9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of corrupt practice of bribery and undue influence. 2. Allegations of defamatory statements affecting personal character and conduct. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Allegations of Corrupt Practice of Bribery and Undue Influence Raigar Colony (Paragraph 9 of the Amended Petition) - Allegation: The appellant alleged that the respondent, his agents, and others promised the voters of Raigar Colony that they would get Pattas issued at a nominal rate of Rs. 1/- in exchange for votes. - High Court Finding: The High Court held that it had not been proved that the respondent made such a bargain. The order dated 5 February 1967 was part of a long-standing policy dating back to 1959 and 1962, and not an election inducement. - Supreme Court Analysis: The Supreme Court found that the evidence did not support the appellant's claims. The oral evidence was deemed unreliable, and the documentary evidence showed that the issuance of Pattas was in line with pre-existing government policies and not related to the election. Tekri Road Construction (Paragraph 8 of the Amended Petition) - Allegation: The appellant alleged that the respondent ordered the Public Works Department to construct a road at Tekri and promised the voters that he would arrange for the construction in exchange for votes. - High Court Finding: The High Court found no evidence of a bargain for votes and held that the construction was part of a long-standing grievance and regular administrative activity. - Supreme Court Analysis: The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court, noting that the road construction was planned well before the election and was part of regular administrative duties. The evidence did not support the claim of an election bargain. Baluchistan Colony Nallah (Paragraph 8 of the Amended Petition) - Allegation: The appellant alleged that the respondent promised to cover the Nallah in Baluchistan Colony in exchange for votes. - High Court Finding: The High Court found that the project was initiated due to long-standing public health concerns and not as an election inducement. - Supreme Court Analysis: The Supreme Court confirmed that the project was part of regular administrative duties and was not connected to the election. The evidence showed that the work was urgent and necessary, and the timing was coincidental. Installation of Water-Taps (Paragraph 11 of the Amended Petition) - Allegation: The appellant alleged that the respondent used his influence to get 50 public water-taps installed just before the election. - High Court Finding: The High Court found no evidence that the respondent used his influence to get the water-taps installed for electoral gain. - Supreme Court Analysis: The Supreme Court found no reason to disagree with the High Court's conclusion, noting that the documentary evidence did not support the appellant's allegations. Issue 2: Allegations of Defamatory Statements Affecting Personal Character and Conduct (Ex. 8 Leaflet) - Allegation: The appellant alleged that a leaflet (Ex. 8) falsely accused him of encroaching on government land, affecting his personal character and conduct. - High Court Finding: The High Court found that the statement was false but held that it was not reasonably calculated to prejudice the appellant's election prospects and that the respondent did not consent to its printing or distribution. - Supreme Court Analysis: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings, noting that the evidence did not show that the respondent or his agent had knowledge or consented to the leaflet's printing or distribution. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the High Court that the allegations of corrupt practices and defamatory statements were not substantiated by the evidence. The Court emphasized that the appellant failed to prove that the respondent engaged in any corrupt practices as defined under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The appeal was dismissed, and each party was ordered to bear their own costs.
|
