Holding

The appellant failed to prove the ingredients of corrupt practice under section 123(7) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, and the appeal was dismissed.

Summary

Baldev Singh Mann challenged the election of Surjit Singh Dhiman, alleging that Dhiman had procured assistance from gazetted officers for his campaign, constituting a corrupt practice under section 123(7) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The High Court dismissed the petition, finding that Mann failed to prove the essential ingredients of the alleged corrupt practice. On appeal, the Supreme Court reiterated that the burden of proof lies on the petitioner and must be met with clear, cogent and credible evidence, akin to a criminal trial. The Court held that the evidence presented did not establish that the assistance came from gazetted officers nor satisfied the stringent standard of proof. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the election result.

Issues considered

The allegation of corrupt practice under s.123(7) of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
Whether the assistance alleged was obtained from a gazetted officer as required by s.123(7).
The standard of proof and burden of proof applicable in election petitions alleging corrupt practice.
Whether the election petition was dismissed for lack of material facts or cause of action.

Legislation cited

Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948
Representation of People Act, 1951s. 100, s. 116A, s. 123(7), s. 80, s. 81, s. 98, s. 99

Subjects

election petitioncorrupt practiceburden of proofRepresentation of People Act, 1951gazetted officerstandard of proofdisqualification

Judgment

[2008] 16 S.C.R. 540
~
A BALDEV SINGH MANN ~·

v.
. ' SURJIT SINGH DHIMAN
(Civil Appeal No. 3700 of 2007)
NOVEMBER 21, 2008
B
[DALVEER BHANpARI AND HAR:JIT SINGH 'BEDI, JJ.]
t

Representation of People Act, 1951: s.123(7) - Charge
of corrup{practice - Burden to prove - Held: Is on the election
c petitioner - Mere preponderance of probabilities not enough
- Allegation of corrupt practice should be clear and precise
and charge should be proved to hilt as. criminal trial, by clear,
cogent and credible evidence - On facts, .election petitioner
·tailed to prove basic ingredients of corrupt practice ·under
D s.123(7) - Election petition ·rightly dismissed - Election laws
- Election of elected candidate - Interference with.

The appellant filed an election petition before the -I-
High Court challenging the election of respondent on the
ground that respondent had committed corrupt practices
E
under s.123(7) of the Representation of People Act, 1951
by obtaining and procuring assistance from ga~etted
officers in the service of government for the furtherance
of the prospects of his election.
F The High C.ourt held that the appellant failed to prove
t- "
the ingredients of corrupt practice contained in s.123(7)
of the Act; and that the evidence of cdrrupt practice was
not strong enough to upset the.people's verdict in favour
of the respondent. Hence the instant appeal.
G
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
•f J. .
HELD: 1. The appellant failed to prove the basic
inQredients of corrupt practices under s.123(7) of the

