http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: GHASI RAM

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DAL SINGH & OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/02/1968

BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. HEGDE, K.S.

CITATION:  1968 AIR 1191            1968 SCR  (3) 102  CITATOR INFO :  F          1969 SC1024  (11)  R          1971 SC 241  (9)  R          1971 SC2025  (56)  R          1975 SC1612  (50)  R          1975 SC1634  (8)  F          1975 SC1718  (9)  RF         1976 SC  27  (14)  RF         1976 SC1599  (6)  RF         1978 SC1162  (5)  R          1980 SC 701  (14)  E          1990 SC1889  (5)

ACT: Representation  of  the People Act, 1951, s. 123(1),  (2)  & (7)--Elected candidate being Minister before election  using discretionary funds to remove public grievances--If  corrupt practice.--Spending  funds for general publicgood only  just before election--Evil practice.

HEADNOTE: The  first  respondent  was elected  to  the  Haryana  State Legislative,  Assembly at the election held on February  19, 1967.  The appellant challenged his election by an  election petition  on  the  grounds, inter alia, that  prior  to  his election,  the respondent, who was a Minister in  the  State Government  and had available to him  certain  discretionary funds,  had  used these funds to bribe the  voters;  it  was alleged  that prior to the election be had  visited  several villages  in  his constituency and the voters had  told  him that they would not vote for him as he had done nothing  for their  uplift: he had therefore made  various  discretionary grants to Gram Panchayats. given funds for the  construction of a sacred tank in one village, for building public utility works, community centres and for repairs of Harijan well  in different  villages.  It was also alleged that be  had  used his position as Minister to favour some Of the villagers  by providing  certain  irrigation facilities in  some  villages with  a view to securing support for his  candidature.   The High Court dismissed the election petition. On appeal to this Court. HELD : On the evidence before it, the High Court had rightly dismissed the petition.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

The  law requires that a corrupt practice involving  bribery must  be fully established.  The evidence must show  clearly that the promise or gift directly or indirectly was made  to an  elector to vote or refrain from voting at  an  election. The position of a Minister is difficult. it is obvious  that he  cannot cease to function when his election is  due.   He must  of  necessity attend to the grievances,  otherwise  he must fail.  He must improve the image of his  administration before  the public.  If every one of his official acts  done bona  fide  is to be construed against him and  an  ulterior motive  is  spelled  out of them,  the  administration  must necessarily come to a stand-still. [109 F-G] In the present case the money was not distributed among  the voters  directly but was given to Panchayats and the  public at  large.  It was to he used for the good of those for  and those  against the candidate.  No doubt this had the  effect of  pushing  forward the respondent’s claims  but  that  was inevitable  even if no money was spent but good  administra- tion changed the people’s condition. it could not  therefore be  held that there was any corrupt practice.  If there  was good  evidence  that  the  Minister  bargained  directly  or indirectly for votes. the result might have been  different, but there was no such evidence. [110 B-C] Case law referred to. Obiter  .  Election  is something which  must  be  conducted fairly.   To arrange to spend money on the eve of  elections in different constituencies, 103 although  for general public good is, when all is said,  and done,,  an  evil  practice, even if it may  not  be  corrupt practice.  The dividing line between an evil practice and  a corrupt  practice  is  a  very  thin  one.   It  should   be understood that energy to do public good should be used  not on  the  eve  of elections but much earlier  and  that  even slight evidence might change this evil practice into corrupt practice.  Payments from discretionary grants on the eve  of elections should be avoided. [110 D-E]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.  1632  of, 1967. Appeal  under s. 116-A of the Representation of the  Peoples Act,  1951 from the judgment and order dated  September  12, 1967  of  the  Punjab and Haryana  High  Court  in  Election Petition No. 24     of 1967. Naunit Lal and B. P. Singh, for the appellant. G. N. Dikshit and R. N. Dikshit, for respondent No. 1. The judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah,  J.  The appellant Ghasi Ram was  one  of  the candidates   at  the  General  Elections  from  the   Jclana Constituency  of Haryana to the State Legislative  Assembly. The  respondents were other candidates.  The  election  took place on February 19, 1967 and the results were declared two days later. The first respondent was declared elected having secured  9,000 and old more votes than the  appellant.   The present  appeal has been filed by the appellant against  the judgment  of  the  High  Court of  Punjab,  and  Haryana  at Chandigarh,  September  12,  1967,  by  which  the  election petition  was  ordered to be dismissed.  The  petition  was. based   on  certain  corrupt  practices  of  the   answering respondent  who, was. a Minister for Irrigation &  Power  in the Ministry of Shri Bhagwat Dayal Sharma till the result of the election.  He was charged with having used his  position

