Holding

The Supreme Court held that Tej Singh's circulation of misleading posters was a corrupt practice under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and that it materially altered the election result.

Summary

Avtar Singh Brar challenged the election of Tej Singh to the Punjab Legislative Assembly, alleging that Tej Singh had engaged in a corrupt practice by circulating posters that falsely claimed candidate Ruplal had withdrawn and that votes for Tej Singh would count as votes for Ruplal. Evidence, including printing vouchers and witness testimony, showed the posters were printed at Tej Singh's instance and not by Ruplal. The Supreme Court held that this misrepresentation was a corrupt practice under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and that, given the narrow margin of 123 votes, it likely altered the election result. Consequently, the Court found Tej Singh guilty of corrupt practice beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed, the High Court judgment was set aside, and Tej Singh's election was declared void.

Issues considered

Whether the circulation of misleading posters by Tej Singh constitutes a corrupt practice under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Whether the alleged corrupt practice materially affected the result of the election.

Legislation cited

Representation of the People Act, 1951s. 123(2)

Subjects

election lawcorrupt practiceRepresentation of the People Actmisrepresentationelection petitionmargin of votesset aside election

Judgment

415 A
AVTAR SINGH BRAR
v.
TAJ SINGH & OTHERS
January I 6, I 984 8
[S. MuRTAZA FAZAL Au, A. VARADARAJAN AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.J
,

~··
Representation of the People Act, 1951-S.123(2)-Corrupt practice-Scope of

The first respondent, Tej Singh; won in legislative assembly election defeating
the appellant by 123 votes and also 3 other candidates including Ruplal. The
appeIIant challenged the election of Tej Singh on the ground that he was guilty of
c
committing corrupt practices. The 1nain corrupt practice said to have been indJ;lged
in by Tej Singh was that he had got circulated pan1phlets and posters arµong the
voters of the constituency Wherein he had mentioned that Ruplal had withdrawn
his candidature and any vote given to him (Tej Singh) would be deemed to be a vote
for Ruplal, and the said posters were Printed not by Ruplal but at the instance of
Tej Singh.
D
Allowing the appeal,
I-lELD ; The effect of the posters was to mislead the voters so as to make
them beliC've that one of the candidates, Viz., Ruplal, had withdrawn and any vote
given to Tej Singh would be considered as a vote given to Ruplal. Tn other w0rds,
the effect of the posters .was that v.11 the voters who would have voted for Ruplal
would now cast their votes in favour ofTej Singh. As the margin of votes between E
the defeated and the returned CalldidateS was very small, viz., 12·3 votes, if such a
misrepresentation was not made, in .all probability the votes \vould have gone to the
appellant (Avtar Singh) and, therefore, the result of the election would have been
\ii. materia11y altered. On a perusal Of the evidence-both oral and documentary-
'<"\ . adduced by the parties and in the circumstances of the case, the irresistible inference
and inescapable conclusion that can be arrived at is that Tej Singh had actually
paid for the posters which were printed at his instance and Ruplal was not connected
with ·the printing of the posters. In these circumstances the appellant has proved
F
beyond reasonable ·doubt that Tej Singh. had indulged in corrupt practices parti-
cualrly when the printing of the posters by Tej Singh has been clearly admitted
by him. [417 D-E; G; 418 BJ • .

Cl.VIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal (NCE) No. 735of1982.
G
From the Judgment and Order dated the 22nd April, 1981 of
the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Election Petition No, 6 of 1980.

K.L. Sharma, A..S, Sohal and MC Dhingra for the Appellant.
H
M. Veerappa and A.shok Kumar Sharma for Respondent No. I.
416 . ,- SUPREME COURT RJ!PORTS [1984] 2 s.c.R.

A A..S. Pundz'r for Respondent No. 2.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by )
FAZAL Au, J. This election appeal arises out of an election
to the Baghapurana Constituency {District Faridkot) to the Punjab
B Legislative Assembly. The polling took place on May 31, 1980
and the counting was done on June 1, 1980. Tej Singh, respondent,
secured 25694 votes whereas Avtar Singh (appellant) secured 25571
votes. There were three other candidates also in the field, viz.,
(l).Sathi Ruplal, (2) Bhogat Puran Singh, and (3) Jagdish Chander.
RChupladl securedd 1347 vdotes while Bhagat . Puran Singh and Jhagdihsh
4
..- ..
c an er secure 140 an 2856 votes· respec11ve1y. 1t appears t at t e
margin between the votes secured by Tej Singh (respondent) and
Avtar Singh (appellant) was only 123.

Avtar Singh filed an elecfon petition in the Punjab & Haryana
High Court against Tej Singh alleging that he was guilty of committing
D corrupt practices, detaile~. in the petition and in the Statement of facts:
Ruplal supported the appellant but Bhagat Puran Singh and Jagdish
did not put in any appearance despite service and, therefore, the
proceedings were taken ex parte against them. Tej Singh denied
having indulged in any corrupt practice as alleged by Avtar Singh.

