and Darshan

Singh,  Nazam  Singh  and  Labh  Singh  of  Dirba  jointly

contacting persons and asking them for their support in the

elections.   They  had  also  contacted  Shamsher  Singh  of

Chatha  Nanhera  and  Natha  Singh  and  Harnek  Singh  of

4

Chajjli and sought their support.  The appellant had come

to know about these facts on 27.1.2002 at 10 a.m. at Dirba

from Karnail Singh, Shamsher Singh, Natha Singh, Harnek

Singh, Upender Singh, Teja Singh Tiwana, Kashmira Singh

and others when Parkash Singh Badal, President SAD, had

come to Dirba on 27.1.2002 to address an election rally in

support  of  the  appellant.   The  appellant  and  others

complained  to  him  about  the  activities  of  Bachhi

whereupon  Bachhi  was  expelled  from  the  primary

membership of SAD for anti-party activities.  

(B)   Bachhi alongwith Dhiman visited Rajpura on 3.2.2002

at 11 a.m. and held a meeting at the house of Jarnail Singh

where  Ram  Karan,  Sukhdev  Singh  and  others  had  also

assembled.   All  these  persons  were  voters  of  Dirba

Constituency.  Bachhi had taken N.S.  Bhullar,  an

Assistant Engineer (PSEB) with him.  The said Bhullar was

a  relative  of  Jarnail  Singh.   Bachhi  threatended  Jarnail

Singh’s relatives that in case they did not vote and support

the respondent he would create problems for their relative

Bhullar.

5

(C)  On 4.2.2002, the appellant was informed by Naranjan

Singh and Mehar Singh of Kala Jhar that a day earlier at

about 2 p.m. Bachhi along with the respondent  had met

them and asked for support and vote.  Later, the appellant

was also informed by Jasbir Singh, Dhanvir Singh and Gogi

Singh that Bachhi had contacted them in their village on

3.2.2002 at 3.30 p.m. and canvassed for votes in favour of

the  respondent.   The  appellant  in  his  complaint  to  the

Election Commission had also complained that Bachhi had

been canvassing for  votes in favour of  the  respondent  at

Channo and Kala Jhar.

(D)  On 5.2.2002,  at  5  p.m.  a  meeting  was  convened  at

Chandani  Tourist  Complex  in  Nadampur  of  the  voters

belonging to Nadampur, Balad Kalan, Phuymanali and Turi.

The respondent was present at this meeting.  Some officers

of  the  PSEB  were  also  present.   Names  of  some  of  the

persons  who  were  present  there  at  that  time  were

mentioned  in  the  petition  and  names  of  the  PSEB

employees were also mentioned.   At this meeting, Bachhi

asked  the  persons  present  to  vote  and  support  the

6

respondent.   The  respondent  also  thanked  Bachhi  and

others  for  supporting  him.  The  appellant  came  to  know

about this meeting on 9.2.2002 from Gurmeet Singh and

Hakam Singh of Nadampur and Labh Singh of Phumanwali

and he immediately sent a fax message to the Chief Election

Commissioner.   At  the said  meeting,  the respondent  had

introduced some persons of Chatha Nanhera to Bachhi and

asked  him  to  help  them  in  getting  out-of-turn  power

connection from the Board.   The  respondent  told Bachhi

that  if  he  is  able  to  release  the  connection,  that  would

advance his prospects in the elections not only in his own

village but also in the surrounding villages.  Bachhi asked

Thilu Singh to meet him in the office of SDO (Sub Urban)

Suman on 6.2.2002 at 10 a.m.

(E)  The above meeting was held at the scheduled time and

Bachhi directed the PSEB official to supply material out of

turn  for  giving  connections  to  the  villagers  of  Chatha

Nanhera.   He  also  asked  Thilu  Singh and others  of  that

village to vote and support the respondent.  In the evening

at  5  p.m.  Bachhi  visited  Dirba  and  in  the  presence  of

7

Karnail  Singh,  Ruldu Singh of  Chatha Nanhera  informed

the respondent that Thilu Singh’s work had been done. The

appellant came to know about this information from Karnail

Singh and Ruldu Singh on 8.2.2002 at 5 p.m. at an election

rally  addressed  by  Sukhbir  Singh  Badal  at  Dirba.

