SURINDER SINGH versus HARDIAL SINGH AND ORS.

SURINDER SINGH versus HARDIAL SINGH AND ORS.

Appeals under the Act open the full civil appellate jurisdiction of this Court and the Court may reappreciate evidence where the trial judge's approach is legally wrong; allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal and must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; disturbing an election meeting falls under section 127 and is not automatically 'undue influence' under section 123(2); consent or agency must be specifically pleaded and proved to fasten liability on a candidate; amelioration of public grievances while canvassing is not bribery absent proof that the candidate deposited money or gave gratification. Applying these principles the High Court erred in finding corrupt practices and...

Parties
Appellant / Returned Candidate: Surinder Singh; Respondents / Election Petitioners: Hardial Singh and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 October 1984
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Under Section 116 a of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 / On Appeal From the Judgment and Order Dated 21 January 1982 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Election Petition No. 4 of 1980
Legal Topics
Corrupt Practice, Undue Influence, Bribery, Standard of Proof, Appellate Review of Findings of Fact, Disturbance of Election Meeting
Election Law Civil Procedure Criminal Law (quasi Criminal Standard) Corrupt Practice Undue Influence Bribery Standard of Proof Appellate Review of Findings of Fact +1 more

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Surinder Singh

Appellant / Returned Candidate

Hardial Singh and Ors.

Respondents / Election Petitioners

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Under Section 116 a of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 / On Appeal From the Judgment and Order Dated 21 January 1982 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Election Petition No. 4 of 1980

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What standard of proof applies to allegations of corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (preponderance of probabilities or proof beyond reasonable doubt)?
  2. 2 Whether the Supreme Court may reappreciate findings of fact reached by the High Court in an appeal under the Act
  3. 3 Whether disturbing an election meeting amounts to 'undue influence' under section 123(2) or is covered by section 127

Ratio Decidendi

Appeals under the Act open the full civil appellate jurisdiction of this Court and the Court may reappreciate evidence where the trial judge's approach is legally wrong; allegations of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal and must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; disturbing an election meeting falls under section 127 and is not automatically 'undue influence' under section 123(2); consent or agency must be specifically pleaded and proved to fasten liability on a candidate; amelioration of public grievances while canvassing is not bribery absent proof that the candidate deposited money or gave gratification. Applying these principles the High Court erred in finding corrupt practices and...