Holding

The charge of corrupt practice under section 123(4) was not proved beyond reasonable doubt because the appellant's signature on the letter could not be established, so the election was not set aside.

Summary

The appellant Jagmal Singh Yadav was elected to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly, but his election was set aside by the High Court on the ground that he had committed a corrupt practice under section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act by causing a defamatory news item to be published against the respondent. The key issue was whether a letter dated 27 February 1985, which was the basis for the newspaper publication, bore the appellant's signature. The High Court relied on the testimony of a newspaper editor (later found wholly unreliable) and the opinion of a handwriting expert to conclude that the signature was that of the appellant. The Supreme Court held that the signature could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt, noting the unreliability of the editor, contradictions in the editor's testimony, and the insufficiency of the handwriting expert's evidence. Consequently, the charge of corrupt practice was not established, the High Court judgment was set aside, and the election petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant committed a corrupt practice under section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 by causing the publication of defamatory material.
Whether the letter dated 27 February 1985 was signed by the appellant.
Whether the evidence, including the handwriting expert's opinion and the editor's testimony, establishes the signature beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the election can be set aside under section 100(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act.

Legislation cited

Representation of the People Act, 1951s. 100(1)(b), s. 100(1)(c), s. 116A, s. 117, s. 123(4), s. 83

Subjects

election lawcorrupt practicedefamationhandwriting expertsignature verificationburden of proofRepresentation of the People Act

Judgment

'
JAGMAL SINGH YADAV A
v.
' AIMADUDDIN AHMED KHAN
'
MARCH 9, 1994

(S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND KULDIP SINGH, JJ.) B

Election Law-Representation of the People Act, 1951-Sections 123(4)
and IOO(l)(b)-<:harge of corrupt practice-Standa1d of p1oof-!'ublication
of defamatmy news item-Source of lette1 addTesed to Edito1 of newspape1
doubtfu~and writing erpert-Testimony of-fl.eliability. c
The election of appellant to the Rajasthan legislative Assembly has
been set aside on the ground that the appellant committed corrupt practice
u/s U3 (4) of the Representation of the People Act. The only ground on
which his election has been set aside is that he got published in a local
newspaper a defamatory news item against the respondent which D
amounted to a com1pt practice. The High Court held the appellant respon-
sible for the publication of the news item primarily on the basis of the
·• letter addressed to the editor of the newspaper, which according to the
High Court was written and signed by the appellant. The evidence of the
editor was discarded in toto he having been proved wholly unresiable E
witness. To prove the signature of the appellant the High Court finally
relied on the opinion rendered by a handwriting expert. This appeal u/s
116A is filed against the judgment of the High Court by which election of
the appellant bas been set aside.

Allowing the appeal, this Court F
HELD: 1.1. It is settled proposition of law that the charge of corrupt
" practice against a returned candidate has to be proved like a criminal
charge and unless there is cogent evidence to take the case beyond
reasonable doubt the election cannot be set aside. In the instant case the
charge of corrupt practice u/s 123(4) of the Representation of the People G
Act, 1951 against the appellant, primarily depends on the question as to
whether the letter bears the signatures of the appellant. The editor of the
newspaper having been proved wholly unreliable witness, the source of the
letter becomes highly tainted and as such doubtful. It is no doubt correct
i
that the signatures on the letter have to be proved independently and H
357
I

358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [199412 S.C.R.

A irrespective of the sourct! from which the document is produced keeping
in view the totality of the circumstances in this case it would be difficult
for this court to bold the charge proved against the appellant only on the
testimony of the handwriting expert. [365-G-H; 366-A)

1.2. Eveu otherwise there are glaring circumstances which create a
B doubt regarding the signatures of the appellant on the letter containing
defamatory material. [366-B)

1.3. The charge of corrupt practice under section 123 (4) of the Act bas
not been proved against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. [367-B)
c CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2938
(NCE) of 1989.

For the Judgment and Order dated 18.5.89 of the Rajasthan High
Court in Election Petition No. 10 of 1985.
D Prashant Bhushan and C. Mohan Rao for the Appellant.

