- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Avtar Singh Brar v. Tej Singh And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal concerns the 1980 election to the Punjab Legislative Assembly from the Baghapurana Constituency (District Faridkot). Polling occurred on 31 May 1980 and counting on 1 June 1980. The first respondent, Tej Singh, was declared elected with 25,694 votes, defeating the appellant, Avtar Singh, who polled 25,571 votes—a margin of 123 votes. Three other candidates, Sathi Ruplal, Bhagat Puran Singh and Jagdish Chander, received 1,347; 140; and 2,856 votes respectively.
Avtar Singh filed an election petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court alleging that Tej Singh had engaged in corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act. The petition was supported by Ruplal; the remaining two candidates were proceeded against ex parte. The High Court dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Tej Singh had, by printing and circulating certain posters and pamphlets, falsely represented that candidate Sathi Ruplal had withdrawn and that any vote cast for Tej Singh would be deemed a vote for Ruplal, thereby committing a corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act.
- If such corrupt practice was proved, whether it had materially affected the result of the election given the narrow margin of 123 votes.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant Avtar Singh
- Contended that Tej Singh caused posters (Annexures P-1 and P-2) to be printed and distributed, falsely stating that Ruplal had withdrawn and urging voters to treat votes for Tej Singh as votes for Ruplal.
- Relied on the testimony of PW-4 (Roshan Lal), proprietor of the press, and vouchers Exs. P-5 and P-6 to show that the printing was ordered and paid for on behalf of Tej Singh.
- Argued that the misrepresentation misled voters who would otherwise have supported the appellant, thereby materially altering the result.
Respondent Tej Singh
- Filed a written statement broadly denying the commission of any corrupt practice.
- Did not dispute that vouchers Exs. P-5 and P-6 were included in his statement of election expenses but sought to distance himself from the printing and circulation of the impugned posters.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court undertook a factual analysis centred on the authorship, payment and content of the impugned posters:
- Evidence of Printing and Payment: PW-4 Roshan Lal testified that Darshan Singh and Mukhtiar Singh placed the printing order after Tej Singh had personally informed him that work would be forthcoming. Vouchers Exs. P-5 and P-6, signed by the witness, recorded payment made by the same intermediaries. Tej Singh admitted those vouchers formed part of his verified election-expense return.
- False Representation: The extracted text of the posters explicitly urged voters to elect “Shri Tej Singh” while declaring that “every vote cast in favour of S. Tej Singh will be deemed to have been cast in my favour,” purportedly quoting Ruplal. The Court found that Ruplal had no involvement in producing or authorising these posters.
- Legal Characterisation: By financing and disseminating a document containing a false statement regarding the candidature of another contestant, Tej Singh committed a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act.
- Material Effect on Result: Given the extremely narrow winning margin of 123 votes, the Court drew a “strong presumption and possibility” that voters misled by the posters might have supported the appellant, thereby materially affecting the outcome.
- Standard of Proof: The Court held that the corrupt practice had been proved “beyond reasonable doubt” on the evidence and admissions.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED; JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT QUASHED; ELECTION OF TEJ SINGH SET ASIDE.
Tej Singh’s election to the Punjab Legislative Assembly from the Baghapurana Constituency stands void. No order was made as to costs. The decision directly affects only the parties to this election dispute and does not purport to lay down new legal precedent beyond applying Section 123(4) to the proven facts.
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.— This election appeal arises out of an election to the Baghapurana Constituency (District Faridkot) to the Punjab Legislative Assembly. The polling took place on May 31, 1980 and the counting was done on June 1, 1980. Tej Singh, respondent, secured 25,694 votes whereas Avtar Singh (appellant) secured 25,571 votes. There were three other candidates also in the field, viz. (1) Sathi Ruplal, (2) Bhagat Puran Singh, and (3) Jagdish Chander. Ruplal secured 1347 votes while Bhagat Puran Singh and Jagdish Chander secured 140 and 2856 votes respectively. It appears that the margin between the votes secured by Tej Singh (respondent) and Avtar Singh (appellant) was only 123.
2. Avtar Singh filed an election petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court against Tej Singh alleging that he was guilty of committing corrupt practices, detailed in the petition and in the statement of facts. Ruplal supported the appellant but Bhagat Puran Singh and Jagdish Chander 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.
3. 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 by Tej Singh was that he had got circulated pamphlets and posters among 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.
4. On a perusal of the evidence — both oral and documentary — adduced by the parties, we are clearly of the opinion that the allegations of corrupt practices indulged in by Tej Singh have been clearly proved. The posters said to have been printed and circulated are Annexures P-1 and P-2 which appear at p. 42 of the second paperbook and it may be necessary to extract certain portions thereof—
“Keeping in view the present conditions in the country it is imperative to defeat the dictatorial Congress in these elections.
Therefore, I fervently appeal to all the voters of Baghapurana 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.”
5. According to PW 4 (Roshanlal) in whose press the posters were printed, the order for the printing was placed by Darshan Singh and 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 thereafter the witness was approached by Darshan Singh and Mukhtiar Singh. Roshan Lal also admitted that Tej Singh was known to him. The witness further proved Exs. 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.
6. The effect of the posters was to mislead the voters so as to make 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 Ruplal would now cast their votes in favour of Tej Singh. As the margin of votes between the defeated and the returned candidates was very small, viz. 123 votes, if such a misrepresentation was not made, in all probability the votes would have gone to the appellant (Avtar Singh) and, therefore, the result of the election would have been materially altered. We find a good deal of substance in the argument of the appellant. Tej Singh (RW 28) has not disputed that the payment of the vouchers (Exs. P-5 and P-6) was made by him and the vouchers were appended by him along with the return of expenses incurred during his election campaign, which was verified by him to be a true and correct statement.
7. In these circumstances, therefore, 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. Tej Singh further admitted that Bhum Raj was incharge of his election 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 Bhum Raj were incurred on his behalf. In other words, Tej Singh falsely represented to the voters that the posters were circulated by Ruplal whereas the same was done by or with the consent of Tej Singh. Therefore, it is clear that Exs. 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 connection with the same.
8. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the appellant has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Tej Singh had indulged in corrupt practices particularly when the printing of the posters by Tej 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 possibility that the votes polled in favour of Ruplal would have gone to Avtar Singh cannot be ruled out and that would have doubtless materially altered the result of the election. Leaving aside other grounds taken by the appellant 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 Section 123(2) [sic 123(4)] of the Act having been adopted by the first respondent (Tej Singh) which have been fully proved.
9. 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.
Alert