H 540
BALDEV SINGH MANN v. SURJIT SINGH DHIMAN 541

Representation of People Act, 1951. [Para 36] [599-8-C] A
2.1. The law is well-settled that charge of a corrupt
practice in an election petition should be proved almost .
like the criminal charge. The standard of proof is high and ,
the burden of proof is on the election petitioner. Mere ·
8
preponderance of probabilities is not enough, as may be f
the case in a civil dispute. Allegations of corrupt practices
should be clear and precise and the charge should be ·
proved to the hilt as in a criminal trial by clear, cogent and
credible evidence. [Para 24] [554-G-H; 555-A] · ·
c
Jeet Mohinder Singh v. Harminder Singh Jassi (1999) 9 ,
SCC 386; Jagan Nath v. Jaswant Singh & Ors. 1954 SCR
892, Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat & Anr. v. Dattaji Raghobaji
Meghe & Ors. (1995) 5 SCC 347; Quamarul Islam v. S.K.
Kanta & Ors. (1994) Supp (3) SCC 5 F.A. Sapa & Ors. v. o
Singora & Ors. (1991) 3 SCC 375, Manohar Joshi v. Damodar
Tatyaba & Ors. (1991) 2 SCC 342;.Ram Singh & Ors. v. Col.
Ram Singh (1985) Supp SCC 611; Kripa Shankar Chatterjee
v. Gurudas Chatterjee & Ors. (1995) 5 SCC 1 and Ram Phal
Kundu v. Kamal Sharma (2004) 2 SCC 759, relied on.
,E
2.2. Charge of corrupt practice, if substantiated leads
not only to the setting aside of the election of the
successful candidate, but also of his being disqualified
to contest an election for a certain period. It may entail
extinction of a person's public life and political career. A f
trial of an election petition though within the realm of civil
law is akin to trial on a criminal charge. [Para 27) [555-G-
H] .
3. The candidate who narrowly lost ordinarily makes
all efforts and gather all kind of material against the G
elected candidate and level all kinds of allegations of
corrupt practices whether substantiated or not.- In the
instant case, this seemed to have happened. The
respondent won by less than 1000 votes out of nearly
70000 polled votes. (Para 32) (558-A-B] H
542 SUPREME, COURT REPORTS . [2008) 16 S.C.R.

A 4. The will of the people is paramount in a democratic
country an'd the election of elected candidate should not
be lightly interfered with. At the same time, it is also ithe
bounden ·duty and obligation of the court to ensure that
purity of election process is fully safeguarded and
s maintained. [Para 37] [559-C-D]
Case Law Reference: f

(1999) 9 sec 386 relied on Para·25
1954 SCR 892 r!i!lied on .P~re1 .25
c
-<1995) 5 sec 347 relied on Para 25
(1994) Supp (3) sec 5 relied on Para 28
. (1991) 3 sec 375 · relied on Para 28
D
(1991) 2 sec 342 . relied on. Para 28
(1985) Supp sec 611 relied on Para· 28
(1995) 5 sec 1 relied on Para 28
E (2004) 2 sec 759 relied on Para 28
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
3700 of 2007.

From the final Judgment and Order dated 8.12.2006.of the
F High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Election
Petition No. 16 of 2002.

P.S. Patwalia, Tushar Bakshi, D.K. Tripathi, Amanpreet
Singh Rahi and Naresh Bakshi for the Appellant.
G
Satpal Jain, Bhupinder Yadav and. R.C. Kohli for the
Respondent. -

. The J'udgment of the Co1;1rt was d~-frv·ereq by ·
' . . ..,

H DALVEER BHANDARI,· J. 1. This· appeal has been
.:
BALDEV SINGH MANN v. SURJIT SINGH DHIMAN 543
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

preferred under section 116A of the Representation of the A
~
People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to ~s the said Act)
against the judgment dated 8.12.2006 passed by the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Election Petition
No. 16 of 2002.
B
2. The facts which are necessary to dispose of the appeal
are recapitulated as under:
t

The Election Petition No. 16 of 2002 was filed by the
defeated candidate appellant BaldAv Singh Mann who lost the ,
election from 87-Dirba (Punjab) Assembly Constituency which c
was held on 13.2.2002.

3. The appellant Baldev Singh Mann filed his nomination
papers as a candidate of Shiromani Akali Dal (B) (for short
"SAD")~--whereas respondent Surjit Singh Dhiman filed his D
nomination papers as.an independent candidate. In the election,
respondent Surjit Singh Dhiman got 35,099 votes and appellant
Baldev Singh Mann got 34,103 votes and consequently, the
respondent was declared elected.

