Holding

The evidence of the petitioner's witnesses is wholly unreliable and does not prove the corrupt practice of bribery, so the appellant is not guilty under Section 123(1).

Summary

In the 1982 Haryana Legislative Assembly election, Brij Mohan was declared elected from Jind constituency, defeating Mange Ram. Mange Ram filed an election petition alleging that Brij Mohan had committed the corrupt practice of bribery under Section 123(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 by giving a donation of Rs. 5,100 for the construction of a temple for backward‑class voters in Kandela village to induce their votes. The single judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court found Brij Mohan guilty of this corrupt practice and set aside his election. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the testimony of five key witnesses (PW‑1, PW‑16, PW‑90, PW‑91, PW‑92) and found their evidence to be inconsistent, unreliable and contradictory to the allegations in the petition. Consequently, the Court held that the evidence did not establish the alleged bribery, set aside the lower court’s finding, and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the alleged donation of Rs. 5,100 for a temple constitutes bribery under Section 123(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Whether the evidence adduced by the petitioners is reliable and sufficient to prove the corrupt practice.

Legislation cited

Representation of the People Act, 1951s. 123(1)

Subjects

election petitioncorrupt practicebriberyRepresentation of the People Actevidence reliabilityelection lawHaryana Legislative Assembly

Judgment

312

BRIJ MOHAN

v•
..B
MANGE RAM & ORS.

March 13, 1985

c (S. M.URTAZA f AZAL ALI AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.)

Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951, Section 123 ( 1) -Corrupt
Praclice of bribery-Alleqation of giving donation to a temple after inducing
.voters to cast Yates in hiS favour-Inconsistency between the a/legation in the
election petition and evidence of witnesses - Whether Corrupt Practice is
proved-Held1 "No".
D

Jn the election held on 19.5.1982 to the Haryana Legislative Assembly
from the Jind Constituency, the appellant was declared elected over his nearest
rival respondent NO. 1 with a margin of 146 votes. Respondent No. l chall-
enged the appellant's election inter a/fa, on the ground that the appe1lant
and his father Sita Ram and two others Ram Kishan and Amrit Lal visited _....~
E Kandela village on or about 16.5.1982 and contacted Dalip Singh, Sarpanch of
the village and one Dewan Singh, Secretary of the Backward Classes. There-
after all of them went to the house of one Dharam Singh where backward
class voters including Dewan Singh, Harl Ram, Devi Ram, Fateh Singh and
Mauji Ram had assembled. The voters told the appellant that they intended
to cast their votes in favour of Congress (I) candidate as they had always been
in favour of the Congress (I) party. Then the appeUant had 8. talk with the
F Sarpanch Dalip Singh and one Dharam Singh and subsequently stated, for --X"
inducing the voters to cast their vote in his favour, that he is prepared to give '-
a donation of Rs. 5100 as he had been told that they needed some money for •
their mandir. Accordingly he gave a sum of Rs. 5100 to the Sarpanch Dalip
Singh who passed it on to· Dh~ram Singh and Dewan Singh. The voters
thereafter assured the appellant that they would vote for him and ensure that
every vote belonging to their class will go in his favour. Thus, the appellant
G was alleged to have commited the corrupt practice of bribery as defined i.Q
Section 123(1) of the Reprefentation of People Act, 1951. The appeJlant had.
denied that he had gone to Kandcla village on 16.5.1982 either alone or in the.
company of Sita Ram and others. He also denied that he had contacted the
s"arpanch Dalip Singh and others and· gave Rs. 5100 as alleged in the electio~
petiton and that the voters of Kandela village held out any promise for .casting
their votes in his favour. The High Court held that the appellant had com;
fl milt~~ th; >Qrrupt practi" of ~ri~e'l' l'.ll\l ''I ~si\le t!ie election ~~ ve\4,
BRU MOHAN v. MANGE RAM 313

Allowing the appeal by the appellant, A
HELD : 1. As regards the corrupt practice of bribery, there is evidenct
only of P.Ws. 1, 16, 90, 91 and 92 which is wholly unreliable and does not
prove the corrupt practice of which the appellant has been found guilty by the
Learned Single Judge. [320B] · ·

2(i) The first respondent P.W. 1 has stated in his cross-examination B
·that the bribe money was paid by the appeJlal)t on 15.5.1982. It would appear
from his evidence that he claims to have personal knowledge about the alleged
visit of the appellant and others to Kandela village on 16.5.1982 and about
the alleged payment of Rs. 5100 by the appellant for the construction of a
temple for the backward class people of the village in order to induce the
voters of those classes to cast their votes in his favour. But in his affidavit
verifying the election petition he has stated that the allegations made in para c
9(d) of the election petition regarding this item of corrupt practice are based
upon infonnation received by him from Dewan Singh. Therefore the evidence
of P.W. 1 is wholly unacceptable. [317C-D]