Consequently,  the appellant sent a complaint in this regard

to the Chief Election Commissioner.

9. Similarly, Shergill’s role which attracted the provisions of

the said Act is as under:

As regards Shergill,  the appellant pleaded that on

3.2.2002,  the  respondent  and  Bachhi  had  visited

Rajpura  where  they  held  a  meeting  in  Jarnail

Singh’s house.  They also went to Shergill’s house

who at  that  time was posted  as  Deputy  Director,

Panchayats at Chandigarh.  They met Shergill at 12

noon in the presence of Joginder Singh, Nachhattar

Singh  and  Chand  Singh  of  Rajpura.   The

respondent  requested Shergill  to spare  some time

8

for helping him in the election as he had sufficient

influence  in  the  area.   Initially  Shergill  showed

reluctance  to  do  so  but  the  respondent  with  the

help of Bachhi succeeded in persuading Shergill to

render  help  in  the  elections.   Thereafter,  on

4.2.2002 at 9 a.m. both Shergill and Bachhi went to

Barroh and met Amarjeet Singh and asked him to

collect prominent persons of the village, whereupon

several persons came there and Shergill requested

them  to  vote  for  the  respondent.   Shergill  also

reminded them of the favours he had been doing for

them when he was posted as ADC (Development) at

Sangrur.  The appellant learnt about these details

from  Amarjeet  Singh  of  Barroh  on  6.2.2002.

Similarly, Bachhi and Shergill went to Noorpur on

4.2.2002 and at Mastaan Singh’s house, a number

of persons of Noorpur arrived.  Shergill  impressed

upon  those  persons  to  vote  and  support  for  the

respondent.   The appellant learnt about this from

Jagjit  Singh  and  Jasbir  Singh  when  he  went  to

9

Noorpur on 6.2.2002 about 2 p.m.    The appellant

immediately filed a complaint through fax before the

Chief Election Commissioner.

10. The appellant pleaded in the election petition that when

Bachhi  came  to  know  about  the  complaints  lodged  by  the

appellant, he destroyed the log book of his car to conceal the

fact that he was touring Dirba during the assembly elections

to canvass for votes for the respondent.  After the result was

declared,  the respondent toured the villages falling in Dirba

Constituency  to  congratulate  and  thank  his  voters  and

supporters.   On  4.4.2002  and  5.4.2002,  Bachhi  also

accompanied  him  and  visited  about  33  villages  in

Bhawanigarh.   While  addressing  meetings  in  villages,  the

respondent specially thanked Bachhi for the sacrifice made by

him.   Bachhi  also  thanked  the  people  for  voting  and

supporting the respondent.   There was a news item in this

regard in the Punjabi Tribune dated 6.4.2002.

10

11. The  respondent’s  conduct  established  that  he  had

obtained assistance from Bachhi and Shergill,  both gazetted

officers  in  the  service  of  the  Government.   These  acts

constituted corrupt practices.  According to the appellant, the

respondent had obtained assistance from Bachhi and Shergill

in  furtherance  of  the prospects  of  his  election.   Hence,  the

election was liable to be declared void.  The respondent had

committed corrupt practices as detailed under section 123(7)

of the said Act.  According to the appellant, the respondent is

clearly guilty under section 123(7) of the said Act.

12. The respondent filed written statement in which he had

taken five preliminary objections that :

(i) The election petition was not maintainable  as the

affidavit  attached to it  was not an affidavit  in the

eyes of law since it has not been properly verified;

(ii) The election petition does not contain material facts

on which the appellant relied upon;

11

(iii) The election petition was not a complete petition as

the alleged complaints and the news items have not

been attached therewith;

(iv) The  appellant  has  no  cause  of  action  because

Bachhi,  though  a  gazetted  officer  was  not  in  the

service  of the Government  and Shergill  though in

the service of the Government was not a gazetted

officer;

(v) The petition deserved to be dismissed because it did

not  disclose  the  date,  time  and  place  when  the

appellant’s statement was recorded by Avtar Singh

and thus did not disclose any cause of action.