4. The appellant filed this election petition under sections E
80 and 81 read with sections 98, 99 and 100 of the said Act
before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. By a comprehensive
judgment, the election petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by
the said judgment, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
F
5. The appellant pleaded that the respondent's election
was liable to be declared void as the respondent h~d committed
corrupt practices by obtaining and procuring assistance, for the
I
furtherance of the prospects of his election, from Gurbachan
Singh Bachhi (hereinafter referred to as "Bachhi") and B.S. G
Shergill (hereinafter referred to as "Shergill") who were in the I

..... service of the government and were gazetted officers .
A_ -t
6. According to the appellant, Bachhi was Administrative·
Member of the Punjab State Electricity Board. He was
appointed on 24.12.2001 and belonged to Bhattiwal Khurd, a ~
BALDEV SINGH MANN v. SURJIT SINGH DHIMAN 545
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

Bachhi was expelled from the primary membership A
of SAD for anti-party activities.

(8) Bachhi alongwith Dhiman visited Rajpura on
3.2.2002 at 11 a.m. and held a meeting at the house
of Jarnail Singh where Ram Karan, Sukhdev Singh B
and others had also assembled. All these persons
t were voters of Dirba Constituency. Bachhi had
taken N.S. Bhullar, an Assistant Engineer (PSEB)
with him. The said Bhullar was a relative of Jarnail
Singh. Bachhi threatended Jarnail Singh's relatives
that in case they did not vote and support the
c
respondent he would create problems for their I

relative Bhullar.

(C) On 4.2.2002, the appellant was informed by
Naranjan Singh and Mehar Singh of Kala Jhar that D
a day earlier at about 2 p.m. Bachhi along with the
respondent had met them and asked for support
'"-
and vote. Later, the appellant was also informed by
Jasbir Singh, Dhanvir Singh and Gogi Singh that
Bachhi had contacted them in their village on E
I

3.2.2002 at 3.30 p.m. and canvassed for votes in
favour of the respondent. The appellant in his
complaint to the Election Commission had also
complained that Bachhi had been canvassing for
votes in favour of the respondent at Channa and F
Kala Jhar.
"'
.(D) On 5.2.2002, at 5 p.m. a meeting was convened at
Chandani Tourist Complex in Nadampur of the
voters belonging to Nadampur, Salad Kalan,
Phuymanali and Turi. The respondent was present G
at this meeting. Some officers of .the PSEB were
A ~
also present. Names of some of the persons who
were present there at that time were mentioned in
the petition and names of the PSEB employees
' H
546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2ooa116 s~c.R.

~·.
A were also mentioned. At this meeting, Bachhi
asked the persons present to vote and support the
respondent. The ·respondent also thanked Bachhi
.. and others for supporting him. The appellant came
to know about this meeting on. 9.2.2002 from
B · Gurmeet Singh and Ha~am Singh of Nadampur
· and Labh Singh of Phumanwali and he immediately .. 't
. sent a fax message to the Chief Election
Commissioner. At the said meeting, the respondent
·had introduced some persons of Chatha Nanhera
c to Bachhi and asked him to help them in getting out-
of-turn power connection from the Board. The
respondent told Bachhi that if he is able to release
the connection, that would advance his prospects
in the elections not only in his own village but also
in the surrounding villages. Bachhi asked Thilu
0
Singh to meet him in the office of SDO (Sub Urban)
Suman on 6.2.2002 at 10 a.m.
x
(E) The above meeting was held at the scheduled time
and Bachhi directed the PSEB official to supply
E material out of turn for· giving connections to the
villagers of Chatha Nanhera. He also asked Thilu
Singh and others of that village to vote and support
the respondent. In the evening at,S_p.m. Bachhi
visited Dirba and in the presence of Karnail Singh,
F Ruldu Singh of Chatha Nanhera informed the
respondent that Thilu Singh's work had been done.
The appellant came to know about this information
from Karnail Singh and Ruldu Singh on 8.2.2002 at
s·p.m. at an election rally·addressed by Sukhbir
G Singh Badal at Dirba. Consequently, the appellant·
sent a complaint in this regard to the Chief Election 1-- _,.
Commissioner~

9. Similarly, Shergill's. role which attracted the provisions
of the said Act is as under:
H
BALDEV SINGH MANN v. SURJIT SINGH DHIMAN 547
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

