KISHORESINGH Vs. BHANWARLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the general elections of 1962, Mohansingh had been returned to the Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha from Sitamau Assembly Constituency. That election was invalidated on an election petition (hereinafter called the former election petition) filed by Bhanwarlal Nahta. INconsequence thereof, in January 1963, bye-election took place in which Kishoresingh was returned. Bhanwarlal Nahta, who had contested the bye-election, again filed an election petition, allowing which the bye-elect ion has been declared void on the ground of corrupt practices having been committed by Kishore Singh himself, by his election agent and also, with their consent, by his agents. The Election Tribunal, Ratlam, by its order, dated 7-12-1964, has declared the election of the returned candidate void. Kishoresingh (hereinafter called the appellant) has preferred this appeal under section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (hereinafter called the Act). Bhanwarlal Nahta (hereinafter called the petitioner) has also filed an appeal from that order (It is First Appeal No/13 of 1905). Narayansingh and Suryapalsingh, being the other candidates at the election, are pro forma respondents. Both the appeals are being disposed of together.

(2.) OUT of a number of corrupt practices, alleged to have been committed by the appellant and his agents, it has been found that the following nine statements of facts in relation to the personal character or conduct of the petitioner were published by the appellant and his agents and those statements were made with a view to prejudicially affect the election prospects of the petitioner. Those statements may conveniently be divided into two categories:

(3.) WHILE dealing with an election petition, it has always to be borne in mind that, as a sound principle of natural justice, the success of a candidate who has won at an election must not be lightly interfered with. But, at the same time, one of the essentials of the election law is "to safeguard the purity of the election process and to see that people do not get elected by flagrant breaches of that law or by corrupt practices." [see: Jagannathv. Jaswantsingh and others(9 ELB 231)]. Any attempt to procure success by unfair and foul means must be ruthlessly suppressed. Corrupt practices employed must be sternly put down and suitably dealt with by enforcing the law of elections. However, although an election petition is to be tried in accordance with the procedure applicable to civil suits, the standard of proof for making out a corrupt practice is that as required in criminal cases. The rule applicable is not that of prepondrance of probability but it is the rule of beyond reasonable doubt which is applicable to prove corrupt practices. There should be no reasonable doubt, the benefit of doubt will go to the returned candidate against whom the charge of corrupt practice is made. In Hornal v. Neuberger Products Ltd.(1957 1 QBD 262) four main groups of cases are catalogued, where the rule of a higher standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" is applicable. They are: