2009 (9) TMI 1051 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
2. Corrupt practice under Section 123(5) of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
3. Validity of the election of the appellant.
4. Declaration of the election petitioner as duly elected.
5. Entitlement of the election petitioner to the cost of the election petition.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Corrupt Practice under Section 123(3):
The High Court found that the appellant committed corrupt practice under Section 123(3) by printing and distributing a notice (Ext.P1) and a photo calendar (Ext.P2) appealing to voters on religious grounds. The notice, purportedly authored by John K., contained an appeal to the Christian community, particularly Catholics, to vote for the appellant, highlighting his services to the community and his association with religious figures. Witnesses testified that these materials were distributed among voters by the appellant's party workers. The High Court inferred the appellant's consent for this distribution from the involvement of his election agent, James, in the printing and distribution process. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, agreeing that the evidence proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Corrupt Practice under Section 123(5):
The High Court also found that the appellant violated Section 123(5) by hiring vehicles for the free conveyance of electors. Although there was no direct evidence of the appellant's consent, the High Court inferred it from witness testimonies that party workers offered vehicles to voters. The Supreme Court, however, did not find it necessary to examine this issue further, given the findings on the first issue.

3. Validity of the Election of the Appellant:
The High Court declared the appellant's election void under Section 100(1)(b) of the Act due to the proven corrupt practices. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, agreeing with the High Court's assessment of the evidence and the application of the law.

4. Declaration of the Election Petitioner as Duly Elected:
The High Court declared the election petitioner as duly elected under Section 101(b) of the Act, reasoning that but for the corrupt practices, the election petitioner would have won. The Supreme Court did not find any compelling reason to overturn this finding.

5. Entitlement to the Cost of the Election Petition:
The High Court did not award the costs of the election petition to the election petitioner. The Supreme Court upheld this decision as well, making no order as to costs in the appeal.

Additional Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 5777 of 2006):
This appeal was filed by the second respondent in the election petition, who argued that he should have been declared elected instead of the election petitioner. The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal as infructuous, noting that a fresh election had already taken place.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment that the appellant's election was void due to corrupt practices under Section 123(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The election petitioner was rightfully declared elected. The appeal by the second respondent was dismissed as infructuous due to the occurrence of a fresh election.