1978 (9) TMI 181 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the election petition.
2. Allegations of corrupt practices under Section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
3. Proper verification of the election petition.
4. Role and actions of Joseph Thomas, a police officer, in the election campaign.
5. Whether the appellant procured the services of Joseph Thomas for furtherance of election prospects.
6. Costs and reliefs admissible to the parties.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Election Petition:
The High Court found the election petition to be maintainable, and this finding was not challenged except regarding the vagueness of the pleading in paragraph 5. The appellant's counsel argued that the allegations in the petition and affidavit were too vague and intended to fish out materials to fill up the lacuna. However, the Court found that the allegations in paragraph 5 were not vague and did not prejudice the defense.

2. Allegations of Corrupt Practices under Section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951:
The election of the appellant was challenged on the grounds of corrupt practices under various sub-sections of Section 123, but the trial court only found sufficient evidence for the corrupt practice under sub-section (7). The main allegation was that Joseph Thomas, a police officer, attended and addressed a meeting convened at the Bishop's house to exhort the audience to work for the appellant's victory. The Court examined whether Joseph Thomas attended the meeting at the instance of the appellant and whether his speech constituted a corrupt practice.

3. Proper Verification of the Election Petition:
The appellant argued that the election petition was not properly verified as it did not specify which averments were true according to the petitioner's information and which were believed to be true. The Court referred to the requirements under the proviso to Section 83(1) and found that the election petitioner had complied with the law by stating that the statements in the relevant paragraphs were true to his information.

4. Role and Actions of Joseph Thomas, a Police Officer, in the Election Campaign:
The High Court found that Joseph Thomas attended the meeting at the Bishop's house, but there was no sufficient evidence to prove that he went there at the instance of the appellant. Joseph Thomas claimed he visited the Bishop's house to discuss a personal matter regarding his brother's marriage. The Court found that Joseph Thomas's presence and his speech at the meeting did not amount to a corrupt practice as there was no clear evidence that he exhorted the audience to work for the appellant's victory.

5. Whether the Appellant Procured the Services of Joseph Thomas for Furtherance of Election Prospects:
The Court found no direct evidence that the appellant procured the services of Joseph Thomas for his election campaign. The trial court had based its finding on circumstantial evidence, which the Supreme Court found inadequate. The Court emphasized that allegations of corrupt practices must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and mere probabilities were insufficient.

6. Costs and Reliefs Admissible to the Parties:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals with costs, set aside the impugned orders of the High Court, and dismissed the election petition. The Court found that the trial court had committed an error of law by basing its findings on mere probabilities and inadequate circumstantial evidence.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's orders declaring the election void, and dismissed the election petition. The Court held that there was no sufficient evidence to prove that the appellant had committed a corrupt practice under Section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, by procuring the services of Joseph Thomas. The allegations were not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the circumstantial evidence was found inadequate.