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

as  Minister  in various ways to further his  own  election. The  High Court on an examination of the’ evidence  came  to the conclusion that no corrupt practice was, in fact, proved against him and the election could not be said to be,  void. Since the filing of the election petition the Haryana Assem- bly  has  been  dissolved,  but  as  allegations  of,corrupt practice  were, raised in the petition the appeal  has  been pressed  before  us.  After hearing learned counsel  in  the appeal  we  have reached the same. conclusion  as  the  High Court  and  we  find the appeal  to  be  unsubstantial.   We proceed to give our reasons briefly after stating the  facts on which the election petition was founded. The   corrupt  practices  charged  against   the   answering respondent  can be divided under three heads.  The first  is that  he  used  certain discretionery  funds  to  bribe  the voters.   The second is that he used his position to  favour some of the villages With a view to securing support for his candidature, and the last is that he exer- 104 cised undue pressure upon two Patwaris to work for him  when they  declined, he ordered their suspension.  We shall  deal with these allegations in the same order. After  the new State of Haryana was constituted on  November 1, 1966, the Government of Haryana placed at the disposal of the  Cabinet  Ministers, Ministers of State and  the  Deputy Ministers  certain sums of money for distribution  at  their discretion.   This was by a Resolution of the Government  in November,  1966 (Ex.  RW 14/1).  This position is  admitted. Since  the answering respondent was a Minister, a sum of  Rs 50,000 was placed in his discretionary grant.  From this sum the answering respondent made his discretionary grants and a sum  of  Rs.  12,500 in the aggregate was paid  by  him  for various  purposes  in his constituency.  The  allegation  is that  he  made this distribution as a bargain for  votes  in several villages and this amounted to corrupt practice.  The amount  was distributed by him between December 8, 1966  and January 9, 1967.  In most cases the money was paid after the poll  but  as promises were apparently made  this  makes  no difference  to the allegation of corrupt practice.   Section 123  lays down what are to be regarded as corrupt  practices and it inter alia provides               "123.  Corrupt practices.-The following  shall               be  deemed  to be corrupt  practices  for  the               purposes of this Act :-               (1) Bribery, that is to say,-               (A)   any   gift,  offer  or  promise   by   a               candidate  . . . . . of any gratification,  to               any   person  whomsoever,  with  the   object,               directly or indirectly of inducing-               (a)..........................               (b) an elector to vote or refrain from  voting               at an election               (2)   Undue  influence,  that is to  say,  any               direct or indirect  interference or attempt to               interfere   on  the  part  of  the   candidate               with................ the free exercise of  any               electoral right                         ..................................                         ..................................               (7) The obtaining or procuring or abetting  or               tempting  to obtain or procure by a  candidate               any  assistance (other than the  giving  vote)               for  the furtherance of the prospects of  that               candidate’s election, 105

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

             from   any  person  in  the  service  of   the               Government   and  belonging  to  any  of   the               following classes, namely                       ..........................                       ..........................                 (f)revenue officers other than village reve-               nue-officers  known as  lamardars,  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               All  the amount of land revenue collected  by,               them  but  who do not  discharge,  any  police               functions; and                        ................................ A  promise of a gift or offer is equally a corrupt  practice but  the gift,- offer or promise must be made to an  elector to  vote  or  refrain  from  voting  at  an  election;  and, similarly, undue influence and obtaining or procuring of the service of any person in the service of the Government must. be  with the same intention.  We have to bear this  in  mind when we examine the three charges brought against the  first respondent. Under  the  first  head  of charges it  is  stated  that  he promised a payment of Rs. 20,000 to the Grampanchayat, Igra; Rs. 5,000 on February 13, 1967 for a sacred tank in  village Ram Rai; Rs. 1,000 on January 9, 1967 to the  Grampanchayat, Bahman was; Rs. 2,500 in December 1966 to the Grampanchayat, Bibipur  and  Rs.  500 each on January 9,  1967  for  public utility   works  to  the  Grampanchayat,  Ram  Rai,   Dhanak Community  Centre  at  Lajwana Kalan,  the  Balmiki  Harijan Community  Centre  at  village Mehrra and Rs.  500  for  the repair of a Harijan well at Lajwana Khurd.  It is said  that before  these  grants were made the Minister  visited  these several villages and the voters told him that they were  not going  to  vote  for him as he had done  nothing  for  their uplift  and on his promising the said sums the  voters  were won  over  with  the result that  the  answering  respondent secured the bulk of the votes from these. villages The  High Court  carefully considered the evidence led to prove  these allegations and came to the conclusion that it fell short of the  requirements  of s. 123 of the Act.  It  is  ’Contended before us that the High Court was in error in reaching  this conclusion both in fact and law.  We shall first dispose  of the  facts before proceeding to examine what we consider  to be corrupt practice in this context. The  donation to the Grampanchayat, Igra is attempted to  be proved  through the evidence of one Mehtab Singh (P.W.  10). He  stated  that the answering ’respondent, as  Chairman  of Block  Samiti  had promised Rs. 5,000 but had not  paid  it. When he came L4 Sup.  Cl/68-8 106 for  canvassing, the voters were unwilling to vote  for  him because he had not kept his promise.  He then persuaded them and  promised  to  pay some money if  they  gave  him  their support.  The High Court pointed- out that this witness  was a  discharged  SubInspector  and the polling  agent  of  the election  petitioner.  He was found to be telling lies  when he  said  that  the amount was received  7  days  after  the promise,  because the record clearly showed that this  money was  paid only in March, 1967, more than a month  after  the poll.  Lakhi Ram (P.W. 5) admitted that there was a  village school  which was lying incomplete and money was needed  for its completion.  It will be noticed that this money was  not paid directly to any voter or voters: It was handed over  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

the Grampanchayat for utilization.  This meant that it would have gone to the benefit of those who were going to  support the answering respondent and also those who were opposed  to him.  The High Court did hot believe the evidence that there was  any bargain for votes as required by the definition  of corrupt  practice.   On  a reading of the  evidence  we  are satisfied that the village community; asked him for help and the  answering respondent promised to help them to  complete works  of  public utility.  The amount was  paid  after  the election was over. Similarly,  the sum of Rs. 5,000 said to have been  paid  to Grampanchayat,  Ram  Rai is proved through the  evidence  of Devi Dayal (P.W. II) and Mangal singh (P.W. 12).  This money was sanctioned on December 8, 1966 even before the  Congress had given ticket to the answering respondent.  The  evidence here  also  does  not show that there was  any  bargain  for votes.   The two witnesses were proved to be hostile to  the answering respondent.  Devi Dayal was his rival candidate in 1952   and  had  made  several  applications   against   the answering-respondent.   The  application  for  the  Congress ticket  was made by the answering respondent on December  6, 1966  and  the  grant being made on  December  8,  1966  the evidence  of  Devi  Dayal  that  the  grant  was  after  the nomination was definitely false.  Mangal Singh is the editor of  a  weekly journal, which  published  several  complaints against the answering respondent.  The answering  respondent stated that he had collected Rs. 25,000 for the sacred  tank even before he ’became Minister; that through his efforts  a pucca  road,  a dispensary, a veterinary  hospital,  a  post office and water works were established.  He had also got  a primary  school upgraded.  Ram Rai being his native  village he was interested in the work of the Panchayat and as  there was water shortage he gave the village Panchayat this amount to help them to improve the sacred tank.  The High Court did not find any evidence which would bring the matter within S. 123.  It declined to believe these hostile witnesses and  on a  consideration of the evidence we are not  satisfied  that the conclusion was erroneous. 107 The  sum  of Rs. 1,000 was paid to the  Grampanchayat,  Bah- manwas  for. a primary school.  This was a month or a  month and  quarter  before the election.  This was  sought  to  be proved  through Ram Dutt (P.W. 20).  It is in evidence  that Ram Dutt was Very friendly with the election petitioner  and even  gave  his  truck  for  the  use  of  the   petitioner. ’Evidence further shows that the school building was without a  roof  for some time and the children used  to  sit  under trees.   We are satisfied that this amount cannot  described as a bribe. There  was no evidence to prove the payment of Rs. 2,500  to Bibipur and as none was brought to our notice this point was rightly decided against the election petitioner. The  four sums of Rs. 500 each were paid for improvement  Of Community  Centres.  The attempt to prove that they  were  a part of a bargain was discountenanced by the High Court.  In respect,  .of the amount paid to Lajwana Kalan the  evidence was. that of Ram Singh (P.W. 13)-, the polling agent- of the election  petitioner, Shri Phula (P.W .14), whose  demeanour was  commented  upon by the learned Judge, and  one  of  the candidates  Mangeram  (P,.W. 19) and Jailal (P.W.  21  ),  a helper of one other candidate, Their. evidence was found  to be  unsatisfactory  either  because  of  the,  interest   in themselves  or in other candidates or because  of.  internal discrepancies and defects.  We have read the evidence and we see  no  reason  to differ.  In support  of  the  other  two

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

payments  of Rs. 500 each, the only objection raised  before us  was  that the payments were made to the Dhanak  and  the Balmiki  Communities  with a view to obtaining  their  votes because,  it  was contended,,. that there was  no  community centre  at  these villages.  Evidence.  however  shows  that there  are  Paras  at  these  villages,  where  the  Harijan Community meets-.  In fact, in the petition and the evidence these are referred to as Community Centres. . This action of the  answering  respondent  was not found  to  amount  to  a corrupt,.,practice and on a consideration of the evidence we are in agree-. meat with the High Court. The  next  group of corrupt practices are  said  to  involve certain  facilities  provided in the matter  of  irrigation. For  example, the Distributory No. 8 at Jind was widened  to give  more  water to Ramrai village, a footbridge  over  the Sunder  Branch of Western Jumna canal for Nandgarh  village, two  outlets  were  promised from  Distributory  No.  2  for village Radhana. the size of the outlet of the Sunder Branch was increased, a new Rajbaha or minor was opened to  benefit village Dingaria and the Jind Distributories were  generally modified.   None of these was accepted by the High Court  as evidence  of corrupt practice with a view to  procuring  the votes.It  seems  that  it was conceded  in  the  High  Court itself that these orders were made by the first  respondent, in the ordinary course of 108 his duties as Minister for Irrigation.  There was nothing to show  that  the first respondent went out of his way  to  do this.   The point was, therefore,, rightly  decided  against the appellant.  Mr.  Naunit Lal argued vehemently that any gift  which  has the effect of changing the minds of the voters is a  corrupt practice.   He  read out to us the judgments of  Ridley  and Bucknill,  JJ. from Borough of  Kingston-upon-Hull(1)  case. In  that case the charge against Sir Henry Seymour King  was that  he had distributed coals and given boxes of sweets  to the  children of the schools at the time or just before  his election’ The motive of Sir Henry Seymour King- was never in doubt.   The gifts were made to celebrate  the  twenty-fifth ;anniversary  of his membership of the Central  Division  of Hull.   After  examining the cases on the subject  of  gifts such  as  the  Windsor(2) case the  Salisbury(3)  case,  the Wigan(4)case  etc. the learned Judges avoided the  election. In  that  case  the presents were  gratitious  and  ’not  in furtherance of any duty which Sir Henr Seymour King owed  in any other capacity.  In our courts this question has come up in  different forms before and a word may be said about  the cases.   In  S. Mahar Singh v. Umrao Singh (5),  the  Punjab High Court held that a candidate making a promise to get the grievances  of certain refugees as a body remedied and  even getting  the Revenue Minister to reinforce his  promise  was not  corrupt practice.  It was pointed out that the  promise was  not made to any particular voter or voters but  to  the general   body of residents without  distinguishing  between those who were favourably inclined and those not.  The  gist of the corrupt practice, therefore, lay in attempting to  do something for those opposed to the candidate with a view  to changing their votes, and as a bargain for votes.  A case in point  is Maganlal Bagdi, v. Hari Vishnu Kamath(6) in  which the  candidate offered to construct a well in a  village  if the  voters voted for him and not for the  rival  candidate. Money  was  actually deposited for this purpose and  was  to await  the result of the election.  Here there was  a  clear bargain  for  votes.  As observed by this  Court  in  Khader Sheriff  v.  Munnuswami  Gounder and Ors.   (7)  it  may  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