B.D. Ahmam & Parijat Sinha for the respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E KULDIP SINGH, J. This appeal under Section 116A of the Repre-
sentation of People Act, 1951 (the Act) is directed against the judgment
dated May 18, 1989 of the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench by which
the election of the appellant to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from
the Tijara Constituency has been set aside on the ground that the appellant
F committed the corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Act.
2. The poll was held on March 5, 1985. Six candidates, .including the
appellant, Aimaduddin Ahmed Khan, respondent in the appeal herein, and
one Maya Ram had filed their nomination papers. The appellant was
candidate of the Congress party whereas the respondent was the candidate
G of Lok Dal. The nomination paper of Maya Ram was rejected by the
returning officer during the course of scrutiny. Five candidates contested
the election. The total n.umber of valid votes polled was 70802. The
appellant received 37481 votes .whereas the respondent received 29982
votes. On March 6, 1985 the appellant was declared elected to the Rajas·
H than Legislative Assembly from the Tijara Constituency.
'·
J.S. YAfJAV v. AA KHAN [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 359

3. Aimaduddin Ahmed Khan filed election petition on April 9, 1985 A
'' challenging the election of the appellant on the following grounds:-

(i) The nomination paper of Mayaram was improperly rejected by
the Returning Officer and the election of the respondent is liable to be set
aside under Section lOO(l)(c) of the Act.
B
(ii) On the date of the election the respondent was not qualified
under the Constitution and/or the Act to be chosen to fill the seat,
inasmuch as he had not made and subscribed oath or affirmation in the
manner as prescribed under Article 173(a) of the Constitution and the
election of the respondent is liable to be set aside under Section C
lOO(l)(a)of the Act.

(iii) The nomination of the respondent was liable to be rejected on
the ground that on the date fixed for scrutiny of the nomination, he was
not qualified for being chosen to fill the seat under Article 113 of the
Constitution. D
(iv) The respondent is guilty of corrupt practice as defmed in sub-
sections (3) and (4) of Section 123 the Act and his election is liable to be
set aside under section lOO(l)(b) of the Act.

4. The appellant contested the election petition by denying all the E
allegations. He specifically denied having committed any corrupt practice
or consented to the commission of any corrupt practice as defined under
the Act. With regard to the rejection of nomination paper of Mayaram, the
case of the appellant was that the said nomination paper was rightly
rejected. The appellant further raised an objection that the respondent-
petitioner had not complied with the provisions of Section ~1 of the Act F
inasmuch· as the election petition was not accompanied with the requisite
number of copies and that the copy of the election petition supplied to the
appellant was not a true and correct copy. The respondent a!So contended
that the allegations of correct practices were too vague and lacking in
material facts as required under Section 83 of the Act and as .such the G
paragraph containing the said allegations were liable to be struck-off.

5. On the pleadings of the parties the High Court framed the follow-
.ing issues:-

"1. Whether the petitioner is a voter of Bani Park Assembly H
I

360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] 2 S.C.R.

A Constituency in part 37 serial No.665? (
y

2. Whether the petitioner is popularly known as Durru Main?

3. Whether the nomination paper of Shri Maya Ram had been
improperly rejected?
B
4. Whether the respondent was not qualified to be chosen to fill
the seat under Article 173 of the Constitution of India.

5. Whether the letter dated February 27, 1985 bears the signatures
of the respondent?
c 6.Whether the respondent is guilty of committing corrupt practices
within the meaning of Section 123(3) and Section 123 (4) of the
Representation of People Act, 1951 as alleged in Paras No.15 to
27 of the Election Petition?

D 7. Whether the petitioner has not deposited the security deposit
in accordance with. the provisions of Sectionll7 of the Respresen-
tation of People A.ct, 1951? r
•
8. Whether the election petition was not accom!Janied with the
requisite number of copies of the election petition and the copy
E served on the respondent is not true .and correct copy of the
election petition. If so, what is its result?

9. Whether the allegations of corrupt practices under Section
123(3) and (4) of the Representation of People Act are too vague
and lacking in material facts and are liable to be struck off.
F
10. Relief?

6. Issues Nos. 7, 8 & 9 were treated as preliminary issues and were
decided by the High Court by its order dated September 30, 1985. These
G issues were decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent-
petitione;. It is not necessary for us to deal with the merits of the High
Court judgment in respect of these issues.

7. Issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the respondent-petitioner.
Issue No. 2 was decided in the affirmative and it was held that respondent-
H petitioner was popularly konwn as Durru Mian. Issue No. 3 was answered
\
J.S. YADAV v. AA KHAN [KULDIPSINGH, J.] 361

in the negative and issue No. 4 was decided in favour of the appellant. No A
'" arguments were addressed by the learned coWlsel for the parties before us
on issues 1 to 4 and as such it is not necessary for us to deal with these
issues any further.

8. On issue No. 5 the High Court came to the conclusion that the
letter dated February 27, 1985 was signed by the appellant. and as a B
consequence the High Court decided issue No. 6 partly against the appel-
lant by recording a fmding that the appellant was guilty of committing the
corrupt practice within the meaning of sub-Section (4) of Section 123 of
the Act. The election petition was, thus, allowed and the election of the
respondent to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from Tijara Constituen- C
cy was set aside under Section 100(1) (b) of the Act.

