P. C. PURUSHOTIIAMA REDDIAR v. S~PERUMAL December 2, 1971 [K. S. IiEGDE, A. N. GROVER AND A. N. RAY, JJ.J Representation of the People A.ct 1951—S. 123(6)-Whe11 cor1·upt pr"ctice-Evidence A.ct-S. 35-When police report !ldmissible in evi~
dencB where the officer concerned not examined perJonally. The appellant challenaed the validity of the election of the re•pondcnt to the Pondicherry Lagislatu!':! A=mbly on variou• grounds includibg corrupt practices. The High Court dismisse<l the election petition. ln
lhC' appeal to this Court, the appellant contended (i) that the appellant's cmen<lment 3pplicat;on of the ele::tion petition giving some more particulars of mc.etings held by the respondent was wrongfully rejected by the Trial Court on the sole ground that it wught 10 include additional &rounds of corrupt practice and
(ii) that the respondent bad actually incurred expenses in connection 1vith 4 more meetings thereby exceedin2 the prescribed limit. The re•pondent, on the other hand, contended that .the various police reports about the meetin23 relied on by the appellant were not admisoible 1n evidence as the head constable who covered the mcetinas had not been ~:xamined in the case: that even if the reports were admWible. the C.Ourt could not look ioto the content'! of those docun1ents and that the evidence ofTorded by the police reports was not relevant,
-" llowing the appeal, HELD : (i) The incurri…ng or authorising of an expenditure in con- travention of s .. 77 of the Act is one single corrupt practice. The incilrr~ 1ng or authorising of an expenditure in connection with the election is not ~1y itself a corrupt practice. The corrupt practice is the incurrina or
,H1lhorising the expenditure of n1ore than the prescribed limit. Hence, the ·r rial C.ourt erred in thinking that each item of expenditure is a corrupt practice by itself. The particulars of corrupt practice fallin& under sec· rions 123(6) Of the Act rn~v. i11 an appropriate case, be introduced by ;1n1cndment.
B_v doinR so. no additional ground of corrupt practice can he said to have been introduced. [b50 HJ D. P. lvffa"rt1 and Anr. v.. Kt11nhl Narayan Shanna and Anr. J.1971] 1 '>.C.R. 8, referred to.
(ii) As regards the nu1nber of meetings held bv the respondent, al- rhough he denied having be1d any meetin2 at all however admitted in bi~ .:.·vidence that he had arranged seven meetings between, February 27, 1969 😮 M"..lrch 6. 1969.
Thi:! appeJlant, however, had been able to prove that the respondent had held four more meetings between February 23, 1968 😮 March 6, 1969. In support of his claim, the appellant examined " atnnber of witnesses and their evidence was corroborated by a number of applications (\\·hich th~ respondent made to the Inspector of Police. asking permission to hold the meetings) and by the police .reports (wh1c~ the l·Jead constable1s made to their superior after attending· the 1neettng."; I. Therefore on an avera2e, if the respondent spent· Rs. 32/- per meeting. (which h~ admitted), the total for the 4 extra meetings must have cost tb~ Respondent Rs .. 128/ -. If this ex.Jll:nse
was add~d to. the s_um of Rs. 18,86.09 which the respondent had spent for hts entire election, the c ll c P. c. P, REDDIAR v. s. PERUMAL (Hegde, J.) 6'47 total expenditure would exceed the prescribed limit of Ro. 2,000/ – Hence,
the respondenj was clearly guilty of corrupt practices mentioned in. S. !23(6). [652. HJ (iii) The police reports were marked without any objection. Hence. it was not open to the respondent to object to their admissibility at a later stage.
Bhagat Ram v. Khetu Ram and A nr., A.I.R. 1929 P.C. 110, referred to., (iv) Further as reg::i.l·ds the contents of the document, once a doeu- ment is properly admitted the contents of that document are a1"o ad- mitted in evidence although the contents may not be conclu.<ivc evidence. !654 FJ
(v) The first part of S. 35 of the Evidence Act says that an entry in any public record stating a fact in wue or relevant fact made by a public servant in discharge of his official duties is relevant evidence. Quite clearly the· reports in question were made by public servants in d;..charge of tbeir official duty.