13. That the respondent submitted on merit that he was not

aware  of  the  details  of  appointment  of  Bachhi  as

Administrative Member of the Punjab State Electricity Board

as  copy  of  the  gazette  notification  has  not  been  placed  on

record.  However,  Bachhi was not in the employment of the

Punjab Government as Punjab State Electricity Board was an

autonomous body created under the Electricity (Supply) Act,

12

1948 and its employees are not in the service of the Punjab

Government.

14. According to the respondent,  Shergill  is  not a gazetted

officer as Deputy Director in any of the departments of  the

Punjab Government.

15. The respondent specifically pleaded that he had neither

sought nor got any assistance for any purpose, much less for

the  furtherance  of  the  prospects  of  his  election  either  from

Bachhi or Shergill.

16. In  the  written  statement,  other  allegations  of  taking

assistance  or  help  from Bachhi  or  Shergill  were  specifically

denied.  The allegations regarding destruction of car’s log book

have been made on the basis of the information received from

Varinder  Singh,  Assistant,  Punjab  State  Electricity  Board.

According to the respondent,  Varinder Singh was an ardent

supporter  of  the  appellant.   The  allegations lacked  material

particulars  as  regards  date,  place  and  time  of  the  alleged

13

destruction  of  the  log  book.   Allegations  that  Bachhi

addressed meetings after the election were also denied.  It was

submitted  that  these  activities  cannot  be  taken  into

consideration.    Under  election  law  only  activities  of  the

returned candidate from the date of filing of the nomination

since declaration of the results were not relevant.  The High

Court after completion of the pleadings framed the following

issues:-

“1. Whether the Election Petition and the affidavit in  support  of  the  election  petition  are  not properly verified, if so, its effect?

2. Whether  the  Election  Petition  lacks  in material facts, if so, its effect?

3. Whether  the  copy  of  Election  Petition supplied to the answering respondent is not  a  complete  copy  of  the  election petition, if so, its effect?

4. Whether  the  Election  Petition  does  not disclose  any  cause  of  action  as mentioned  in  preliminary  objections nos.4 and 5 of the written statement,  if so, its effect?

5. Whether the returned candidate obtained the  assistance  of  Mr.  Gurbachan Singh Bachhi  Administrative  Member  of P.S.E.B.  for  the  furtherance  of  the

14

prospects of his election in the way and manner  alleged  in  paragraph  4  and paragraphs 6-A to E and 7 of the election petition  and  thereby  respondent committed  corrupt  practice  as  defined under section 123(7) of Representation of People Act, 1951? If so, its effect.”

17. On October  17,  2003,  an additional  issue  was  framed

which reads as under:-

“Whether  the  returned  candidates  obtained assistance  of  Shri  B.S.  Shergill,  Deputy Director,  Panchayats,  Punjab  for  the furtherance of his prospects of his election in the way and manner alleged in para nos.5 and 7  of  the  election  petition  and  thereby committed  corrupt  practice  as defined  under section 123(7) of the Representation of People Act?”

18. Issues 1 to 4 were treated as preliminary issues.

19. On January 13, 2004, issues 1 to 4 were decided against

the respondent.”

20. The appellant in support of his case submitted a list of

54 witnesses, but examined only 15.

15

21. Sumit  Mukherjee,  Under  Secretary  to  the  Election

Commission of India appeared as PW1 and testified in respect

of the complaints received by the Chief Election Commissioner

of India from the appellant during the process of election to

the Dirba Assembly Constituency.  The four complaints were

dated February 4, 6 and 9, 2002 marked as PW1/A to PW1/D

respectively.  The said complaints were inquired into by the

Chief  Electoral  Officer,  Punjab  and  the  report  of  the  Chief

Electoral Officer including reports of the Department of Rural

Development  and  Panchayats  and  Additional  Secretary,

Department of Power are marked as PW1/E to PW1/G.  The

four complaints (Exhibits PW1/A to PW1/D) were in respect of

the incidents already referred to in the pleadings.

22. The  appellant  appeared  as  PW2  and  submitted  his

affidavit dated March 5, 2004 Exhibit PW2/1.  The appellant

produced  15  witnesses  and  the  respondent  produced  9

witnesses.

