S. BALDEV SINGH MANN versus S. GURCHARAN SINGH, MLA AND ORS.

S. BALDEV SINGH MANN versus S. GURCHARAN SINGH, MLA AND ORS.

The appellant failed to prove with strict evidence the alleged corrupt practices, including booth capturing and excessive election expenditure. The allegations were vague, unsubstantiated by credible evidence, and the High Court's findings could not be disturbed. Threatening a polling agent, as alleged, does not constitute the corrupt practice of booth capturing within Section 123(8). There was neither oral nor written complaint to election officials, and supporting witnesses' evidence was found unreliable.

Parties
Appellant: S. Baldev Singh Mann; Respondent No. 1 / Returned Candidate: S. Gurcharan Singh; Respondent No. 2: Chet Singh; Respondent No. 3: S. Amarjit Singh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 February 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Under Section 116 a of Representation of People Act, 1951 / Appeal Against Judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Election Petition No. 13 of 1992
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Corrupt Practices, Booth Capturing, Election Expenses, Standard of Proof
Election Law Corrupt Practices Booth Capturing Election Expenses Standard of Proof

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S. Baldev Singh Mann

Appellant

S. Gurcharan Singh

Respondent No. 1 / Returned Candidate

Chet Singh

Respondent No. 2

S. Amarjit Singh

Respondent No. 3

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Under Section 116 a of Representation of People Act, 1951 / Appeal Against Judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Election Petition No. 13 of 1992

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether threatening a polling agent by the returned candidate amounts to the corrupt practice of booth capturing under Section 123(8) read with Section 135-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
  2. 2 Whether the returned candidate indulged in booth capturing or corrupt practice as alleged.
  3. 3 Whether the returned candidate exceeded the ceiling on election expenses and concealed expenses in violation of Section 77 read with Rule 90 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to prove with strict evidence the alleged corrupt practices, including booth capturing and excessive election expenditure. The allegations were vague, unsubstantiated by credible evidence, and the High Court's findings could not be disturbed. Threatening a polling agent, as alleged, does not constitute the corrupt practice of booth capturing within Section 123(8). There was neither oral nor written complaint to election officials, and supporting witnesses' evidence was found unreliable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs of Rs. 3000 to be paid to respondent No. 1.