2(ii} The evidence of P.W. 16 that on 15.5.82 the appellant offered to
give a sunie of .Rs. 5100 in the house of Dewan Chand and that it· was given D
by one Madan Lal to Dharam Chand is inconsistent with the a1legatiott in the
election petition that the appellant offered to give Rs. 5100 on 16.5.1982 as
donation ·and gave it himself to the Sarpanch Dalip Singh and he passed it on
to Dharama Singh. Therefore the evidence of P.W. 16 also cannot be
accepted. [317H; 318AJ
2(iii.) The evidence of P.W. 90 is that the people asked for money to
· vote in favour of the appellant and that thereupon he gave Rs. 5100 to
E
Dharma Lobar on 16.5.82 is contrary to the allegat[on in the election petitiori.
,There i.s thus a vital discrepancy between the pleading in the election petition
and the evidence of P.W. 90. Moreover P.W. 90 has stated that he 'does not
know whether any receir>t was r>assed for the amount Wherea,s P.W. 16 has
s.tated,in his evidence that Madan Lal gave Rs. 5100 to the Temple Commit·
tee's President Dharam Singh in his presence on 16.5.1982 and he made p,ft
~--·--·entry-for receipt of that amount in Ex. P.W. 16/2 in the cash-book. Jn th~~O
• ~rc~!llst~nC>S n9 r~li~nc~ c9ul4 \Je place~ QO the eviden~e of P.W. 96.
• 1319D ; f·Gl
2(!v) The evidence of P.W. 91 is also not consistent with the allegation
made in the election petition that the appellant gave a sum of Rs. 5100 to the
Sarpanch Dalip Singh and that he passed in on to Dharam Singh and Dewan
Singh .. Therefore no reliance can be placed on his, evidence also, [319D] G
2(v) The evidence of P.W. 92 that Madan Lal of Kandela village gave
· Rs. SlOO is inconsistent with the allegation made in the election petition that
the appeliant himself gave that amount. His evidence that it was given to
Dalip Singh though consistent with the a1legation made in the election petition
. and 'the evidence of P.W. 91, is inconsistent with t~e ~vi~en~e ~f f,W, 9Q \hat
II was ~vep 19 Pharma t..char, l3199·fll · . ' . . ·
314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985) 3 S.C.R.

A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2649 of
• 1984.

Appeal U/s l 16A of the R.P. Act 1951 from the Judgment and
Order dated 3(l-5.1984 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court
at Chandigarh in E.P. No. 8 of 1982.
B
H.L. Sibal, Kapi/ Sibal, Mrs. Madhu Tewatia Singh and N.M.
+-
Pop/i for the Appellant.

S.N. Kacker and Ravinder Bana for the Respondents.

.• · The Judgment of the Court was delivered. by
c
VARAD.IRAJAN, J. This appeal by the first respondent in
Election Petition No. 8 of 1982 on the file of the Punjab. ·and
Haryana High Court is filed against the judgment of the learned
Single Judge. allowing the election petition and setting aside the
appellant's election to the Haryana Legislative Assembly from the
D
)ind constituency in the election held on 19-5-1982. Out of 26
.nomination papers filed, 24 were found to be valid and ultimately 14
candidates remained in the field. The real contest was between the
appellant Brij Mohan, who was an independent candidate supported
.by the Lok Dal and the first respondent Manga Ram who contested
E .as the 0ongress (I) candidate. In the counting which took place on
20-5-1982 it was found that the awtllant had secured 27045·valid
'votes while the first respondent had secured 26899 valid votes and
.the appellant was accordingly declared elected.