The issue before the Court was whether the respondent had ar.lllged eertain election meetings on certain dates. The police reports in question were extremely relevant to establish that fact. Hence, it came within the ambit of the first part of S. 35 of the Evi<b1ce Act. t655 B] Naveneetlta Krishna Thelavar v. Ramesway Pandia Thelavar, I.L.R. 40, Madras 871, appro>-ed,
In the present case, the police reports in question were by aovernment officials who were not ohown to be inimically disposed towards the respon- dent or his party, They were made when there was no dispute and the dis- pute in question would not have been anticipated.
Therefore, •uch ••- ports carry greatest possible weight and could not be dis~d lightly. 1656 DJ Arjuno Naiko and Ors. v. Modonomohono Naiko & Ors., A.LR. 1~40, P.C. 153, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: C.A. No. 1239 of 1970. Appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 from the j11dgnient and order dated February 13, 1970 of the Madras High Court in Election Petition No. 1 of 1969. K. K. Venugopal, R. Gopalakrishnan and T. L. Garg, for
the Appellant. M. K. Ramamurthi, Vineet Kumar, S. S. Khanduja and N. N atraja11, for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hcgde, J. This is an election appeal arising from a judgment
of the Madras High Court. It relates to the Election to the Ariyankuppam Assembly constituency of the Pondicherry Legis- lative Assembly. The said election was held on March 9, 1969.
In that election, the appellant as well as the respondent contested. The appellant was the Congress nominee and the respondent was the neminee of the D.M.K. After the counting of votes, the res-
[1972) 2 S.C.R. poudent was declared elected as having obtained 3774 votes as against 3758 obtained by the appellant. The appeliant challe.ng- ed the validity of the election of the respondent on various grounds.
Jn his election petition he alleged ·that the respondent was guilty of canvassing votes on the basis of his caste, that he had bribed the voters, that the election was not conducted pro- perly, that there was improper reception of void votes and. lastly !hat he had incurred expenditure more than the prescribed limit. The charge of bribery was not pressed at the time of the trial. The other grounds pleaded on behalf of the appellant were reject- ed by the High Court and. the election petition was dismissed. After· hearing the Counsel for the parties regarding the alle- gation relating to the contravention of s. 123(6) of the Represen- tation of the People .Act, 1951 {to tie hereinafter referred to as the Act), we have come to the conclusion that the respondent was guilty of an offen~e falling within that section as he is proved to have incurred e/[penditure more than the prescribed limit. We therefore thought that ~t was not necessary to go into the other charges levelled against the. respondent. · The limit of expendi- ture prescribed for the constituency was Rs.
2,000/-. Jn hi• election return, the respondent had stated that he had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 1.865/59 P. The trial com1 came to th~ conclusion, which conclusion was not challenged before us, that he had incurred a further expenditure of Rs. 20/50 P.
Henc~ if the appellant is able to establish that t]1c respondent had incur- red at least a further expenditure of Rs. 113/92 P., the11 the election of the respondent will haye to be set aside
under s. lOO(l )(b) of the Act on the ground that the respondent wa' guilty of the corrupt practice falling under s. 123 ( 6). The appellant had alleged in his election petition that the r,:.;. jlOndent had suppressed in the return submitted by him expendi- ture incurred under various heads such as, expenditures incu.rred in connection with, the holding of election meetings. hire paid for the cars used in connection with the elections as well as th~
price of petrol used for the cars used in that connection. We shall first take up the question of expenditure said to ha\·c been incurred in connection with the holding of meetings.
The ,allegation as regards the same is found in paragraph 8(v) of the .election petition: The material portion of that allegation reads : "The total expenditure incurred or authorised by
the respondent herein in connection with the election exceeded the limit prescribed under the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The accounts submitted by the respondent to the Special Officer (Election). Pon-
dicherry showing a sum of of Rs. 1,865/59 are false c c P. c. P. REDD!AR v. s. PERUMAL (Hegde, ],) and unrelated to the actual expenditure incurred or authorised by the respondent for his purposes.
