Case Note & Summary
The election petition challenged the election of the respondent, the official candidate of the Bharatiya Janata Party, from the Dahisar Assembly Constituency in the 2014 Maharashtra Legislative Assembly elections. The petitioner, the Shiv Sena candidate, secured 38,440 votes, while the respondent polled 77,238 votes and was declared elected. The petition was filed on 3 December 2014 on two grounds: first, that the respondent's nomination was improperly accepted because her affidavit did not disclose sufficient particulars of a pending criminal proceeding; and second, that the seizure of Rs. 50 lakhs in cash from her election vehicle on 9 October 2014 constituted the corrupt practice of bribery under Section 123(1)(A) read with Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The vehicle, registered with the Election Commission as her official campaign vehicle, was intercepted by the Static Surveillance Team at the Sudhir Phadke Flyover, Dahisar. It was driven by her driver and also occupied by her personal assistant and BJP ward general secretary. The cash was in denominations of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1,000. The vehicle was taken to the Returning Officer and then to the Borivali Police Station, where its keys went missing and the cash remained uncounted overnight. Next morning, the vehicle was opened and the cash counted. The BJP treasurer produced a certificate dated 9 October 2014 that the amount was withdrawn from the party's bank account for election expenses. The police filed a non-cognizable complaint, and the seized cash was later returned by a magistrate to the party treasurer. The respondent disassociated herself from the cash, stating it was party funds and the vehicle was used by her assistant at his request. The court framed issues on maintainability, improper acceptance of nomination, and corrupt practice. Preliminary objections on limitation, illegible annexures, and defective form were decided against the respondent. After trial, the court found that the nomination was not improperly accepted, as the petitioner conceded in cross-examination that the affidavit was sufficient. On the bribery allegation, the court held that mere presence of cash in the candidate's vehicle without any evidence of offer or distribution to electors did not amount to bribery. The cash belonged to the political party and was intended for election campaigns. The petitioner failed to prove the corrupt practice beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the election petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Electoral Law - Corrupt Practice - Bribery - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Sections 100(1)(b), 123(1)(A) - The petitioner alleged that seizure of Rs. 50 lakhs in cash from the respondent's election vehicle constituted bribery. The court found that there was no evidence of any offer, promise, or distribution of gratification to any elector, and the cash was party funds intended for election rallies. Held, the corrupt practice of bribery is not proved. (Paras 5-8, 14) B) Electoral Law - Nomination - Improper Acceptance - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 100(1)(d)(i) - The petitioner challenged the acceptance of nomination on ground that the affidavit lacked sufficient particulars of a criminal proceeding. The court noted that during cross-examination, the petitioner admitted that he understood the reference, thereby conceding sufficiency. Held, the allegation fails. (Paras 2-3, 14) C) Civil Procedure - Preliminary Objections - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VII Rule 11 - The respondent raised objections regarding illegible annexure, defective form, and limitation. The court rejected all three preliminary objections and held against the respondent. (Paras 14, 17)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the seizure of Rs. 50 lakhs in cash in the respondent's election vehicle constitutes corrupt electoral practice of bribery under Section 123(1)(A) read with Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Final Decision
The Election Petition was dismissed. All issues found against the petitioner: the nomination was properly accepted and no corrupt practice of bribery was proved.
Law Points
- Corrupt practice of bribery under Section 123(1)(A) requires proof of offer or promise of gratification to induce voting
- Mere possession of cash in candidate's vehicle without evidence of offer or distribution does not constitute bribery
- Burden of proof for corrupt practice is akin to criminal charge and must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Candidate not vicariously liable for acts of party workers without consent or knowledge
- Pleadings must contain material facts and full particulars of corrupt practice