16

23. The  High  Court  after  hearing  learned  counsel  for  the

parties  and  examining  the  relevant  cases  came  to  the

conclusion  that  it  is  difficult  to  hold  that  Bachhi  was  a

gazetted  officer  though  he  was  in  the  service  of  the

Government.  In  this  view  of  the  matter  it  is  necessary  to

examine the specific allegations of corrupt practice and after

enumerating these incidents try and see if proof of allegations

either through direct, circumstantial or corroborative evidence

was  forthcoming.   There  are  allegations  that  on  several

occasions  Bachhi  had  agreed  to  support  the  respondent.

These  are  extracted  from  the  examination-in-chief  of  the

appellant’s sworn affidavit PW2/1.

“(i) January 23, 7 p.m. :  On Dhiman’s persuation Bachhi agreed  to  support  him in  the constituency.   This  incident had  taken  place  in  the presence  of  Kirpal  Singh (PW- 3).  Mann was informed about this at Dirba by Karnail Singh (PW-4) and others.

(ii) Between  January 24-26 : Dhiman and Bachhi personally

contacted  prominent  persons

17

of  Dirba  constituency  for soliciting support for Dhiman.

(iii)                                 They joined campaign for Dhiman.  They were seen by Karnail Singh (PW4), Upinder  Singh,  Teja  Singh  Tiwana,  Kashmira Singh,  Darshan  Singh,  Nazam  Singh  and  Labh Singh.

(iv)                                 Bachhi and Dhiman contacted Shamsher Singh and Harnek Singh.  These persons had told Mann about this fact.

(v) January  27-12 noon  Parkash  Singh  Badal,

President (SAD) came to Dirba to address an election rally in Man’s  support  and  Mann informed Badal about Bachhi’s anti-party  activities.   This  led to Bachhi’s expulsion from the party.

(vi) February 3 :   Bachhi and Dhiman visited Rajpura and met in Jarnail Singh’s house in the presence of Ram Karan (PW 5).  Jarnail Singh was the brother- in-law of N.S. Bhullar, AEE, P.S.E.B.  Bhullar was also present there.  Persons present in the meeting were  asked  to  vote  for  Dhiman.   Bachhi  even threatened Jarnail Singh that in case his relatives did  not  vote  and  support  Dhiman,  then  Bhullar could be in trouble.  Mann was informed about this on the following day by Ram Karan (PW 5).

(vii) February  4  at  2  p.m.  :  Bachhi  and Dhiman met Niranjan Singh (PW 6)  and Mehar  Singh at  their

18

houses at Kala Jhar and asked them to vote and support Dhiman.

(viii) February  3  at  3.30  p.m.  :  Bachhi  had contacted Jasbir Singh (PW 7), Dhanvir Singh, Gogi Singh in the house of Jasbir Singh and asked them to vote in favour of  Dhiman.  Mann was informed about this by Jasbir Singh on the following day.

(ix) February 5 at 5 p.m. : Bachhi  held a meeting of voters  of  various  villagers  falling  in  Dirba constituency.   The  meeting was also  attended by Dhiman.  Many employees of the Board were also present at that meeting.  Bachhi with the consent of  Dhiman had requested  the persons present  in the meeting to vote for Dhiman.  The meeting was also addressed by Surjit Singh.

(x) February  6  at  10  a.m.  :  Bachhi  asked  PSEB employees  to  supply  material  out  of  turn  for releasing  connection  to  the  villagers  of  Chatha Nanhera and asked Thilu Singh to vote for Dhiman. On February 6 itself  Bachhi  visited  Dirba and in the present of Karnail  Singh and Ruldu informed about the work done by him for Thilu and others. Mann  learnt  about  this  from  Karnail  Singh  and Ruldu Singh at a rally addressed by Sukhbir Singh Badal at Dirba.”