9. The only ground on which the appellant's election has been set
aside is that he got published in a local newspaper of Alwar a defamatory
news item against the respondent-petitioner which amounted to a corrupt
practice. The news item was published in the newspaper called "Vishwa D
Vijay" on February 27, 1985 and repeated on March 1, 1985. The High
Court held the appellant responsible for the publication of the news items
primarily on the basis of the letter dated February 27, 1985, addressed to
Shyam Narain Maurya editor 'Vishwa Vijay", which according to the High
Court was written and signed by the appellant. The said letter in Hindi E
script when translated reads as under:- · ·

"Dear Shyam Narainj~ Editor Vishwa Vijay News Paper, Alwar.

Kindly publish in your newspaper, Vishwa Vijay my statement
given below which is against the Congress (I) candidate from the F
Tijara constituency and distribute the same amongst the voters of
the Tijara constituency so that I derive some benefits from it in
the election.

After hearing stories in connection with Durru Maya's charac-
terlessness, the masses have started going against him. He is Nawab G
Aminuddin's nephew and calls himself his son. He has raped
hundred of women and one women died at his residence at the
time of undergoing abortion. From Nawab Aminuddin's residence,
he stole and took away cash and ornaments worth Rs. 15 lakhs and
was arrested in Lucknow and rotted in jails for many months. He H
/
362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 2 S.C.R.

A had the records burnt at the Punjab Governor's House. Moreover I
j•
now he has a meat shop in Delhi and transports flesh of dead
buffalows from Jaipur to Delhi and sells the same there and in
Jaipur, when ·the police tried to catch, he somehow or the other,
was successful in finishing the case.

B Dated 27.2.1985. Faithfuly.

Sci/- Jagmal Singh Yadav
Candidate DMKP Party .L
Tijara Assembly Constituency."

c 10. The case of the respondent as set out in the election petition is
that on reading the issues of the newspaper "Vishwa Vijay" of dated
February 27, 1985 and March 1, 1985, wherein highly damaging statements
bringing the respondent in disrepute before the electors, he inquired from
Shyam Narain Maurya about the basis for publishing the news items and
D further threatened him with prosecution. Maurya, however, explained that
he published the news items on the basis of the letter dated February 27,
1985 sent to him by the appellant. Maurya handed over the said letter along
with an affidavit dated April 17, 1985 to the respondent. In the affidavit
the circumstances under which Maurya published the defamatory material
E were enumerated. The affidavit was attested by the Notary Public. The
respondent-petitioner filed the two issues of the newspaper "Vishwa Vijay",
copy of the letter dated February 27, 1985 and the affidavit of Maurya
dated April 17, 1985 along with the election petition.

11. In support of his aforesaid case, the respondent-petitioner ex-
F amined himself as PW-1. He stated that he sought an explanation from
Maurya as to how he had published the news items which were totally false
and contained defamatory allegations against him. He further stated that
he had gone with the intention of initiating civil and criminal proceedings
against Maurya for defamation. Maurya explained to him that he published
the news items on the basis of the written information received from the
G appellant. PW-1 further stated that thereafter Maurya gave him the original
letter dated February 27, 1985 which was marked as exhibited PW 1/9.
Photo copy of the said letter was marked as Exhibit PW 1/lOC. The
affidavit of Maurya was marked as Exhibit PW 1/10. Copies of fhe news
papers were marked as exhibits PW 1/lOA and PW 1/lOB. During the
H course of cross-examination PW-1 stated that Maurya gave him letter
\\

J.S. YADAV v. AA. KHAN [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 363

\ Exhibit Pw lflOC on April 17, 1985 at Jaipur. He further stated that he A
had received the letter Exhibit PW 1/9 and photo copy of the letter marked
Exhibit PW 1/lOC on April 17, 1985 at Jaipur. With regard to the affidavit
PW 1/10, PW-1 stated that when he threatened Maurya with criminal as
well as civil action, Maurya opted to give an affidavit in support of his
explanation to the effect that he had published the news items under the B
directions of the appellant. PW-1 stated that when he met Maurya at Alwar
Paltu Khan (PW-7) also accompanied him.
' ...(

12. Paltu Khan (PW-7) has deposed that he accompanied the respon-
dent-petitioner when he had gone to meet Maurya and he was the witness
to the talk which took place between the two regarding the printing and C
publication of the news items.

