2014 (9) TMI 1007 - SC - Indian Laws

Set aside of election - High Court dismissed the election petition holding that corrupt practices pleaded in the petition are not proved and, hence, the election cannot be set aside under Section 100(1)(b) of the RP Act - Held that - On the evidence available on record, it is not possible to infer consent on the part of the first respondent in the matter of printing and publication of Exhibit-P1-leaflet. There is also no evidence that the distribution of Exhibit-P1 was with the consent of first respondent. The allegation in the election petition that bundles of Exhibit-P1 were kept in the house of the first respondent is not even attempted to be proved. The only connecting link is of the two jeeps which were used by the UDF workers and not exclusively by the first respondent. It is significant to note that there is no case for the appellant that any corrupt practice has been committed in the interest of the returned candidate by an agent other than his election agent, as per the ground under Section 100(1)(d)(ii) of the RP Act. The definite case is only of Section 100(1)(b) of the RP Act.On the evidence available on record, it is unsafe if not difficult to connect the first respondent with the distribution of Exhibit-P1, even assuming that the allegation on distribution of Exhibit-P1 at various places is true. Having regard to the admissible evidence available on record, though for different reasons, we find it extremely difficult to hold that the appellant has founded and proved corrupt practice under Section 100(1)(b) read with Section 123(4) of the RP Act against the first respondent. In the result, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility and proof of electronic records.
2. Allegations of corrupt practices under Section 123(4) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951.
3. Publication and distribution of defamatory leaflets.
4. Consent and knowledge of the candidate regarding the corrupt practices.
5. Standard of proof required for establishing corrupt practices.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility and Proof of Electronic Records:
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory requirements for the admissibility of electronic records under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. It was noted that electronic records must be accompanied by a certificate that meets specific conditions outlined in Section 65B(4). The court underscored that electronic records are susceptible to tampering and thus require stringent safeguards to ensure their authenticity. The appellant failed to produce the necessary certificates for the CDs presented as evidence, rendering them inadmissible.

2. Allegations of Corrupt Practices under Section 123(4) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951:
The appellant alleged that the respondent engaged in corrupt practices by publishing defamatory statements in leaflets. The court examined whether the publication and distribution of the leaflets were done with the consent of the respondent. The court reiterated that for a statement to constitute a corrupt practice under Section 123(4), it must be false, made with the knowledge of its falsity, and reasonably calculated to prejudice the election prospects of a candidate.

3. Publication and Distribution of Defamatory Leaflets:
The appellant claimed that 25,000 copies of a leaflet (Exhibit-P1) containing false statements were printed and distributed with the respondent's consent. However, the court found inconsistencies in the evidence regarding the number of copies printed and the individuals involved in the printing and distribution. The court noted that only 1,000 copies were printed, and key witnesses who could corroborate the appellant's claims were not examined.

4. Consent and Knowledge of the Candidate Regarding the Corrupt Practices:
The court distinguished between 'consent' and 'connivance,' stating that mere knowledge of the publication does not imply consent. The appellant failed to provide credible evidence to establish that the respondent consented to the printing and distribution of the defamatory leaflets. The court highlighted that the allegations in the election petition were not supported by a complete chain of circumstances leading to a reasonable conclusion of consent by the respondent.

5. Standard of Proof Required for Establishing Corrupt Practices:
The court reiterated that allegations of corrupt practices are akin to criminal charges and must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence presented by the appellant did not meet this high standard. The court found that there was no reliable evidence to prove that the respondent consented to the publication of the defamatory leaflets or that the distribution was done with his consent. Consequently, the court held that the appellant failed to establish the corrupt practices alleged.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant did not provide sufficient admissible evidence to prove the allegations of corrupt practices under Section 123(4) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951. The court emphasized the necessity of complying with the statutory requirements for the admissibility of electronic records and the high standard of proof required for establishing corrupt practices in election petitions.