24. The main question before  the High Court was whether

the aforementioned instances constituted corrupt practice as

defined under section 123(7) of the said Act.  In the impugned

19

judgment the High Court came to the conclusion under sub-

section (7) of 123 of the said Act, it is obtaining or procuring of

assistance  for  the  furtherance  of  the  prospects  of  the

candidate  which  constitutes  main  ingredients  of  corrupt

practice.   The assistance has to be procured from a person

who is in the government  service  and who additionally  is  a

gazetted officer.   In the impugned judgment the High Court

had also discussed the legal position in detail.  The law is now

well-settled  that charge  of  a  corrupt  practice  in an election

petition should be proved almost like the criminal charge. The

standard of proof is high and the burden of proof is on the

election petitioner.   Mere  preponderance of probabilities  are

not enough, as may be the case in a civil dispute.  Allegations

of  corrupt  practices  should  be  clear  and  precise  and  the

charge should be proved to the hilt as in a criminal trial by

clear, cogent and credible evidence.

25. A  three-Judge  Bench  of  this  court  in  Jeet  Mohinder

Singh v. Harminder Singh Jassi (1999) 9 SCC 386 has held

that the success of a candidate who has won at an election

20

should  not  be  lightly  interfered  with.  Any  petition  seeking

such interference must strictly conform to the requirements of

the law. Though the purity of the election process has to be

safeguarded and the court shall be vigilant to see that people

do not get elected by flagrant breaches of law or by committing

corrupt  practices,  the  setting  aside  of  an  election  involves

serious consequences not only for the returned candidate and

the constituency, but also for the public at large inasmuch as

re-election involves an enormous load on the public funds and

administration. Similar opinion has been expressed in Jagan

Nath v. Jaswant Singh & Others 1954 SCR 892, Gajanan

Krishnaji Bapat & Another v. Dattaji Raghobaji Meghe &

Others (1995) 5 SCC 347.  The will of the people who have

exercised their franchise in an election in favour of a returned

candidate  must  be  respected  to  protect  the  interest  of  the

returned candidate.

26. The  court  in  a  number  of  cases  held  that  charge  of

corrupt practice is a quasi-criminal in character and it has to

be proved as a criminal charge and proved in the court.

21

27. In  Jeet  Mohinder  Singh’s  case  (supra),  the  court

observed as under:-  

“Charge  of  corrupt  practice  is  quasi-criminal  in character. If substantiated it leads not only to the setting  aside  of  the  election  of  the  successful candidate,  but  also  of  his  being  disqualified  to contest  an  election  for  a  certain  period.  It  may entail  extinction  of  a  person’s  public  life  and political career. A trial of an election petition though within the realm of  civil  law is  akin to trial  on a criminal  charge.  Two consequences  follow. Firstly, the allegations relating to commission of a corrupt practice  should  be  sufficiently  clear  and  stated precisely so as to afford the person charged a full opportunity  of  meeting  the  same.  Secondly,  the charges  when  put  to  issue  should  be  proved  by clear, cogent and credible evidence. To prove charge of  corrupt  practice  a  mere  preponderance  of probabilities would not be enough. There would be a presumption of innocence available to the person charged. The charge shall have to be proved to the hilt, the standard of proof being the same as in a criminal trial.”  

28. The  court  has  expressed  similar  opinion  in  the  cases

Quamarul Islam v. S.K. Kanta & Others  (1994)  Supp (3)

SCC 5 F.A. Sapa & Others v.  Singora & Others (1991) 3

SCC 375,  Manohar Joshi v.  Damodar Tatyaba & Others

(1991)  2 SCC 342, Ram Singh & Ors. v. Col. Ram Singh

22

(1985)  Supp  SCC  611  and  Kripa  Shankar  Chatterjee v.

Gurudas Chatterjee & Others (1995) 5 SCC 1.

29. In  Ram Phal Kundu v.  Kamal Sharma (2004) 2 SCC

759,  the  court  reiterated  the  principle  of  election

jurisprudence and observed that the election of the returned

candidate should not be lightly interfered with though at the

same  time  the  purity  of  the  election  process  has  to  be

maintained.   

30. Now  the  crucial  question  arises  for  consideration  is

whether the evidence of the appellant on record is adequate to

constitute corrupt practice within the meaning of section 123

(7) of the said Act.    

31. Section 123 (7) of the Act reads as under:-

“(7)  The obtaining or procuring of abetting or attempting to obtain or procure by a candidate or his agent or, by any other person [with the consent of a candidate or his election agent], any assistance (other than the giving of vote) for  the  furtherance  of  the  prospects  of  that candidate’s  election,  from any  person  in  the service  of  the  Government  and  belonging  to any of the following classes, namely:-

23

(a) gazetted officers; (b) stipendiary judges and magistrates; (c) members  of  the  armed  forces  of  the

Union; (d) members of the police forces; (e) excise officers; (f) revenue  officers  other  than  village

revenue officers known as lambardars, malguzars,  patels,  deshmukhs  or  by any  other  name,  whose  duty  is  to collect  land  revenue  and  who  are remunerated  by  a  share  of,  or commission  on,  the  amount  of  land revenue collected by them but who do not  discharge  any  police  functions; and]

(g) such  other  class  of  persons  in  the service of the Government as may be prescribed:

[Provided  that  where  any  person,  in  the service of the Government and belonging to any  of  the  classes  aforesaid,  in  the discharge  or  purported  discharge  of  his official  duty,  makes  any  arrangements  or provides any facilities or does any other act or  thing,  for,  to,  or  in  relation  to,  any candidate or his agent or any other person acting with the consent of the candidate or his election agent (whether by reason of the office held by the candidate or for any other reason), such arrangements, facilities or act or  thing  shall  not  be  deemed  to  be assistance  for  the  furtherance  of  the prospects of that candidate’s election].”

32. In  the  instant  case,  the  respondent  won by  less  than

1000 votes out of nearly 70000 polled votes.  In the impugned

24

judgment, it is aptly observed that a candidate who loses by

such a slight margin finds it hard to accept defeat.  Therefore,

the candidate who has narrowly lost would ordinarily make all

efforts  and  gather  all  kind  of  material  against  the  elected

candidate and level all kinds of allegations of corrupt practices

whether substantiated or not.   In  the instant case,  this is

what  seems  to  have  happened.   Allegations  are  that  the

winner was moving from village to village asking for vote and

in this process he had often taken help of Bachhi and Shergill

for canvassing for votes in his favour.

33. In the impugned judgment, it is aptly observed :

“Casting a vote or asking for it does not amount to obtaining any assistance.  When a candidate meets a voter and ask him to vote, the voter may say “yes” or “no” or “may be”.  In any event such conversation between  a  candidate  and  the  voter  would  not amount  to  the  voter  giving  assistance  to  the candidate.  A persistent candidate or his agent may request the voters for vote and the voter may say “yes” simply to escape the candidate’s persistence. This would not amount to corrupt  practice  at all. There must be some positive and explicit proof on the part of voters belonging to categories mentioned in section 123(7)(a)(g) to constitute corrupt practice.

25

34. After carefully examining the entire evidence on record,

the  High  Court  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  appellant

failed to prove the ingredients of corrupt practice contained in

section 123(7) of the said Act.  The High Court observed that

the  evidence  of  corrupt  practice  was  not  strong  enough  to

upset the people’s  verdict in favour of the respondent.   The

High Court also observed that the appellant has failed to prove

issue 5 and the additional issue framed by the High Court.

35. This  court  in  Gajanan  Krishnaji  Bapat  (supra)

observed that that the appellate court attaches great value to

the opinion formed by the Trial Judge more so when the Trial

Judge recording findings of fact is the same who had recorded

the  evidence.  The  Appellate  Court  shall  remember  that  the

jurisdiction to try an election petition has been vested in a

Judge  of  the  High Court.  Secondly,  the trial  judge  had the

benefit of watching the demeanour of witnesses and forming

first-hand  opinion  of  them  in  the  process  of  evaluation  of

evidence.  

26

36. We  have  carefully  re-assessed  and  re-evaluated  the

entire evidence of record and we concur with the view which

has  been  taken  by  the  High  Court.   In  our  opinion,  the

appellant has failed to prove the basic ingredients of corrupt

practices under section 123(7) of the said Act.  Consequently,

the appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.

37. Before parting with the case, we would like to reiterate

that  in  a  democratic  country  the  will  of  the  people  is

paramount and the election of elected candidate should not be

lightly  interfered  with.   At  the  same  time,  it  is  also  the

bounden duty and obligation of the court to ensure that purity

of election process is fully safeguarded and maintained.

…….……………………..J.      (Dalveer Bhandari)

…….……………………..J.      (Harjit Singh Bedi)

New Delhi; November 21, 2008

27