The first respondent filed the election petition challenging the
F appellant's election on the following grounds, namely : (I) corrupt
practice of bribery as defined in s. 123(1) of the Representation of
People Act, 1951 ; (2) corrupt practice of publication of various •
statements relating to the personal character of the first respondent
which were false ; (31 result of the election in so far as it related to
the appellant having been materially affected by en masse violation
of the statutory provisi.ons and (4) large scale receiption of void
votes in .favour of the appellant but for which the first respondent.
would have been declared elected. The first responde.nt prayed in the
election petition for (ll the appellant's election being set aside as
void on the above grounds ; (2) the appellant being declared to have
eommitted corrupt practice and (3) t!w jifj\ respondent b~in~ decla•
r~\I to ll~w b~en dul¥ elecl~I!.
.. BRIJ MOHAN V. MANGE RAM (Varadarajan, J.) 315
The learned Single Judge who tried the election petition 'A
allowed it with cJsts on only one ground and· set aside the appel-
lant's election as void on that ground, namely, that he committed
the corrupt prJctice·of bribery by contributing a sum of Rs. 5100/-
towards the cost of construction of a temple for the backward
classes in Kandela village in order to get the votes of the members
of those classes cast in his favour in that election. It is, therefore,
necessary to state the case of the parties briefly in regard to only
this item of corrupt practice.

The first' respondent has alleged in the election petition that
the appellant visited Kandela village on or about 16-5-1982 accom-
panied by his father Sita Ram and two others Ram Kishan and c
Amrit Lal and they contacted Dalip Singh, Sarpanch of the village
and one Dewan Singh, Secretary of the backward classes. The
appellant appealed to the beckward class voters assembled at the
house of one Dharam Singh for casting their votes in his favour.
The voters present there included Dewan Singh, Hari Ram, Devi
Ram, E'ateh Singh and Mauji Ram. The voters told the appellant D
that they intended to .cast their votes in favour of the Congress (I)
candidate as they had always been in favour of the Congress (I)
party. The appellant, thereafter, had a talk with the Sarpanch Dalip
Singh and one Dh.aram Singh and subsequently stated, for inducing
the voters to cast their vote in his favour, that he was prepared
to give a donation of Rs. 5100 as he had been told that they needed E
some money for their mandir. Accordingly, he gave a sum of
Rs. 5100 to the Sarpanch Dalip Singh who passed it on to Dharam
Singh and Dewan Singh. The voters thereafter assured the appellant
that they would vote for him and ensure that every vote belonging
to their. class will go in his favour.
~--· F
The appellant denied this allegation saying that he never
visited Kandela village in the company of Sita Ram, Ram Kishan
and Amrit Lal and never gave Rs. 5100 to the Sarpanch Dalip
Singh and that the entire allegation in the election petition regarding
this item of corrupt practice is false and mischievous.
G
In regard to this item of corrupt praotice there is evidence of
the election petitioner/first respondent Mange Ram, P.W. 1, Dewan
Singh, P.W. 16, Manuji Ram, P.W. 90,. Fateh Singh, P.W. 91 and
Prahlad, P.W. 92 on the side of the first respondent and of the
appellap\, R-W· I 11!1 tb.e sf\le of the appell~nt. Tbe learne\l Sinsle • tt
316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] 3 s.c.R.

Judge found that after a Commissioner appointed by the Court
contacted P.W. 16 and obtained a register from him. P.W. 16
was suspende<;l by the District Education Officer, Jind by an
order dated: 23-11-1982 and transferred to Naman! situate
200 miles away from his original place which was his home town
and he opirn;d that it was done in order to overawe P.W. 16 so that
.B he may not' appear as a witness in this election petition. He further
observed that "It was in his (appellant's) interest to see that this
witness did not come on record.· If illegal pressure was brought to
bear on a witness who had come to this Court to depose about this
charge, normal inference and presumption would be that the pressure
had been brought to bear upon him either by the party who was
c interested in seeing that damaging evidence was not Jed against him
or by some one else at his instance. I am cl early of the view that
respondant No. I had somehow or other secured that order of
suspension and transfer of Dewan Singh, P. W. 16". We are wholly
unable to appreciate this reasoning of the learned Judge. We do
.D not see how the appellant was obliged to explain the circumstances
under which P. W. 16 came to be suspended and transferred to
Narnaul by the District Educational Officer's order dated 23-11-1982
after the Commissioner appointed by the Court approached him and
obtained a register from him or how the adverse inference could be
· drawn against the appellant by the learned Judge merely because the
_E appellant was unable to explain how P.W. 16 came to be suspended
· and transferred by the District Educational Officer's order dated
· 23-11-1982 after a register had been obtained from him by the
Commissioner appointed by the Court and it came to be known that
P.W .. 16 may be examined as a witness in this election petition. We
·think that there is no justification whatsoever to ·draw any such
:F adverse inference against the appellant.

