Case Note & Summary
The present appeal arose out of an election petition filed by the appellant, Om Prakash, challenging the election of Lalchand (respondent No. 1) from the Ellenabad Assembly Constituency in Hissar District, Haryana, in the mid-term election held in May 1968. The appellant secured 15,485 votes while the respondent secured 20,816 votes. The appellant alleged three corrupt practices: first, that the respondent published a poster (Exhibit P.W. 1/1) containing false statements about the appellant’s personal character and conduct, thereby violating Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; second, that the religious head of the Namdhari sect issued a farman and appeal to vote for the respondent, attracting Section 123(2); and third, that the respondent committed bribery by giving Rs. 20,000 to another candidate, Prithvi Raj, to contest the election, under Section 123(1). The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the election petition, leading to the present appeal. On the second and third grounds, the Supreme Court found the evidence wholly unsatisfactory. The allegations regarding the farman and religious appeal rested solely on the oral testimony of two witnesses, one of whom was a former political rival of the appellant’s father and had supported the respondent in earlier elections. The other witness’s credibility was undercut by his own statement that he came to speak truth because he was summoned. The court held it unsafe to rely on such uncorroborated testimony. The bribery charge also lacked documentary proof; the oral evidence of three Kumhar community members was deemed insufficient to establish that the respondent or anyone with his consent gave money to induce Prithvi Raj to stand as a candidate. Consequently, these grounds were rejected. The main contention centered on the poster. The evidence showed that respondent No. 1, accompanied by two witnesses (Jai Gopal Verma and Muni Lal Azad), went to Kwality Art Printers and got 10,000 copies of the poster printed. The manuscript of the poster (Exhibit P.W. 34/2) bore the respondent’s signature, which was proved through the testimony of the printer’s manager (P.W. 35) and the two accompanying witnesses. The poster contained statements alleging that the appellant was involved in smuggling and described him as an obnoxious person. The Supreme Court, after analyzing the evidence, held that these allegations were in relation to the personal character and conduct of the appellant. Since the respondent failed to prove the truth of these statements and they were evidently false, the publication satisfied the ingredients of Section 123(4): it was a false statement of fact, published by the candidate or his agent, concerning the personal character and conduct of the appellant, and was reasonably calculated to prejudice the appellant’s electoral prospects. The court observed that with 10,000 copies printed, the publication was widespread. The court also addressed an evidentiary issue regarding the proof of the respondent’s signature on the manuscript. It reiterated the principle that expert evidence on handwriting is seldom conclusive because experts frequently disagree, and it is for the court to decide based on the totality of evidence. Here, the surrounding circumstances and direct testimony sufficiently proved the signature. In the result, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and declared the election of respondent No. 1 void on the ground of corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Act. The appeal succeeded only on this point.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Corrupt Practices - Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Allegations of smuggling and being an obnoxious person held to be statements relating to personal character and conduct - The evidence established that respondent No. 1 published a poster stating that the appellant was indulging in smuggling and was an obnoxious person; these were false statements calculated to prejudice the appellant's election prospects. Held, that such statements amount to corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Act. (Paras 892 H-893 B) B) Evidence - Expert Opinion - Section 45, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Evaluation of disputed handwriting - The Court noted that experts seldom agree on disputed signatures, and it is for the court to form its own conclusion after considering the entire evidence. The manuscript of the poster was proved by other witnesses, including identification of respondent No. 1 and his signatures. (Paras 891 G-H)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the publication of a poster containing false allegations that the appellant candidate was indulging in smuggling and was an obnoxious person constitutes a corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside. The election of respondent No.1 Lalchand from Ellenabad Assembly Constituency is declared void on the ground that he committed corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 by publishing a false and defamatory poster against the appellant. The other two grounds are rejected.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- False statement as to personal character and conduct of candidate in election poster constitutes corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act
- 1951
- Expert evidence on disputed signatures is rare to be conclusive and court must form its own conclusion from entire evidence
