ASHOK DULICHAND versus MADAHAVLAL DUBE & ANOTHER

ASHOK DULICHAND versus MADAHAVLAL DUBE & ANOTHER

No foundation was laid for admitting secondary evidence in the form of a photostat copy as it was not established that the original was in possession of respondent no. 1. There was also no evidence on record to prove the falsity of the statements in the leaflet. As such, requirements for proving corrupt practice under section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act were not met.

Parties
Appellant: Ashok Dulichand; Respondent No. 1: Madahavlal Dube; Respondent No. 2: Dr. Ratanchand Mangalchand Sanghvi
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 August 1975
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Decision
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Corrupt Practice, Secondary Evidence, False Statement, Personal Character in Elections
Election Law Evidence Law Corrupt Practice Secondary Evidence False Statement Personal Character in Elections

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ashok Dulichand

Appellant

Madahavlal Dube

Respondent No. 1

Dr. Ratanchand Mangalchand Sanghvi

Respondent No. 2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the leaflet with defamatory statements about respondent no. 2 constituted a corrupt practice under section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
  2. 2 Whether secondary evidence in the form of a photostat copy could be admitted under section 65(a) of the Evidence Act.

Ratio Decidendi

No foundation was laid for admitting secondary evidence in the form of a photostat copy as it was not established that the original was in possession of respondent no. 1. There was also no evidence on record to prove the falsity of the statements in the leaflet. As such, requirements for proving corrupt practice under section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act were not met.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • appeal dismissed with costs