E It is not necessary for us to go into further details because, in
our opinion, the appeal must succeed on a short point. The main ~
corrupt practice said to have been indulged in Tej Singh was that he
had got circulated paophlets and posters among the voters of the J
constituency wherein he had mentioned that Ruplal had withdrawn ;'r"
his candidature and any vote given to him (Tej Singh) would be deemed
F to be a vote for Ruplal, and the said posters were printed not by Ruplal
but at the .instance of Te~ Singh. ·

On a perusal of the evidence-both oral and documentary-
adduced by the parties, we are clearly of the opinion that the allega- ·
tions of corrupt practices indulged in by Tej Singh have been clearly
G proved. The posters said to have been printed and circulated are
Annexures P-1 and P-2 which appear at page 42 of the second paper
book and it may be necessary to extract certainportions thereof-

"Keeping in view the present conditions in the country
H it is imperative to defeat the dictatorial Congre;'!; in these elec-
tiens.
AVTAR SINGH v. TAJ SINGH (Fazal Ali, J.) 417

Therefore, I fervently appeal to all the voters ofBagha- · A
purana Constituency to vote and elect Shri Tej Singh, the joint
front candidate of the Akali Dal, because Shri Tej Singh is
the only candidate who can defeat the Congress ...... In
. the end I submit that every vote cast in favour of S. Tej Singh
will be deemed to have been cast in my favour."
B
According to PW 4 (Roshanlal) in whose press the posters were
printed, the order for the printing was placed by Darshan Singh and

~y
Mukhtiar Singh. The witness goes on to state that a few days before
Tej Singh had come to his printing press and informed him that he
(Tej. Singh) would be sending some work for printing. Soon there-
c
-
after the witness was approached by Darshan Singh and Mukhtiar
> \
Singh. Roshan Lal also. admitted that Tej s;ngh was known to him.
The witness further proved Ex, P-5 and P-6 (vouchers) which were
issued by his press and signed by him; and he stated that the payment
was made to him by Darshan Singh and Mukhtiar Singh.

The effect of the posters>was to mislead the vo.ters so as to mlke .D
them believe that one of the candidates, viz., Ruplal, had withdrawn
and any vote given to Tej Singh would be considered as a vote given
to Ruplal. In other words, the effect of the posters was that all the
voters who would have voted for Rnplal would now cast their votes'
in favour of Tej Singh. As the margin of votes between the deteated
and the returned candidates was very small, viz. 123 votes, if such a E

. misrepresentation was not made, in all probability the votes would
have gone to the appellant (Avtar Singh) and, therefore, the J:esult
,

of the election would have been materially altered. We find a· good
deal of substance in the argument of the appellant. Tej Singh (R.W.
28) has not disputed that the payment of the vouchers (Ex. P-5 and
P-6) was made by him and the vouchers were appended by him along F
with the return of expenses incurred during his election campaign,
which was verified by him to be a true and correct statement.•

In these circumstances, therefore, the irresistible inference and
• inescapable concll.'sion that can be arrived at is that Tej Singh had
actually paid for the posters which were printed at his instance and G
Rup Lal was not connected with the printing of the posters. Tej
Singh further admitted that Bhum Raj was incharge of his eleciion
office at Moga and that Exs,P-5 and P-6 were taken by him from Bhum
Raj. He further admits that whatever expenses were incurred by
i.lhum Raj were incurred on his be)lalf. In other words, T~j Singh H
f~Jsely tepresented to the. voters that the posters were circulated by
•
418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 2 s.c.R.

A Ruplal whereas the same was done by or with the consent of Tej Singh.
Therefore, it is clear that Ex-P-1 and P-2 which contained the appeal
purporting to be ·of Ruplal were in fact printed at the instance of Tej
Singh and Ruplal had no conn~ction with the same.

In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the appellant has
B proved beyond reasonable doubt that Tej Singh had indulged in
corrupt practices particularly when the printing of the posters by Tcj
Singh has been clearly admitted by him, as indicated above. It is
also clear to us that in view of the very narrow margin of votes (123)
between Tej Singh and Avtar Singh, a strong presumption and possi-
bility that the votes polled in favour of Rup Lal would have gone to
c Avtar Singh cannot be ruled out and that would have doubtless male-
. rially altered the result of the election. Leaving aside other grounds
taken by the appetlant which were in fact not pressed before· us, the
appellant is entitled to succeed on the ground of corrupt practices
(referred to above) as contemplated by S. 123(2) of the Act having
been adopted by the first respondent JTej Singh) which have been
D fully proved.

The result is that the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the High
Court is quashed and the election of the first respondent (Tej Singh)
is set aside. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs. •
•
)
H.S.K. Appea! allowed. •

•

)