Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard an appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 against the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court which had dismissed Election Petition No. 13 of 1992. The appellant, sponsored by Shiromani Akali Dal, contested the Punjab Legislative Assembly election held in February 1992 from 87-Dirba Constituency. The first respondent, fielded by the Congress party, won the election securing 3072 votes against appellant's 2624 votes. The appellant challenged the election alleging corrupt practices: booth capturing by the respondent and his agents under Section 123(8) read with Section 135-A, and excessive election expenditure exceeding Rs. 2 lakhs in violation of Section 77 read with Rule 90 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, amounting to corrupt practice under Section 123(6). The High Court framed issues, decided preliminary issues against the respondent, and after trial dismissed the petition with costs, holding allegations vague, indefinite, and unsubstantiated, and observing that the appellant cooked up false pleas and fabricated evidence. In appeal, the appellant argued that sufficient evidence established booth capturing and that the High Court erred in ruling that the allegations in para 3(I) of the petition did not constitute corrupt practice. The Supreme Court emphasized that allegations of corrupt practices are quasi-criminal, requiring strict proof, not mere preponderance of probabilities, due to serious penal consequences. The Court found that the alleged threat to a polling agent did not fall within the definition of booth capturing under Section 123(8). It noted the appellant failed to examine the election agent Joginder Singh, no contemporaneous complaint was made to Returning Officer, Presiding Officers, or police despite their availability, and Central Reserve Police were present. The respondent examined the Returning Officer, Senior Superintendent of Police, and Presiding Officers of polling booths 63-69, who unanimously testified that polling was peaceful, polling agents of all candidates were present inside booths, and no disputes or complaints arose. On expenditure, the Court found no evidence that the respondent exceeded the permissible limit under Rule 90. Accordingly, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings and dismissed the appeal, concluding that the appellant failed to bring home the allegations of corrupt practice and there was no reason to take a different view.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Corrupt Practice of Booth Capturing - Section 123(8) read with Section 135-A, Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Strict proof required - Appellant alleged booth capturing by respondent No.1 and supporters at polling booths 62-69; High Court found allegations vague and unsubstantiated; threat to polling agent at 7:30 AM did not constitute booth capturing as defined; no complaint to election officials or police; official witnesses testified peaceful polling - Held that allegations of booth capturing not proved and High Court's negative finding upheld (Paras 8-11). B) Election Law - Corrupt Practice of Excessive Expenditure - Section 123(6) read with Section 77, Representation of the People Act, 1951 and Rule 90, Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 - Allegation of spending over Rs. 2 lakhs beyond prescribed limit - Appellant alleged false return and concealed expenses; High Court found no evidence of expenditure beyond limit; appellant failed to substantiate allegations - Held that expenditure allegations not proved; High Court observed appellant cooked up false pleas and fabricated evidence (Paras 4, 6, 12). C) Election Law - Quasi-Criminal Nature of Corrupt Practice Allegations - Sections 123(1)-(8), 135-A, Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Serious penal consequences including disqualification and imprisonment - Court held standard of proof is strict, not preponderance of probabilities; evidence must be judged accordingly - Held that appellant failed to meet strict proof standard for corrupt practices (Para 8). D) Evidence - Non-Examination of Material Witness and Lack of Contemporaneous Complaint - Section 123(8) and Section 123(6), Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Election agent Joginder Singh not examined; no oral or written complaint made to Returning Officer, Presiding Officers, or police; Central Reserve Police present but no alarm raised; official witnesses from election duty testified no untoward incidents - Held that absence of contemporaneous material and non-examination of key witness discredited allegations; respondent's evidence consistent and convincing (Paras 9-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether election of returned candidate was void on grounds of corrupt practices of booth capturing under Section 123(8) and excessive election expenditure under Section 123(6) read with Section 77 and Rule 90; and whether High Court erred in dismissing election petition.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the judgment of the High Court, and confirmed dismissal of the election petition with costs. The Court found that the appellant failed to prove allegations of booth capturing or excessive expenditure, and that the High Court's factual findings were consistent with evidence on record.
Law Points
- Allegations of corrupt practice under Section 123 of Representation of People Act
- 1951 are quasi-criminal and require strict proof
- booth capturing under Section 123(8) read with Section 135-A must be established with clear evidence
- threat to polling agent alone does not amount to corrupt practice of booth capturing
- excess expenditure under Section 123(6) read with Section 77 and Rule 90 of Conduct of Election Rules
- 1961 must be proved
- non-examination of material witness and absence of contemporaneous complaints weaken election petition
- official testimony of peaceful polling carries weight