~ As regards Shergill, the appellant pleaded that on A
3.2.2002, the respondent and Bachhi had visited Rajpura
where they held a meeting in Jarnail Sfngh's tiouse~ They
~lso went to Shergill's house who at that time was posted
. as Deputy Director, Panchayats at Chandigarh. They· met
Shergill at 12 noon in the presence of Joginder Singh, B
~-
Nachhattar Singh and Chand Singh of Rajpura. The
respondent requested ·Shergill to spare some time for
helping him in the election as he had sufficient influence
in the area. Initially Shergill showed reluctance to do so but
the respondent with the help of Bachhi succeeded in c
persuading Shergill to render help in the elections.
Thereafter, on 4.2.2002 at 9 a.m. both Shergill and Bachhi
went to Barroh and met Amarjeet Singh and asked him to
.collect prominent persons of the village, whereupon
several persons came there and Shergill requested them
0
to vote for the respondent. Shergill also reminded them of
the favours he had been doing for them when he was
;..
posted as ADC (Development) at Sangrur. The appellant
learnt about these details from Amarjeet Singh of Barroh
on 6.2.2002. Similarly, Bachhi and Shergill went to Noorpur
on 4.2.2002 and at Mastaan Singh's house, a number of E
persons of Noorpur arrived. Shergill impressed upon those
persons to. vote and support for the respondent. The
appellant learnt about this from Jagjit Singh and Jasbir
Singh when he went to Noorpur on 6.2.2002 about 2 p.m.
The appellant immediately filed a complaint through fax F
before the Chief Election Commissioner.

10. The appellant pleaded in the election petition that when
Bachhi came to know about the complaints lodged by the
appellant, he destroyed the log book of his car to conceal the G:
fact that he was touring Dirba during the assembly elections to
,.._ ~

canvass for votes for the respondent. After the result was
declared, the respondent toured the villages falling in Dirba
Constituency to congratulate and thank his voters and
supporters. On 4.4.2002 and 5.4.2002, Bachhi also H
BALDEV SINGH MANN v. SURJIT SINGH DHIMAN 549
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
...( ....( did not disclose the date, time and place when the A
appellant's statement was recorded by Avtar Singh
and thus did not disclose any cause of action.

13. That the respondent submitted on merit that he was
not aware of the details of appointment of Bachhi as
B
Administrative Member of the Punjab State Electricity Board
' as copy of the gazette notification has not been placed on
record. However, Bachhi was not in the employment of the
Punjab Government as Punjab State Electricity Board was an
autonomous body created under the Electricity (Supply) Act,
1948 and its employees are not in the service of the Punjab
c
Government.

14. According to the respondent, Shergill is not a gazetted
officer as Deputy Director in any of the departments of the
Punjab Government. D

15. The respondent specifically pleaded that he had
:1
neither sought nor got any assistance for any purpose, much
less for the furtherance of the prospects of his election either
from Bachhi or Shergill. E,
16. In the written statement, other allegations of taking
assistance or help from Bachhi or Shergill were specifically
" denied. The allegations regarding destruction of car's log book
have been made on the basis of the information received from
.
' ~
Varinder Singh, Assistant, Punjab State Electricity Board . F
According to the respondent, Varinder Singh was an ardeht
supporter of the appellant. The allegations lacked material
particulars as regards date, place and time of the alleged
destruction of the log book. Allegations that Bach hi addressed
meetings after the ele~tion were also denied. It was submitted G
that these activitie~ cannot be taken into consideration. Under
'
.....,..< ..
election law only activities of the returned candidate from the
date of filing of the nomination since declaration of the results
were not relevant. The High Court after completion of the
pleadings framed the following issues:- H
55b SUPREME COURT REPORTS~,, [2008] 16 S:C.R.
. .. ,·;·

A .' · ·· ''.1. Whether the Election Retition and the affidavit in
support ~ot the: election petition are not properly
verified,) if,so, its effect? · ,·:· '"

