9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the election of Mr. R. K. Birla to the Lok Sabha. 2. Allegations of corrupt practices under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 3. Examination of evidence regarding election expenses and their compliance with Section 77 of the Act. 4. Procedural fairness in the trial court's handling of the petitioner's case. 5. Interpretation and application of election laws concerning expenditure and corrupt practices. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Election: The primary issue raised was the validity of the election of Mr. R. K. Birla to the Lok Sabha from the Jhunjhunu constituency in the 1967 General Election. The appellant, a voter and supporter of Mr. Morarka, challenged the election under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, alleging corrupt practices by Mr. Birla. 2. Allegations of Corrupt Practices: The appellant alleged that Mr. Birla committed corrupt practices under Section 123 of the Act, specifically: - Section 123(1) (Bribery): No specific evidence or argument was presented regarding bribery. - Section 123(4) (False Statements): Not pressed during the trial. - Section 123(5) (Hiring Vehicles): Alleged but not proven with concrete evidence. - Section 123(6) (Exceeding Election Expenses): The main focus of the appeal was on this allegation. 3. Examination of Evidence Regarding Election Expenses: - Section 77 Compliance: The appellant claimed that Mr. Birla incurred or authorized election expenses exceeding the Rs. 25,000 limit prescribed for the constituency. Mr. Birla's return showed an expenditure of Rs. 16,380.96. - Specific Allegations: - Petrol and Mobil Oil: Alleged expenditure of about Rs. 6 lakhs, but evidence was only led for Rs. 12,700. The trial court found the witnesses unreliable and the evidence insufficient. - Printing and Wall Painting: Alleged expenditure of Rs. 2 lakhs for posters, pamphlets, etc. No reliable evidence was presented to prove payments to the firms involved. - Vehicles: Allegations of using 200 jeeps and cars with an expenditure of Rs. 6 lakhs were not substantiated with credible evidence. - Miscellaneous Expenses: Allegations of large-scale expenditure on meetings, messes, and telephone charges were not supported by reliable evidence. 4. Procedural Fairness: - The appellant initially claimed procedural unfairness in the trial court's handling of his case, including the rejection of witness examination applications. However, during the appeal, the appellant chose not to press this issue, focusing instead on the evidence on record. 5. Interpretation and Application of Election Laws: - Burden of Proof: The court reiterated that the burden of proving corrupt practices lies on the petitioner, and such allegations must be established beyond reasonable doubt. - Expenditure by Third Parties: The court emphasized that expenses incurred by friends, supporters, or political parties without the candidate's consent or authority do not count towards the candidate's election expenses under Section 77. - Voluntary Contributions: The court noted that voluntary contributions by friends and supporters do not constitute corrupt practices unless proven to be authorized by the candidate. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the appellant failed to prove that Mr. Birla incurred or authorized election expenses beyond the prescribed limit. The court expressed concern over the ineffectiveness of Section 123(6) in controlling election expenses and suggested that legislative action is needed to address this issue. The appeal was dismissed without awarding costs to the respondent, acknowledging the trial court's dissatisfaction with the compulsion to award costs under Section 119 of the Act.
|