meritorious to make a donation for a charitable purpose  but on the eve of an    election,  such  a gift may be  open  to construct  that  it was made with the  intention  of  buying votes. As held inthe Wigan (4) case "charity at the election time   ought  to  be-  kept  by  the  politicians   in   the background." But when a question does arise corrupt practice which  is a charge quasi-criminal in nature, must be  proved like  any  other fact.  The gift must be proved  to  have  a direct  or indirect connection with- votes.  The  gift  must admit of no other (1)  6 O’M & H 372. (3)  40’M & H 28. (5)  A.I.R. 1961 Punjab 244. (7)  A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 775. (2)  20 O’M & H 88. (4)  4 O’M & H 13. (6)  15 E.L.R. 205. 109 reasonable   excuse.   In  Khader  Sheriff’s(1)   case   the payment  of Rs. 500 to the District Congress Committee  was. not  held  to  be  a  charitable  donation  but  expenditure incurred  for  furthering the prospects  of  the  candidate. Omission  to  show it as expenses was  regarded  as  corrupt practice.    In   Radha  Krishna  Shukla   v.   Tara   Chand Maheshwar(2)   general  promises  by  Ministers  to  redress certain   public  grievances,or  to  erect  certain   public amenities like hospitals, if elected were held not to amount to  corrupt  practice.   They were treated  as  promises  of general  public action.  In Gangadhar Maithani  v.  Narendra Singh  Bhandari(3)  promises  of  public  action  were  held excluded  from  corrupt  practice.   Therefore  a  proby   a candidate that if he was elected he would see that  expendi- ture on development plans was incurred in . his constituency was held permissible.  In Balwant Rai Tayal v. Bishan Saroop (4)  ,  a  promise  to the Harijans  of  a,  locality  by  a candidate when he was canvassing for votes, that he would do his  best  to help them in the matter of  retaining  an  old mosque as a temple and for getting land for building  houses was not held to amount to corrupt practice. These  cases  which  were  cited  before  us  are   slightly different.   But  they  point in  the  same  direction.   In Amirchand v. Surendra Lal Jha(5 ) it was laid down that if a Minister  redresses the grievances of a class of the  public or people of a locality or renders them any help, on the eve of an election, it is not corrupt practice unless he obtains promises from the voters in return, as a condition for their help.   In Anjaneya Reddy v. Gangi Reddy and others(6).   It was  held  that the proof required to  establish  a  con-apt practice  must  be  almost  of  the  character  required  to establish a criminal charge. In  our  opinion the law requires that  a  corrupt  practice involving  bribery must be fully established.  The  evidence must  show  clearly  that the promise or  gift  directly  or indirectly  was made to an elector to vote or  refrain  from voting  at  an  election.  The position  of  a  Minister  is difficult.   It is obvious that he cannot cease to  function when  his election is due.  He must of necessity  attend  to the grievances, otherwise he must fail.  He must improve the image of his administration before the public.  If  everyone of  his  official  acts done bona fide is  to  be  construed against  him and an ulterior motive is spelled out of  them, the  administration must necessarily come to a  stand-still. The  State  of Haryana came into existence  on  November  1, 1966.   With an election in the near future,  the  political party  had  to  do acts of a public nature.   The  grant  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

discretionary  grants  were part of the  general  scheme  to better  community  development projects and \to  remove  the imme- (1) A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 775.     (2) 12 E.L.R. 376. (3) 18 E.I.R. 124.            (4) 17 E.L.R. 101 (5) 10 E.L.R. 57.              (6) 21 E.L.R. 247. 110 diate grievances of the, public.  The money was required  to be spent in about months’ time.  The action of the  Minister had   often  the  concurrence  and  recommendation  of   his subordinate  staff.  It is for this reason that  the  orders about  the  improvement  of the supply of  waters  were  not pressed.  They were incapable of being construed against the first  respondent.  Therefore, emphasis was placed upon  the distribution of money.  The money was not distributed  among the  voters  directly but was given to  Panchayats  and  the public  at large.  It was to be used for the good  of  those for and those against the candidate.  No doubt they had  the effect of pushing forward his claims but that was inevitable even if no money was spent, but good administration  changed the  people’s  condition.  We cannot, therefore,  hold  that there was any corrupt practice.  If there was good  evidence that  the  Minister  bargained directly  or  indirectly  for votes, the result might have been different but there was no such evidence. Although  we have held in this case that the action  of  the first respondent cannot be characterised as not innocent, we are  constrained to say that the attitude of  Government  is far  from  laudable.  Election is something  which  must  be conducted  fairly.  To arrange to spend money on the eve  of elections  in different constituencies although for  general public good, is when all is said and done an evil  practice, even  if it may pot be corrupt practice.  The dividing  line between  an evil practice and a corrupt practice is  a  very thin one.  It should be understood that energy to do  public good  should be used not on the eve’ of elections  but  much earlier and that even slight evidence might change this evil practices    into   corrupt   practice.     Payments    from discretionary  grants  on  the eve of  elections  should  be avoided. As  regards  the  last  point  we  are  satisfied  that  the conclusion of the High Court is correct.  The evidence about influencing the Patwaris is most unsatisfactory.  We do  not think it necessary to discuss the evidence over again. In  the  result  the appeal fails and  will  ’be  dismissed. There shall be no order about costs. R.K.P.S.                          Appeal dismissed. 111