9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Allegation of corrupt practice under Section 123(1)(a)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 2. Allegation of incurring or authorizing expenditure in contravention of Section 77 of the Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Allegation of Corrupt Practice under Section 123(1)(a)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 The appellant was accused of committing a corrupt practice by allegedly paying Rs. 501 to the Sarpanch of Moti Abdoli to influence voters. The High Court found the appellant guilty based on oral and documentary evidence, including the testimony of P.W. 9 and P.W. 10, and documents Exts. 31 and 32. However, the Supreme Court found several infirmities in the High Court's judgment: - Vagueness and Indefiniteness: The election petition was vague, mentioning different dates (4.6.1975 and 5.6.1975) and amounts (Rs. 500 and Rs. 501). The petitioner was unsure who paid the amount, and the supporting affidavit was inadequate. - Credibility of Evidence: The Supreme Court found the evidence of P.W. 9 and P.W. 10 unreliable. P.W. 9 admitted that the Rs. 501 was handed back to the Sarpanch on the same day but deposited in the bank 22 days later, raising suspicions. The Rojmel entry (Ext. 31) was also found unreliable and possibly ante-dated. - Documentary Evidence: The carbon copy of the receipt (Ext. 32) was not signed by the appellant, and the original receipt was allegedly sent by post without producing the certificate of posting. The endorsement on the Petrol Voucher No. 7/1(12) was also disputed and unproved. - Witness Testimony: None of the 15 persons present during the alleged payment were examined to corroborate the claim. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's finding of corrupt practice was erroneous and not proved beyond doubt, thus overturning the High Court's judgment on this point. 2. Allegation of Incurring or Authorizing Expenditure in Contravention of Section 77 of the Act The respondent alleged that the appellant incurred an excess expenditure of Rs. 15 over the permissible limit by paying Rs. 2,100 for hiring a taxi, while the appellant claimed it was only Rs. 300. The High Court found: - Ownership and Charges: Rahimbhai was the owner of the taxi, and the charges were Rs. 150 per day. However, the evidence of Rahimbhai claiming Rs. 2,100 was unreliable and not proved beyond doubt. - Supreme Court's Analysis: The Supreme Court found no justification to upset the High Court's finding that the appellant's story of engaging the taxi for three days at Rs. 100 per day was correct. Rahimbhai's claim of receiving Rs. 2,100 was unsupported by any documentary evidence or witness testimony. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that the appellant did not incur excess expenditure. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment against the appellant. The election petition filed by the respondent was dismissed. The appellant was awarded costs in both the Supreme Court and the High Court.
|