· The appellant, R.W. I had denied that he had gone to
Kandela village on 16-5-1982 either alone or in the company of
Sita Ram and other~. He has denied that he contacted the Sarpanch
Dalip Singh and others and gave Rs 5100 as alleged in the election
petition and that the voters of Kandela village held out any promise
for casting their votes in his favour. In the cross-examination on
suggestion was made to R.W. 1 that he gave a sum of Rs, 5100
for the construction of a mandir for the backward class voters of
Kandela village on 16-5-1982 or gq qpy gther \lat~ tQ in<lu~~ tl\em
tQ ~Mt their:vg\e§ in l\i& favour,
BRIJ MOHAN v. MANGE RAM (Varadarajan, J.) 31·1
The first respondent. P. W.l has stated in his evidence that the A
appellant visited Kandela village on 16. 5. 1982 accompanied by the
Sarpanch Dalip Singh, Hari Ram, Dewan Singh and others, that all
of them and the members of the backward classes assembled in the
house of the Backward Classes Samiti Chairman Dharam Singh, that
the appellant gave Rs. 5100 to the members of the backward classes
for the construction of a Viswakaram Mandir in the village and the B
Society passed a receipt for that a111ount and also made an entry in
its own books of accounts kept in the regular course of business and
that the members of the backward classes who received the amount
promised to cast.their votes in favour of the appellant. In bis cross-
examination he has stated that the bribe money was paid by the
appellant on 15.5.1982. It would appear from his. evidence that he
c
claims to have personal _knowledge about the alleged visit of the
appellant and others to Kandela village on 16.5.1982 and about the
alleged payment of Rs. 5100 by the appellant for the construction
of a temple for the backward classes people of the village in order
to induce the voters of those classes to cast their votes in his favour.
D
But in his affidavit verifying the election petition he has stated that
the allegations made in para 9(d) of the election petition regarding
this item of corrupt practice are based upon information received
by him from Dewan Singh. Therefore, the evidence of P.W. I regar-
ding this item of alleged corrupt practice is wholly unacceptable.
E
Dewan Singh, P.W. 16 has stated in his evidence that he ·is the
Secretary of the Mangging Committee1 of a temple that was being
constructed in Kandela village for the members of. the backward,
classes, that _the appellant attended a meeting of the backward classes
in Dewan Chand's house on 15:5.1982, and volunteered to give a
donation of Rs. 5100 for that temple provided the members .of the F
backward classes cast their votes in his favour and that on 16.5.1982
one Madan Lal gave. Rs. 5100 to the Temple Committee's President
Dharam Singh. in his. presence and be himself made the entry E~.
PW-16/2 about that payment in the Temple Committee's eashbook,
Ex. P.W. 16/1. He hds admitted that the entire cash book, Ex.
P.W. 16/1 is in his hand writing and does not bear the signature of G
any pflice-bearer of the Viswakarama Samiti. But he has denied that
he has got up this cash-book in connivance withthe first responde~t
for the purpose of this election petition. His evidence that the appel-
lant .offered on 15.5,1982 to give a sum of Rs. 5100 in the house of
Dewan Chand and that it was given by one Madan Lal to.Dbarain
Clmn\I i§ iµi;gn~i§t~nt witJl the allegMipp in the ~le~tioll petitioµ
318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] 3 S.C.R.
.i\ ·that the appellant offered to give Rs. 5100 on 16.5.1982 as donation
and gave it himself to the Sarpanch Dalip Singh and he passed it on
to Dharama Singh. Therefore, the evidence of P.W. 16 regarding
this item of alleged corrupt practice cannot be accepted.
Ma.uji Ram, P,W. 90 has stated in his evidence that the appel-
'B lant and his fat.her and Sarpanch Dalip Singh collected the people
be.longing to black-smith and carpenter communities in the house of
the carpenter Diwana on 14.5.1982 an.d requested the people to cast
their votes in his favour. that the people told the appellant and his
two companions that they would inform that after discussing about
. the matter and asked the appellant and his companions to visit the
village again on 16.5.1982. that accordingly the appellant and others
came to the village on 16 5. I 982 and asked the people to vote for
the appellant. that the people told the appellant and bis companions
that they would vote for him if he gave money and that the appellant
thereupon gave a.sum of Rs. 5100 to Dharama.Lohar. The evidence
of this witness is that the people asked for money to vote in favour
D of the appellant and that·thereupon he gave Rs. 5100 to Dharma
.Lobar whereas the allegation in the election petition is that after the
voters told the appellant that they intended to vote for the Congress
<n candidate as they had always been in favour of the Congress(I)
Party. the appellant had a talk with the Sarpanch Dalip Singh and
·One Dharam Sin~h and he subsequently stated, for inducing the
voters to cast their votes in his favour, that he was prepared to give
0

