Case Note & Summary
The case arises from an election petition filed by Respondent No.1 (original petitioner) challenging the election of the petitioner (original respondent No.4) as a Councillor from Ward No.9 of Sangli, Miraj and Kupwad City Municipal Corporation in the 2008 elections. The election petition alleged that the petitioner committed the corrupt practice of bribery under Section 123(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 by paying Rs.500 to a voter, Raju Maruti Sarvade (respondent No.6), to induce him to vote for him. The trial court allowed the election petition, declaring the election void and ordering the petitioner to pay Rs.25,000 as compensation for raising a false and vexatious defence. The petitioner challenged this judgment and order before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court examined the evidence, including the testimony of the voter and the petitioner, and found that the trial court's finding of bribery was based on credible evidence and the standard of preponderance of probabilities. The High Court upheld the declaration that the election was void. However, the High Court set aside the direction to pay compensation, as the trial court had not recorded a specific finding that the defence was false and vexatious within the meaning of Section 98 of the Act. The writ petition was partly allowed, with the election being set aside but the compensation order quashed.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Corrupt Practice - Bribery - Section 123(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 - The election petition alleged that the returned candidate paid Rs.500 to a voter to induce him to vote for him. The trial court found the evidence credible and declared the election void. The High Court upheld the finding, holding that the payment of money to a voter constitutes bribery and the standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 6-20) B) Election Law - Vexatious Defence - Compensation - Section 98 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 - The trial court directed the returned candidate to pay Rs.25,000 as compensation for raising a false and vexatious defence. The High Court set aside this direction, holding that the trial court did not record a finding that the defence was false and vexatious within the meaning of Section 98. (Paras 21-24)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the election of the petitioner (original respondent No.4) to the post of Councillor of Sangli, Miraj and Kupwad City Municipal Corporation is void on the ground of corrupt practice of bribery under Section 123(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?
Final Decision
The High Court partly allowed the writ petition. It upheld the trial court's order declaring the election of the petitioner void on the ground of corrupt practice of bribery under Section 123(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. However, it set aside the direction to pay Rs.25,000 as compensation, as the trial court had not recorded a finding that the defence was false and vexatious within the meaning of Section 98 of the Act.
Law Points
- Bribery under Section 123(1) of the Representation of the People Act
- 1951
- Corrupt practice
- Standard of proof in election petitions
- Preponderance of probabilities
- Vexatious defence
- Compensation under Section 98 of the Representation of the People Act