13. The respondent-petitioner also examined Shabbir Ahmad (PW-
11) who is employed as Reader in the court of Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Jaipur. He stated that he had gone to meet the petitioner at D
Loharu House in Jaipur on April 17, 1985 in order to invite him to a
function to be held on April 18, 1985 in connection when the marriage of
his daughter. PW-11 stated that when he was sitting with the petl\ioner,
Maurya came there and handed over the letter dated February 27, 1985,
the photo copy of the said letter, two news papers and an affidavit.
Chandmal Jain (PW-16) is the Notary P~blic before whom the affidavit E
Exhibit PW-1/10 was sworn by Maurya. He has proved the signature of
Maurya on the said affidavit and he further stated that he had attested the
afidavit and made an entry in his register.

14. As against the aforesaid evidence adduced by the respondent- F
petitioner, the appellant examined Shyam Narain Maurya as DW-20. In his
statement before the High Court Maurya stated that the appellant did not
give him any matter for publication against respondent petitioner and that
Exhibit PW-1}9 was net given to him by the appellant. He also stated that
he did not supply E>Jribit PW-1!10, Exhibits PW-1/lOB and Exhibit PW-
1/lOC to respondent-petitioner. According to him Chiranjilal Advocate and G
Paltu Khan had met him in his office at Alwar on April 16, 1985 and they
told him that Shri M.1. Khan, Additional Advocate General had called him
(DW-20) to Jaipur and thereupon he (DW-20) came to Jaipur on the same
evening and siayed alollgwith Chiranjilal in Hotel Gaden Inn. He further
deposed that M.I. Khan met him in the hotel and asked him to meet him H
I
364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (19'J4] 2 S.C.R.

A on next day. On the next day he (DW-20) met M.I. Khan in his office in /
the. presence of Paltu Khan and the respondent-petitioner. He further
stated that khan and the respondent petitiner told him that they would give
hlm Rs. 2,<XYJ/- in case he.gave them in writing that the appellant had sent
a letter to hlm for the publication of the news items. DW-20 further stated
that he was shown several papers containing the signatures of the appellant.
B He stated that he had agreed to the suggestion put forward by the respon-
dent-petitioner but at the same time he declined the financial assistance.
DW,20 stated that Khan told him that he (Khan) would help hlm (DW-20) ).._ '

in· a ciminal case under si:ctinn 500 IPC which was pending against him
(DW-20) in the High Court. Thereafter, Khan got the affidavit Exhibit
C PW-1/ltl typed in his office and the same was verified before the Notary
Public. DW-20 finally stated that on April, 18, 1985 he sent a complaint in
the shape of ail affidavit to the Chief Justice of the High Court at Jaipur
bringing to his notice the circumstances under which he was made to sign
a false affidavit on the previous day. He placed on record copy of the
D affidavit which was exhibited as DW-1/2.
15. Chiranjilal, Advocate, has been examined as PW-14 but his r
. '
testimony does not help the respondent-petitioner in any manner.

16. There are many contradictions in the testimony of Shyam Narain
E Maurya as DW-20 .. The High Court discussed hims evidence in detail and
finally came to the conclusion that he was self-confessed liar. The version
given by Mautya in his statement as DW-20 is also not in accord with the
version which was given by him to the appellant-JagDlai Singh. The appel-
lant in his statement as DW-1 has stated that Maurya had told him that he
(DW-20) was taken to Golden Hotel, Jaipur, where Chiranjilal Advocate,
F Paltu Khan, M.I. Khan, S. Ahmed, Collector. of Bharatpur, Shri Ayub
Khan, Ex. M.L.A. and the respondent-petitioner made him to drink and
thereafter they got his signatures on various papers. Learned Single Judge
of the High Court aft.er careful examination fo the testimony of Shyam
Narain Maurya concluded as under:-
G
"Having carefully considered the testimony of Shyam Narain
Maurya in the light of other evidence on record, I am of the view
.that reliance cannot be placed on the testimony of Shri Shyam
Narain Maurya DW-20)."

H 17. We agree with the High Court that Shyam Narain Maurya is a
'
J.S. YADAV v. AA KHAN [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 365