a donation of Rs. 5 ! 00 as he ha d been told that they needed some
money for their mandir and that he accordingly gave Rs. 5100 to the
Sarp1nch Dalip Singh and he passed.it to Dharam Singh and Dewan
Singh There is thus a vital discrepancy between the pleading in the
election petition and the evidence of P.W. 90. P.W. 90 has stated
F that he does not know whether any receipt was passed for tho
amount whereas P.W. 16 has stated in bis evidence that Madan Lal
eave Rs. 5100 to the Temple Committee;s President Dharam Singh in
his presence on 16 S.1982 and he made an entry for receipt of that
amount in Ex.PW. 16/2 in the cash-book, Ex. P.W. 16/I and P.W,
t has stated in his evidence that the Society passed a receipt for the
G
·amount and also made an entry in the cash-book about the money.
It is significant to note that P.W. 90 was not cited as a witness· in the
list of witnesses filed by the first respondent on l I.! l.1982 and
26.11.1982 and that he was examined as a witness only on 25.7.1983.
· Jn these circumstances, we think that no reliance would be placed
on the evidence of r.w. ~() fe~an;ljn~ this item Of allej!CQ CofrUpl
pra~tlce, ·
i)Rii MmtAN v. MAJ:ldE RAM (VaraJara)a1', f.) 3!_9 ,
Fateh Singh, P.W. 91 is yet another witness whose name was A
not mentioned in ihe list of witnesses filed by the first respondent . on
Jl.11.1982. Hehasstatedinhis evidence that four or five days
Prior to the date of poll 19.5.1982, the appellant and his father and
two others, Sarpanch Dalip Singh and Madan Lal, visited Ka~de_la. '"
village and come to the house of Diw.a9a Kha ti, that many voters
~·. belonging to the backward classes were summoned to that _house and
the appellant and his companions offered to donate some money to.
B
..
the temple provided the people assembled there and other members
of the community voted for the appellant and they told them that
they would discuss about the matter and let them know, that two or
three days thereafter the appellant came by a car they assembled in
the house of the black-smith Dharama and that in his presence
c
Madan Lal who ·came with the appellant gave Rs. 5100 to.the,
Sarpanch Dalip Singh who in turn passed it on to Dharma Lobar
and he promised that the members of his community would vote for
the appellant. The evidence of this witness is not consistent with the
allegation made in the election petition that the appellant gave a D
sum of Rs. 5100 to the Sarpanch Dalip Singh and that he passed
it on Dharam Singh and Dewan Singh. We are, therefore, unable
to place any reliance on his evidence regarding this item of alleged
corrupt practice.

Then there remains the evidence of Prahalad, P.W. 92. He has E
stated that the appellant came to Kandela village oil 16.5.1982
a!ongwith the Sarpanch Dalip Singh and one Madan Lal of that
village, that the appellant who had visited the village five days prior
to the date of the poll suggested that the voters belonging to the
community and the members of the Managing Committee should F
vote for him and stated that he would make some contribution for
the temple funds and asked Madan Lal to give the money, that there-
upon Madan Lal gave Rs. 5100 to the Sarpanch Dalip Singh and
he passed it on to Dharma Lobar and undertook the responsibility
to have votes cast in favour of the appellant and that the temple
treasurer Ram Singh passed a receipt for the amount. The evidence G
of this witness that Madan Lal of Kandela village gave Rs. 5100
is inconsistent with the allegation made in the election petition that
the appellant himself gave that amount His evidence that it was
given to Dalip Singh though consistent with the allegation made in
the election petition and the evidence of P.W. 91 is inconsistent with
the evidence of P.W. 90 that it was given to Dharma Lobar. W~ ff
t1~ssj 3s.c.il..
A' are, therefore, unable to place any reliance on his evidence regarding
this item of atleged corrupt practice.

The evidence ofP.Ws. I, 16, 90, 91, and 92 referred to above
is wholly unreliable and does not prove the corrupt practice of which
the appellant bas been found guilty by the learned Single Judge. We
B may state here that Mr. S.N. Kacker, Senior Advocate who appeared
for the respondent, probably felt that the Judgment of the learned
Single Judge holding the appellant guilty of this item of corrupt
practice is wholly indefensible and he candidly admitted that be will
not advance any argument at all in favour of the first respondent. In
these circumstances for the reasons mentioned above, we allow this
c· appeal but without costs ~nd set aside the judgment of this learned
Single Judge who found the appellant guilty of this item of corrupt
practice.

M.L.A. Appeal allowed.

•