Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from an election petition filed by four electors challenging the election of the first respondent, Govind Ramji Shende, who was declared elected to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from Bhandara general constituency on March 11, 1972, with a majority of 17,287 votes. The petition alleged corrupt practices under Section 100 read with sub-sections (1), (2), (3), (3A), (4), (5) and (6) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and contravention of Section 127A. The petitioners contended that the first respondent failed to keep correct accounts of election expenditure as required by Section 77 read with Rule 86 of the Conduct of Election Rules, suppressed items exceeding the authorised limit of Rs 12,000, made false statements about the personal character or conduct of the second respondent and one petitioner by alleging payment of bribe of Rs 60,000 for withdrawal of candidature, got the statement published in a weekly with consent, and printed and distributed pamphlets appealing to voters on grounds of caste and community. The High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, framed 31 issues; it decided the preliminary objection of non-joinder of candidates against the first respondent but held that all other issues were not proved by the petitioners and dismissed the petition with costs. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants restricted their case to three heads of corrupt practices: under Section 123(4) for publication of false statement of facts in relation to personal character or conduct; under Section 123(6) for incurring or authorising expenditure in contravention of Section 77; and under Section 123(3) for making an appeal on grounds of caste or community by printing, publishing and distributing pamphlets Ex.42 and Ex.43. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and held that the High Court's finding that pamphlets Ex.42 and Ex.43 were not printed, published or distributed before the date of polling by or on behalf of the first respondent was sustainable. On the expenditure head, the court found that an unaccounted amount of Rs 1,938.50 had to be added, but even after adding all challenged items, the total election expenses came to Rs 11,154, well within the limit of Rs 12,000, so no corrupt practice under Section 123(6) was established. Regarding the false statement, the court held that it was not proved that the offending statement was made by Dhote as agent of the first respondent in the meeting or with his consent; the witnesses were not present at the meeting and consent was not shown. The court reiterated that allegations of corrupt practices are quasi-criminal, with the onus on the person alleging them, and require credible proof. On the issue of costs, the court interpreted the word 'incurred' in Sections 96 and 119 to mean actually spent, and since the first respondent failed to prove payment of any fee to counsel, he was not entitled to the amount of Rs 400 per diem awarded by the High Court. The court also refused to allow filing of a fee certificate at that stage. The appeal was dismissed, with the modification that the first respondent was not entitled to the counsel fee amount awarded by the High Court.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Corrupt Practices - Standard of Proof - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Sections 100 and 123 - Allegations of corrupt practices are quasi-criminal in nature; proof has double consequence of setting aside election and disqualifying candidate for six years - Onus lies on petitioner to prove essential ingredients by credible evidence - Held that charges require strict proof (Paras 1-45). B) Election Law - Corrupt Practice: False Statement - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 123(4) - Publication of false statement in relation to personal character or conduct must be proved to be made by candidate or his election agent or with consent - Allegation that agent said opponent paid bribe of Rs 60,000 to withdraw; witnesses not present at meeting and consent not established - Held that corrupt practice not proved (Paras 1-45). C) Election Law - Corrupt Practice: Appeal on Grounds of Caste/Community - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 123(3) - Printing, publishing, distributing pamphlets with communal appeal - Pamphlets Ex.42 and Ex.43 contained communal appeal to Kunbi and Teli voters, but evidence did not prove they were printed, published or distributed by or on behalf of returned candidate or with consent - Held that High Court's finding was sustainable (Paras 1-45). D) Election Law - Corrupt Practice: Expenditure in Excess of Prescribed Limit - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 123(6) read with Section 77 - Incurring or authorizing expenditure in contravention of Section 77 - Unaccounted amount Rs 1,938.50 added; total expenditure including all challenged items came to Rs 11,154, within limit of Rs 12,000 - Held that corrupt practice under Section 123(6) not established (Paras 1-45). E) Election Law - Interpretation of Costs Incurred - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Sections 96 and 119 - Costs incurred means actually spent, not merely claimed - High Court awarded Rs 400 per diem counsel fee without proof of payment - Held that returned candidate not entitled to that amount absent proof of actual payment; cannot file fee certificate later in Supreme Court (Paras 1-45).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the first respondent committed corrupt practices under Section 123(3), 123(4), and 123(6) read with Section 100 and Section 77 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; whether the High Court erred in holding that the charges were not proved; whether the High Court correctly awarded costs for counsel fee without proof of actual payment.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Supreme Court upheld High Court's judgment that all charges of corrupt practices were not proved. However, Supreme Court modified the costs order by holding that first respondent was not entitled to Rs 400 per diem counsel fee awarded by High Court because there was no proof of actual payment of fee; first respondent could not file fee certificate at that stage.
Law Points
- Corrupt practices are quasi-criminal
- onus on petitioner
- expenditure means actually spent
- false statement must be by candidate or with consent
- communal appeal must be proved to be printed/published/distributed by candidate or agent
- election expenses limit Rs 12
- 000
