LAKSHMI RAMAN ACHARYA Vs. CHANDAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was one of the eight contestants from Mat Constituency No. 365 in District Mathura in the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly elections held in 1974. February 24 and 26, 1974 were the dates when poll was taken and the result was declared on February 28, 1974. The first respondent who was sponsored by Bhartiya Kranti Dal, it will be referred to as B. D. hereinafter, was elected securing 33565 votes. The appellant who came next was a nominee of the Congress party; he polled 20731 votes, 12834 votes less than the successful candidate. On April 14, 1974 the appellant presented an election petition in the Allahabad High Court calling in question the election of the first respondent alleging that he was guilty of adopting corrupt practice within the meaning of sub-sections (2), (3) and (3A) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The first respondent in his written statement denied all the allegations. The High Court held that the election petitioner had failed to prove the charge of corrupt practice alleged against the successful candidate and dismissed the election petition. The election petitioner challenges the correctness of the decision in this appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

(2.) Certain principles governing election disputes are now well settled. One such principle is that proceedings arising out of election petitions are quasi-criminal in character and the allegations made in the petition must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Another is that in an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 this Court will not interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court except for very strong and cogent reasons. A third is that it is unsafe in an election case to accept oral evidence at its face value without looking fro assurance from some surer circumstances or unimpeachable documents. (See Rahim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed, (1975) 1 SCR 643 (656) .

(3.) Of the issues framed upon the pleadings of the parties, issues 1, 2, 3 and 4 only are relevant for the purposes of the present appeal. These issues are as follows: