SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI., S. Rajendra Babu and R.C. Lahoti, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 12625 of 1996. D/d. 6.10.1999

Gopalrao Ravalaji Gulve - Appellant

Versus

Shantaram Punjaji Aher - Respondent

For the Appellant :- Mr. A.M. Khanwilkar and Ms. Poonam, Advocates.

For the Respondent :- Mr. U.U. Lalit and Ms. Aprajita Singh, Advocates.

Representation of the People Act, 1951, Sections 113(1), 123(2) and 123(6) - Election Petition - Corrupt practices in election - The charge of practices relating to bribery cannot be proved through cryptic and vague evidence - Allegation that the returned candidate distributed money in a meeting to solicit the votes - No evidence nor statements of witnesses showing that the meeting was held by the returned candidate or was held with his consent or was sponsored by him.
(i) No role played by the respondent directly or indirectly in convening the meeting or offering the money attributed to him - Charge rightly rejected by the Election Court.
(ii) Witnesses - Interested witnesses - Both the witnesses examined by the defeated candidate were admittedly his party workers - They were held to be interested in the success of the election petition.

[Paras, 5 and 6]

JUDGMENT

R.C. Lahoti, J. - In the elections held on 15th June, 1994 to the Maharasthra Legislative Council from the Local Authorities Constituency, Nashik, Maharashtra, the appellant, who had contested as an official candidate of the Indian National Congress (I), was defeated by the respondent who had contested as an independent candidate. The appellant challenged the election of the returned candidate through an election petition on various grounds of commission of corrupt practices. The election petition was resisted and the returned candidate denied all the allegations made against him. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :

(1) Whether the petitioner proves that the Respondent had consented to the campaigning and canvassing alleged to have been done by Dr. Hiray and or Yogesh Aher and/or Prasad Hiray ?

(2) Whether any amount was given to the electors by Dr. Hiray and Yogesh Aher as gratification which directly induced the electors to vote for the Respondent (as alleged in paragraphs 8(a) to 8(k) of the petition) and whether with the consent of the respondent ?

(3) Whether the contents of the cassette contained in sealed covers and marked as Articles 'I' and 'II' are the tape recorded conversations between the lady Corporators Mrs. Nafiza, Mrs. Najma, Mrs. Akhtarunissa, Mrs. Khairunissa, Dr. Hiray, his son Prasad Hiray, Rashid and Yogesh Aher and whether the same is without any interpolation or erasures ?

(4) Whether Dr. Hiray and Yogesh Aher promised and offered Rs. 12,000/- or any other undisclosed sum to Shri Godke and Shri Sawle ?

(5) Whether Dr. Hiray and Yogesh Aher have directly interfered with the electoral right of an elector as alleged with the consent of the Respondent ?

(6) Whether on 14th June, 1994 Shri Uttamrao Dhikale along with Shri Yadavrao Tungar approached Smt. Latabai at her residence and offered her a sum of Rs. 10.000/- so as to vote for the Respondent and whether any such offer was made with the consent of the Respondent ?

(7) Whether Shri Yogesh Aher and Maharu Aher had approached Shri Shivaji Raundal with any offer as and by way of bargain to induce Mr. Raundal to vote for the Respondent and not to vote for the petitioner and whether any such offer/bargain was made with the consent of the respondent ?

(8) Whether the Respondent with Shri Uttamarao Dhikale went to the residence of Shri Laxman Savji on 13th June, 1994 and offered him Rs. 10,000/- or any sum so as to induce him to vote in favour of the Respondent ?

(9) Whether Respondent has committed corrupt practices as defined in clauses (1), (2) and (6) of Section 123 of the Representation of Peoples Act either by himself or through any other person with the Respondent's consent ?

(10) What orders ?

2. After the evidence was led by the parties, learned Designated Election Judge decided all the issues against the appellant and dismissed the election petition. Hence, this statutory appeal.

3. Mr. A.M. Khanwilkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has confined his submissions in this appeal to the allegations relating to the commission of corrupt practices under Section 123(1), 123(2) and 123(6) of the Representation of The People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The submissions have been confined to the incidents covered by Issues 1 to 5.

4. The gravamen of the charge of the corrupt practice levelled against the returned candidate in these issues is that money was disturbed to solicit votes for the returned candidate to certain electors who were present at a meeting held on 11th June, 1994 at Malegaon. That meeting is alleged to have been convened by one Dr. Baliram Hiray and is supposed to have been attended by Yogesh Aher, son of the returned candidate-R.W.-2. In support of these allegations, the appellant has examined Sakharam Bhiku Godke-P.W. 2 and Shantaram Baburao Sawle-P.W. 3.

5. We have with the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant, gone through the evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. Apart from the fact that both these witnesses are admittedly party workers of the appellant and therefore, interested in the success of the election petition, we find from a careful scrutiny of their evidence that both these witnesses have not even deposed that the alleged meeting on 11th June, 1994 had been convened by Dr. Hiray at the instance of or with the consent of the returned candidate. As a matter of fact, their evidence is singularly silent about any role played by the respondent directly or indirectly in convening that meeting or offering the alleged bribe to some named persons. It is not disputed that the respondent himself was not present at the alleged meeting of 11th June, 1994. There is no material on the record to even suggest that the respondent bad sponsored the said meeting or it was held at his instance or with his consent. Yogesh-R.W. 2, son of the returned candidate denied to have visited the house of Dr. Hiray in the month of June, 1994 at all. He asserted, in his deposition, that the allegation, that he has present at the house of Dr. Hiray when bribe was allegedly offered by Dr. Hiray, was absolutely incorrect. The returned candidate appearing as R.W. 1 also categorically denied that any meeting had been convened at the house of Dr. Hiray in which his son-Yogesh R.W. 2 has participated and offered bribe to the voters.

6. The vague and cryptic evidence led by the appellant has been controverted by the returned candidate R.W. 1 as well as his witness Yogesh R.W. 2. There is no other evidence worth the name to connect the returned candidate with the allegations relating to the offer of bribe on 11th June, 1994 at the residence of Dr. Hiray. The evidence, of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 - Sakharam Bhiku Godke and Shantaram Baburao Sawale - does not even otherwise inspire any confidence. The charge of corrupt practice relating to bribery cannot be said to have been proved through such cryptic, vague and un-reliable evidence.

7. Though before the High Court evidence was also led to show that proceedings at the residence of Dr. Hiray on 11th June, 1994 had been tape-recorded but that evidence was not accepted by the trial court and rightly so. In fairness to Mr. Khanwilkar, it must be stated that he did not advance any argument with regard to the evidentiary value of the tape record produced in the form of audio cassette and did not question the finding of the learned Designated Election Judge in that behalf. The findings recorded by the learned Designated Election Judge to the effect that the appellant had miserably failed to prove the charge of bribery against the returned candidate are well merited.

8. Mr. Khanwilkar, learned counsel did make an attempt to address arguments on Issue No. 7 but faced with the untrustworthiness of the testimony of the solitary witness produced in support of this issue P.W. 4 Shivaji A. Raundal did not pursue the matter any further. No other point was urged.

9. The well considered impugned judgment of the High Court calls for no interference. There is no merit in this appeal which fails and is, hereby, dismissed. There shall, however, no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.