.... ·2. ·· Whether the 'Election Petition lacks· in: material
facts, if- so·, its ·effect? ·•· ',
'-~· -~ -
· 3... . Wh~ther th.~ _copy of -~lection ·Pet,iti9n ~.uppl~e~''to_
· · the an_swering.respondent is n.ot a complete.copy
·. of:th~. election -petition, if so, it?ieff~ct? ·"~·

c 4. .;Vvhetfier'the Eiectj9n P~titidn does.not disclose any
. cause of action as mentioned in prelimi'nary
'----
objections nos.4 and 5 of the written statement, if ,.
\
:.,_ .so, its -effect?

5. Whether the retum'ed candidate obta,ried th·~
D assistance of Mr. Gurbacha'n ·Singh Bachhi
Adrnir;iistrative Member of.P.$.E.B. for the
furtheran~e of t~e prospects of his election i!J the.
·.way and m.anner alleged .in paragraph 4 and
paragraphs 6-A to E and 7 of the election petition
E and thereby respondent committed corrupt practice
as defined under section 123(7) of Representation
of People Act, 1951? If so, its effect."
- . ' . . j
.· 1}. On Octob.er 17, 2oo3, an additional issue was trained
F which reads as under:- ..
"Whether the returned candidates obtained assistance of
Shri B.S. Shergill,'· Deputy Director, ·Parichayats, Punjab for
. th'e furtherance of his prospeds of his election in the way:
.and manner . alleged in'para'n6s.~ and.7 ofthe election
. peti~iOI) .and thereby committed corrupt practice aS ·defined i
undef sec!ioii" ~ 23(7.l 9f th~ Representation. of People
?" ..... :.·· ' . '
Atc.' .... ·.

· ·' · · 1a'.: Issues· 1 to' 4 ·were treated as preliminary issues.
BALDEV SINGH MANN v. SURJIT SINGHDHIMAN 551
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

·· 19. Ort January 13, 2004, issues 1 to 4 were decided .A
against the respondent."
~: '..

·' 20. The appellant in support of his case submitted a list
of 54, witnesses, but examined only 15.
. ' ,

21. Sum:it fylu~herjee,_ ·under Secretary to the Election B
Commission of India appeared as PW1 and testified in respect
of th~ GOmplaints receive9 by the Chief Election Commissioner
of.India from the appellant during the process of election to the
Dirba Assembly Constituency. The four c.omplaints were dated
February 4, 6 and 9, 2002 marked as PW1/A to PW1/D C
respectively. The said complaints were inquired into by the
Chief Electoral Officer, Punjab and the report of the Chief
Electoral Officer including reports of the Department of Rural
Development and Panchayats and Additional Secretary,
Department of Power are marked as PW1 /E to PW1 /G. The D
four complaints (Exhibits PW1-/A to PW1/D) were in respect of
the incidents already referred to in the pleadings.

22. The appellant appeared as PW2 and submitted his
affidavit dated March 5, 2004 Exhibit PW2/1. The appellant E
produced· 15 witnesses and the respondent produced 9
witnesses ..

23. The High Court after hearing learned counsel for the
...
parties and examining the relevant cases came to the conclusion
that it is difficult to hold that Bachhi was a gazetted officer though F
he was in the service of the Government. In this view of the matter
it is ·necessary to examine the specific allegations of corrupt
practice and after enumerating these incidents try and see if proof
of allegations either through direct, circumstantial or
corroborative evidence was forthcoming. There are allegations . G
that on several occasions· Bach hi had agreed to support the
respondent. These are extracted from the examination-in-chief
ofth~. appeliant's
, ·,·
sworn affidavit PW2/1.

· ''(i) January 23, 7 p.m. : On Dhiman's persuation H
552 SUPREME
· ..
COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.

