9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (12) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, bribed the voters, that the election was not conducted property, that there was improper reception of void votes and lastly that he had incurred expenditure more than the prescribed limit. The charge of bribery was not pressed at the time of the trial. The other grounds pleaded on behalf of the appellant were rejected by the High Court and the election petition was dismissed. After hearing the Counsel for the parties regarding the allegation relating to the contravention of S. 123(6) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (,to be hereinafter referred to as the Act), we have come to the conclusion that the respondent was guilty of an offence falling within that section as he is proved to have incurred expenditure more than the prescribed limit. We therefore thought that it was not necessary to go into the other charges levelled against the respondent. The limit of expenditure prescribed for the constituency was ₹ 2,000/-. In his election return, the respondent had stated that he had incurred an expenditure of ₹ 1865/59 P. The trial court came to the conclusion, which conclusion was not challenged before us, that he had incurred a further expenditure of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .00 p.m. at Manaveli. (v) On 27-2-1969 at about 7.30 p.m. at Ariyankuppam. Three other election meetings at Ariyankuppam and one meeting at Periaveerampatinam were also held at the instance of the respondent. (vi) On 23-2-1969 at about 8.00 p.m. at Ariyankuppam. (vii) On 24-2-1969 at about 8.00 p.m. it Ariyankuppam.- (viii) On 26-2-1969 at about 8.00 p.m. at Veerampattinam." The respondent's plea relating to those allegations are found paragraph 17 of his written statement. Therein he averred "The allegations made in paragraph 8 of the petition are totally false and they are hereby denied. Every one of the allegations made therein are factually incorrect and false. None of the expenditure alleged therein was incurred, by the Respondent or under his authority." This is a general denial. The respondent did not deal with .the various facts stated in the election petition. From those averments, it is clear that the respondent denied having arranged .any of the meeting mentioned in the election petition. After the respondent filed his written statement, the appellant applied for and obtained permission of the court to amend certain clerical mistakes that h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on itself. This Court had occasion to go into that question in D. P. Mishra and anr. v Kamal Narayan Sharma and anr.([1971] I S.C.R. 8). In that case this Court came to the conclusion that the particulars of a corrupt practice falling under s. 123 (6) may in an appropriate case be introduced by amendment. By doing so, no additional ground of corrupt practice can be said to have been introduced. If it had been necessary for the case, we would have allowed that amendment application and sent back the case for further trial. But for the reasons to be presently stated, we have thought it unnecessary to do so. In dealing with the expenditure incurred in connection with the election meetings, the first and the important question that has to be decided is as to when the election campaign of the respondent commenced. According to the appellant, it commenced on February 23, 1969. But according to the respondent it commenced on February 27, 1969. Decision on this question has great bearing on the other points arising for decision. Hence we shall first address ourselves to that question. The learned trial judge did not give any positive finding on this question. In the course of his judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The report in question was proved through the Inspector without any objection. The report says that the election campaign of the respondent was inaugurated by holdings a public meeting on February 23, 1969 and that meeting was addressed by as many as eight persons in addition to the respondent. This report was received by the Inspector on the 25th of February. Despite this clinching evidence afforded by Exhts. P. 15 and P. 35, the respondent made bold to deny the factum of having held a meeting on the 23rd. In view of this documentary evidence, the learned trial judge was unable accept the evidence of the respondent. All the same he opined that it was immaterial whether the election campaign was inaugurated on the 23rd or on the 27th, since he was inclined to accept the evidence of the respondent that he had held only seven meetings and not more. This in our opinion, is an erroneous approach. As seen earlier, the respondent has denied having held any meeting on February 23. But this denial cannot be accepted as true. For the reasons already mentioned we feel satisfied that the respondent's election campaign commenced on the 23rd February 1969 and in that connection a meeting w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he arranged that meeting and spent for the same. The learned trial judge over looked the fact that no such plea was taken by the respondent in his written statement nor was it his case in his evidence that meeting was arranged for P.W. 6. For the reasons mentioned above,we are satisfied that in addition to the seven election meetings which the respondent admitted having arranged, the appellant has been able to satisfactorily prove that the respondent had arranged at least four more meetings. Now coming to the question as to the expenditure incurred in collection with those meetings, it is no doubt for the appellant to prove the same. According to the respondent he had not maintained any accounts in connection with his election. The expenditure incurred for his election is specially within the knowledge of the respondent. He has not adduced any evidence in that connection. He has totally denied having held those meetings. That denial for the reasons already mentioned cannot be accepted. Therefore we have now to find out what would have been the reasonable expenditure incurred in connection with those meetings. Even according to the respondent for the seven meetings held by him, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extremely relevant to establish that fact. Hence they come within the ambit of the 1st part of s. 35, of the Evidence Act. In this connection we would like to refer to the decision of the Madras High Court in Navaneetha Krishna Thevar v. Ramaswami Pandia Thalavar(I.L. R. 40 Mad, 871 at 678 & 870). Therein the learned judges observed thus: "As however the case may not stop here, we think it right to allow the petitioners in Civil Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 845 and 1655 of 1915 for the admission of certain documents rejected by the Subordinate Judge, namely (1) the decree of the Zilah Court of Tinnevelly, dated 31st May 1859 in Original Suit No. 4 of 1859, (2) the Takid of the Collector to the Muzumdar on the death of the raja in 1850, (3) the reply of the Muzumdar and (4) the Collector's Takid in 1853 on the complaint of the zamindar's widow as to the conduct of Maruthappa Thevar who according to the plaintiff's case was the father of Gnanapurani's mother. They will accordingly be marked as Exhibits XXXIV, XXXV, XXXVI and XXXVII respectively and incorporated in the record. The learned Advocate-General did not support the exclusion of the last three on the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