\ wholly unreliable witness and his testimony has to be discarded in tolo. No A
"' reliance can be placed on his affidavit Exhibit PW- 1/10. The charge of
corrupt practice under section 123(4) of the Act by the appellant, in our
view, primarily depends on the question as to whether the letter Exhibit
PW-119 bears the signatures of the appellant. To prove the signatures of
the appellant, the respondent-petitioner produced Shri C.T. Sarwate (PW-
6) a hand writing expert. The appellant also produced Shri A.S. Kapoor
B
(DW- 33) another hand writing expert to controvert the testimony of PW-6.
The High Court examined in detail the reasons given by the two experts
and finally preferred the opinion rendered by Shri C.T. Sarwate (PW-6) in
the following words :-
c
'Having ·eonsidered the disputed signatures in EX.P.W.. 1/9 and
the admitted signatures of the respondent, in the light of the
reasons given by both the experts, namely, Shri C.T. Sarwate PW-6
and Shri A.S. Kapoor D.W. 33, I am ohhe view that the chrac-
teristics found in the admitted signatures of the respondent are
D
present in the disputed signatures and the dissimilarities between
>...~ the disputed signaturs and the admitted signatures pointed out by
Shri A.S. Kapoor D.W. 33, are also found in some of the admitted
signatures of the respondent. To my mind the reasons given by
Shri Sarwate PW6 for arriving at the conclusion that the disputed
signatures and the standard signatures have been written by one E
and the same person, are more cogent and convincing and I am
inclinced to agree with the opinion expressed by Shri Sarwate that
the disputed signatures in Ex. P.W. 119 are of the respondent.'

~
18. We have examined the opinions given by the two experts. Even F
' if we agree with the High Court that the opinion expressed by Shri Sarwate
is more convincing than that of Shri Kapur, it would not be possible for us
to hold that the signautres on Exhibit PW- 1/9 are of the appellant. It is
settled proposition of law that the charge of corrupt practice against a
returned candidate has to b<~ proved like a criminal charge and unless there
is congent evidence to talm the case beyond reasonable doubt the election G
cannot be set aside. Maurya (DW-20) having been proved wholly unreliable
.witness, the source of the ktter Exhibit PW-1/9 becomes highly tainted and
J as such doubtful. It is no cloubt correct that the signatures on the ,letter
Exhibit PW-1/9 have to be proved independently and irrespective of the
source from which tbe docU'11ent is produced but keeping in view the H
I

366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 2 S.C.R.

A totality of the circumstances i111 this case it would be difficult for us to hold f
r
the charge proved against the appellant only on the testimony of the hand
writing expert.

19. Even otherwise there are glaring circumstances in this case which
create a doubt in our mind that the signatures under the defamatory
B material contained in Exhibit PW-1/9 are of the appellant.

20. The appellant himself is a lawyer and an experienced politician
having contested two elections before the election in dispute. It is difficult
for us to believe that a person in the position of the appellant would
C address a letter containing highly defamatory matter for publication during
the course of election.

21. We have carefully examined the paper on which the letter Exhibit
PW-1/9 is written. It is a small piece of paper measuring hardly 5" from
top to bottom. The letter is so closely typed from the very top of the paper
D till the bottom that it gives an impression as if the typist had only that piece
of paper t.o do the job. The very look of the paper and the typed-writing I
;
on it gives the impression that the letter was prepared under abnormal
circumstances. It does not give the impression of a normal letter written in
the ordinary course of business.
E 22. The letter Exhibit PW-1/9 dated February 27, 1985 and its con-
tents were published in the newspaper dated February 27, 1985 with the
date-line February 26, 1985. Shyam Narain Maurya stated as DW-20 that
the newspaper "dated 27.2.85 was printed one day earlier i.e., on 26.2.85."
The respondent-petitioner in his affidavit dated April 17, 1985 Exhibit
F PW-1/10 deposed that the appellant had handed over the letter dated
February 27, 1985 Exhibited PW-1/9 to Maurya personally on February 27,
1985. If the newspaper was printed on February 26, 1985, it is difficult to
understand how the letter dated February 27, 1985 which was delivered to
Mr. Maurya on the same day could be printe.d in the said newspaper.

G 23. There is no contemporaneous evidence to show the publication
of the news items. It is difficult to believe that after reading the news items
the respondent-petitioner could have remained silent. The least what was
expected of a reasonable person under the circumstances was to have
lodged a first information report in respect of the news items or sent a
H complaint to any of the authorities under the Act.
'
J.S. YADAV v. A.A.KHAN [KULDIPSINGH, J.] 367

24. Once we doubt the genuineness of the letter Exhibit PW-1/9. the A
oral evidence of publication produced by the respondent-petitioner loses
its importance.

25. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the evidence on
the record. We have also carefully gone through the reasoning of the High
Court. We are not convinced that the charge of corrupt practice under B
section 123(4) of the Act has been proved against the appellant beyond
reasonable doubt.

26. We allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court
and dismiss the election petition filed by the respondent-petitioner with
costs. We quantify the costs as Rs. 20,000. C
27. The special leave petition is dismissed as having become infruc-
tuous.

A.G. Appeal allowed.
SLP dismissed.