Case Note & Summary
This appeal arose from an election petition challenging the election of the respondent to the Gujarat State Legislative Assembly in February 1967. The appellant, an unsuccessful candidate, alleged that the respondent had committed the corrupt practice of free conveyance under Section 123(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, by hiring or procuring a car and using it to provide free transport to three lady voters on polling day. The appellant also sought a general recount of votes, claiming the High Court had wrongly disallowed it. The High Court dismissed the election petition, finding the ingredients of Section 123(5) not proved. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the three essential elements of the corrupt practice were established: (i) hiring or procuring a vehicle, (ii) by the candidate or his agent, and (iii) for the free conveyance of an elector. While there was evidence that a vehicle was procured and used to transport the three ladies, no evidence was adduced to show that the conveyance was free of charge. The appellant could have examined the car owner, driver, or the ladies themselves, but failed to do so. The Court held that mere inference of free conveyance was insufficient, and the burden of proving all ingredients lay on the petitioner. Regarding the recount prayer, the Court noted that no specific pleadings or material had been placed on record to warrant a recount, and therefore the High Court’s refusal was correct. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s dismissal of the election petition. The decision underscores that election petitions alleging corrupt practice require strict proof of every statutory ingredient, and prayers for recount cannot be entertained without a proper evidentiary foundation.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Corrupt Practice - Free Conveyance - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 123(5) - The section requires proof of three ingredients: (i) hiring or procuring a vehicle, (ii) by a candidate or his agent, and (iii) for the free conveyance of an elector. The appellant alleged that the respondent procured a car and used it to convey three lady voters to the polling booth free of charge. While procurement and use of the vehicle were proved, the crucial element of free conveyance was not established as the appellant failed to examine the car owner, driver, or the ladies to show gratuitous transport. Held that the burden of proving all ingredients lies on the election petitioner, and the High Court's dismissal was appropriate (Paras Not mentioned). B) Election Procedure - Recount - Requirement of Pleadings - Representation of the People Act, 1951 - A general recount cannot be granted without specific pleadings and supportive evidence. The appellant sought a recount without laying any foundation in the pleadings, and the High Court rightly declined it. Held that recount is an extraordinary remedy requiring strict proof of irregularities (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the ingredients of the corrupt practice of free conveyance under Section 123(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 were established; and whether a general recount could be ordered in the absence of specific pleadings.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; High Court's dismissal of election petition upheld; no recount ordered. The Court held that the appellant failed to prove the essential ingredient of free conveyance and that the prayer for recount lacked foundation.
Law Points
- Corrupt practice under Section 123(5) of the Representation of the People Act
- 1951 requires proof of three ingredients: (i) hiring or procuring of a vehicle
- (ii) by a candidate or his agent
- (iii) for the free conveyance of an elector. The burden of proving that conveyance was free lies on the election petitioner. Merely proving procurement and use of a vehicle is insufficient
- actual gratuitousness must be established. A prayer for general recount cannot be granted without specific pleadings and supporting evidence.
