MULLAPUDI VENKATA KRISHNA RAO versus VEDULASURYANARAYANA

MULLAPUDI VENKATA KRISHNA RAO versus VEDULASURYANARAYANA

There is no evidence to establish that the offending posters were printed or used by or at the behest of the successful candidate or with their consent. The standard of proof required in election petitions has not been met; thus, the charge of corrupt practice under Section 123(3) has not been established.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Mullapudi Venkata Krishna Rao; Respondent: Vedula Suryanarayana
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 March 1993
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Andhra Pradesh High Court Decision in Election Petition No. 22 of 1990
Outcome
Appeal allowed; election petition dismissed.
Legal Topics
Corrupt Practices, Use of Religious Symbols in Elections, Standard of Proof in Election Petitions
Election Law Corrupt Practices Use of Religious Symbols in Elections Standard of Proof in Election Petitions

Source-derived case record

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mullapudi Venkata Krishna Rao

Appellant

Vedula Suryanarayana

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Andhra Pradesh High Court Decision in Election Petition No. 22 of 1990

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether use of a religious symbol in the election by the respondent amounted to corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
  2. 2 Whether the offending poster was printed, used, or exhibited by or at the behest of the successful candidate or with their consent

Ratio Decidendi

There is no evidence to establish that the offending posters were printed or used by or at the behest of the successful candidate or with their consent. The standard of proof required in election petitions has not been met; thus, the charge of corrupt practice under Section 123(3) has not been established.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; election petition dismissed.

Orders

  • Respondent shall pay costs to appellant quantified at Rs. 10,000.