A Bachhi agreed to support him
in· the const.ituency. This
incident had taken place in the
presence of Kirpal Singh (PW-
3). Mann was informed; about
B. this at Dirba by Karnail ·Singh
(PW-4) and others:

· (ii) Between- Dhiman and Bachhi personally
January 24-26 contacted prominent persons
of Dirba constituency for
c soliciting support for Dhiman.

(iii) They joined campaign for
Dhiman. They were seen by
Karnail Singh (PW4), Upiilder
D Singh, Teja Singh. Ti~ana,
Kashmira Singh, Darshan
Singh, Nazam Singh and Labh
Singh.

.(iv) Bachhi and Dhiman-contacted
E
Shamsher Singh and Harnek
Singh. These persons had told
Mann about this fact. ·

(v) JanuarY 27-12 noon Parkash Singh Badal,
F President (SAD) came to
. ,,, l Dirba t6 address an election
rally in Man's support and Mann
informed Badal about Bachhi's
anti-party activities. This led to
G Bachhi's expulsion from the
party.

(vi) February 3 : · Bachhi and Dhiman v1sited
Rajpura and met in Jarnail
Singh's house in the presence
H
BALDEV SINGH MANN v. SURJIT SINGH DHIMAN 553
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.)

of Ram Karan (PW 5). Jarnail A
Singh was the brother-in-law of
N.S. Bhullar, AEE, P.S.E.B.
Bhullar was also present there.
Persons present in the meeting
were asked to vote for Dhiman. ~
Bachhi even threatened Jarnail
Singh that in case his relatives
did not vote and support
Dhiman, then Bhullar could be
in trouble. Mann was informed c
about this on the following day
by Ram Karan (PW 5).

(vii) February 4 at 2 p.m.: Bach hi and Dhiman met
Niranjan Singh (PW 6) and
Mehar Singh at their houses at D
Kala Jhar and asked them to
> vote and support Dhiman.

(viii) February 3 at 3.30 p.m.: Bachhi had contacted Jasbir
Singh (PW 7), Dhanvir Singh, E
Gogi Singh in the house of
Jasbir Singh and asked them
to vote in favour of Dhiman.
Mann was.informed about this
by Jasbir Singh on the F
following day.

(ix) February 5 at 5 p.m. : Bachhi held a meeting of voters
of various villagers falling in
Dirba constituency. The
meeting was also attended by G
• ~ Dhiman. Many employees of
the Board were also present at
that meeting. Bachhi with the
consent of Dhiman had
H
554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008]· 16 S:C.R.
,·"·

A requested the persons present
in the meeting to vote for
Dhiman. The meeting was also
addressed by Surjit Singh.
, - .
.· (x) February 6 at 10 a.m.: Bach hi asked PSEB
employees to supply material
out of turn for releasing t
connection to the villagers of
Chatha Nanhera and asked
Thilu Singh to vote for Dhiman.
c On February 6 itself Bachhi
visited Dirba and in the
present of Karnail Singh and
Ruldu ir;ifbrmed about the work
done by him for Thilu and
D others. Mann learnt about this
from Karnail Singh and Ruldu
. i' Singh at a rally addressed by
Sukhbir Singh 13adal at Dirba."

E 24. The mah question before the High Court was whether
the aforementioned instances constituted corrupt practice as
defined under section 123(7) of the said Act. In the impugned
judgment the High Court came to the conclusion under sub-
section (7) of 123 of the said Act, it is obtaining or procuring
F of assistance for the furtherance of the prospects of the
candidate which- constitutes main ing~edients of corrupt ~
practice. The_ assistance has to be procured from a pers_on who
is in the government service and who additionally is a gazetted
officer. In the impugned judgment the High Court had also
G discussed the legal position in detail. The law is now well-settled
that charge of a co-rrupt practice in an election petition should
be proved almost like the criminal charge. The standard of >-- ~·
proof is high and the burden of proof is on the election
petitioner. Mere preponderance of probabilities are not enough,
as maybe the case in a civil dispute. Allegations of corrupt
H
----

• ..
BALDEV SINGH MANN v. SURJIT SINGH DHIMAN
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

practices should be clear and precise and the charge ·should
555

be proved to the hilt as in a criminal trial by clear, cogent and
A

credible evidence.

