JAGIR SINGH & ANR. versus JASDEV SINGH & ORS.

JAGIR SINGH & ANR. versus JASDEV SINGH & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that the evidence established that the pamphlet/poster was printed and distributed before the poll at the instance of the first respondent. The absence of complaint by the second respondent and oral testimony critiqued by the High Court did not negate the direct evidence, and the findings of signature authentication and witness testimony proved corrupt practice under s.123(3) and (3A).

Parties
Appellant: Jagir Singh & Anr.; Respondent No. 1: Jasdev Singh; Respondent No. 2: Respondent no. 2; Respondent No. 3: Respondent no. 3
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 February 1975
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; election of first respondent held void
Legal Topics
Corrupt Practice in Election, Proof of Corrupt Practice, Election Petition
Election Law Corrupt Practice in Election Proof of Corrupt Practice Election Petition

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jagir Singh & Anr.

Appellant

Jasdev Singh

Respondent No. 1

Respondent no. 2

Respondent No. 2

Respondent no. 3

Respondent No. 3

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the publication and distribution of a poster amounted to corrupt practice under s.123(3) and 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
  2. 2 Whether the evidence established the poster was published and distributed before the poll by the successful candidate

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the evidence established that the pamphlet/poster was printed and distributed before the poll at the instance of the first respondent. The absence of complaint by the second respondent and oral testimony critiqued by the High Court did not negate the direct evidence, and the findings of signature authentication and witness testimony proved corrupt practice under s.123(3) and (3A).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; election of first respondent held void

Orders

  • Election of first respondent set aside
  • Appellants will get their costs from first respondent