~ 25. A three-Judge Bench of this court in Je;et Mohinder
Singh v. Harminder Singh Jassi ( 1999) 9 SCC ~86 has held
'B
that the success of a candidate who has won at an election
should not be lightly interfered with. Any petition seeking such
interference must strictly conform to the requirements of the law.
Though the purity of the election process h~s to be safeguarded
and the court shall be vigilant to see tha.t people do not get
elected by flagrant breaches of law or by committing corrupt ;C
practices, the setting aside of an election involves serious
consequences not only for the returned candidate and the
constituency, but also for the public at large inasmuch as re-
election involves an enormous load on the public funds and
administration. Similar opinion has been expressed in Jagan -o
Nath v. Jaswant Singh & Others 1954 SCR 892, Gajanan
Krishnaji Bapat & Another v. Dattaji Raghobaji Meghe &
Others (1995) 5 SCC 347. The will of the people who have
a
exercised their franchise in an election in favour of returned
candidate must be respected to protect the interest of the ·E
returned candidate.

26. The court in.a.number of cases held :that charge of
corrupt practice is a quasi-criminal in character and it has to
be proved as a criminal charge and proved 'in the court.
F
~
27. In Jeet Mohinder Singh's ca$e (supra), the court
observed as under:- '

"Charge of corrupt practice is quasi-criminal in character.
If substantiated it leads not only to the setting aside of the, G
election of the successful candidate, but also.of his being
... --i
disqualified to contest an election for a certain period. It
may entail extinction of a person's public life and political
career. A trial of a.n election petition though within.the realm
of civil law is akin to trial on a criminal charge. Two H
556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.

A consequences follow. Firstly, the allegations relating to
commission of a corrupt practice should be sufficiently
clear and stated precisely so as to afford the person
charg~d a full opportunity of meeting the same. Secondly,
the charg_es when put to issue should be proved by clear,
B cogent and credible evidence. To prove charge of corrupt
practice a mere preponderance of probabilities would not
be enough. There would be a presumption of innocence
available to the person charged. the charge shafl have to
be proved to the hilt, the standard of proof being the same
as in a criminal trial."
c
28. The court has expressed similar opinion in the cases
Quamarul Islam v. S.K. Kanta & Others (1994) Supp (3) SCC
5 F.A. Sapa & Others v. Singora & Others (1991) 3 SCC 375,
Manohar Joshi v. Damodar Tatyaba & Others (1991) 2 SCC
D 342, Ram Singh & Ors. v. Col. Ram Singh (1985) Supp SCC
611 and Kripa Shankar Chatterjee v. Gurudas Chatterjee &
Others (1995) 5 sec 1.

29. In Ram Phal Kundu v. Kamal Sharma (2004) 2 SCC
E 759, the court reiterated the principle of election jurisprudence
and observed that the election of the returned candidate should
not be lightly interfered with though at the same time the purity
of the election process has to be maintained.

30. Now the crucial question arises for consideration is
F whether the evidence of the appellant on record is adequate
to constitute corrupt practice within the meaning of secti
on· 123 (7) of the said Act. 31. Section 123 (7) of the Ac
reads as under:-

G "(7) The obtaining or procuring of abetting or attempting
to obtain Qr procure by a candidate or his agent or, by any
other person [with the consent .of a candidate or his
election.agent]', any assistance (other than the giving of
vote) for the furtherance of the prospects of that
candidate's election, from any person in the service of the
H
BALDEV SINGH MANN v. SURJIT SINGH DHIMAN 557
:...A [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

~ Government and belonging to any of the following classes, A
namely:-

(a) gazetted officers;

(b) stipendiary judges and magistrates;
B
(c) members of the armed forces of the Union;
~,

(d) members of the police forces;

(e) excise officers;
c
(f) revenue officers other than village revenue officers
known as lambardars, malguzars, patels,
deshmukhs or by any other name, whose duty is to
collect land revenue and who are remunerated by
a share of, or commission on, the amount of land D
revenue collected by them but who do not
discharge any police functions; and]
(g) such other class of persons in the service of the
Government as may be prescribed:
E
[Provided that where any person, in the service of the
Government and belonging to any of the classes aforesaid,
in the discharge or purported discharge-of his official duty,
makes any arrangements or provides any facilities or does
any other act or thing, for, to, or in relation to, any candidate F
• or his agent or any other person acting with the consent
of the candidate or his election agent (whether by reason
of the office held by the candidate or for any other reason),
such arrangements, facilities or act or thing shall not be
deemed to be assistance for the furtherance of the 'G
prospects of that candidate's election]."
..... ---f
32. In the instant case, the respondent won by less than
1000 votes out of nearly 70000 polled votes. In the impugned
judgment, it is aptly observed that a candidate who loses by
H
..
558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS : · [2008] 16 S.C:R.
~
A such a slight margin finds it hard to accept defeat. Therefore,
the candidate who has narrowly lost would ordinarily· make all
efforts and gather all kind of material ag~!nst the elected
~

-
candidate and level all kinds of allegations of corrupt practices
whether substantiated or not.. In the .instant case, this is what
·s seems to have happened. Allegatio.ns are that. the winner was
moving from village to village asking for vote and in this process
he had often taken help of Bachhi a~d Sh~rgill for canvassing f
for votes in his favour.

33. In the impugned judgment, it is aptly observed:
c
"Casting a vote or asking for it does not amount to
obtaining any assistance. When a candidate meets a voter
and ask him to vote, the voter may say "yes" or "no" or
"may be". In any event such conversation between a
D candidate and the voter would not ·amount to the voter
giving assistance to the candidate. A persistent candidate
or his agent may request the voters fo'r \tote and the voter
may say "yes" simply to escape the candidate's
persistence. Thi,s w9uld not amount to corrupt practice at
E all. There must be some positive and explicit proof on the
part of voters belonging·to categories mentioned in section
123(7)(a)(g) to constitute corrupt practice.

· 34. After carefully examining the entire evidence on record,
the High Court came to the con'clusion that the appellant failed
F to prove the ingredients of corrupt practice contained in section ,.
123(7) of -th_e said Act. The High Court observed that the
evidence of corrupt pr~ctice was not strong enough to upset
the people's verdict in favour of the respondent. The High Court
also observed that the appellant has failed to prove issue 5 and
G the additional issue framed by the High Court.

35. This court in Gaja(lan Krishnaji Bapat (supra) t-- -
observed tbat that the appellate court attaches great valu.e to
the opiniori formed by the Trial Judg~ more so when the Trial
H Judge recording 'findings of faCt is the.same whci had recorded
BALDEV SINGH MANN v. SURJIT SINGH DHIMAN 559
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

the evidence. The Appellate Court shall remember that the A
jurisdiction to try an election petition has been vested in a
Judge of the High Court. Secondly, the trial judge had the benefit
of watching the demeanour of witnesses and forming first-hand
opinion of them in the process of evaluation of evidence.

36. We have carefully re-assessed and re-evaluated the
8
entire evidence of record and we concur with the view which
has been taken by the High Court. In our opinion, the appellant
has failed to prove the oasic ingredients of corrupt practices
under section 123(7) of the said Act. Consequently, the appeal
being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. C

37. Before parting with the case, we would like to reiterate
that in a democratic country the will of the people is paramount
and the election of elected candidate should not be lightly
interfered with. At the same time, it is also the bounden duty o
and obligation of the court to ensure that purity of election
process is fully safeguarded and maintained.

D.G. Appeal dismissed.