In his election account the respondent has failed to show the following items of expenditure : ( v) The respondent held a large number of elec- tion meetings and all these election meetings were con-
ducted in a panda] where a dias was constructed for the speakers. All these meetings were installed with loud- speakers. tube-lights and other electrical fittings were also provided.
The construction of the panda] and dais and the installation of loudspeakers and other elec- trical equipment such as lights etc. would have at least cost Rs. 100.1- for each meeting except for the meeting
at Ariyankuppam on 5-3-69 at 7.30 p.m. when Shri V. R. Nedunche1:ian presided in which meeting several loudspeakers and extn. light fittings were provided costing over Rs. 200. The dates, the time and the
place of the meetings are as follows : "(i) On 5-3-1969 at about 8.30 p.m. at Poornamu- kuppam. (ii) On 6-3-1969 at about 10.00 p.m. at Nonam- kuppam. (iii) On 28-2-69 at about 8.00 p.m. at Manaveli.
(iv) On 5-3-69 at about 9.00 p.m. at Manaveli. (v) On 27-2-1969 at about 7.30 p.m. at l\riyan- kuppam. Three other election meetings at Ariyankuppam and one meeting at Periaveerampatinam were also held at
the instance of the respondent. (vi) On 23-2-1969 at about 8.0u p.m. at Ariyan- kuppam. (vii) On 24-2-1969 at about 8.00 p.m. at Ariyan- kuppam. (viii) O,n 26-2-1969 at about 8.00 p.m. at Veeram-
pattinam.'' The respondent's plea relating to those allegations are found· in paragraph l 7•of his written statement. Therein he ave-rred: "The allegations made in paragraph 8 of the petition
are totally false and they are hereby denied. Every one of the allegations made therein are factually in- correct and false. None of the expenditure alleged therein was incurred by the Respondent or under his
authoritv.'' This is a general denial. The respondent did not deal with the various facts stated in the election petition. From those averments, it is clear that the respondent denied haVlllg arranged any of the meeting mentioned in the election petition.
After the respondent filed his written statement, the appellant applied for and obtained permission of the court to amend cetrain clerical mistakes that had crept into the election petition. After
those filhendments were carried out, the respondent filed an addi- tional written statement. In paragraph 3 of that statement .he averred •hus : "l state that no public meeting took place either on
2·1-2-1969 or on 28-2·1969 in the manner as alleged by the petitioner in paragraph 4 (iii) and 4 (iv) of the Election Petition.· Consequently, the allegations as amended in paragraph 8 ( v )(iii) and 8 ( v )( v) are also not correct.
I further state that no meeting took. place on 5-3-69 at Ariyankuppam in the manner as alleged by the petitioner in the amendment application No. 2204 Of 1969". On October 13, 1969, the appellant applied for amendment
of the election petition by giving some more particulars of the meetings held by the respondent. By that application he sought to give particulars of about six other meetings in addition to what he had already stated in his election petition, said to have been arranged by the respondent.
The court rejected th\\t application on the ground that by that application, additional grounds of corrupt practice were sought to be included in the election peti- tion and the same cannot be permitted to be done after the period prescribed for filing the election petition was over. lt may be noted that the trial of the case started on January 9, 1970. In the order rejecting the amendment application though the court referred to the delay in filing the application, it did not reject it on the ground of !aches, nor did it reject the application on the ground that it was not a bona fide one.
The sole ground on which it was rejected was that it was not maintainable as it ~ought to include additional grounds of corrupt practice. In our opinion, the High Court was wholly wrong in coming
to the conclusion that. the amendment application moved on behalf of the appellant sought to add any new corrupt practice. The incurring or authorising of an expenditure in contravention of s. 77 of the Act is one single corrupt practice. The incurring or authorising of an expenditure in connection with the election is not by itself a corrupt practice. . The corrupt practice is the incurring or authorising the expenditure of more than the pres- cribed limit.
Hence the trial court erred in thinking that each c c P. c. P. REDDIAR v. s. PF.RU.MAL (Hegde, J.) it em o! expenditure is a corrupt practice by itself. This position 1s obvious from the language of the section itself.
Thi< Court had occasion to go into that question in D. P. Mishra and anr. v. Kamal Narayan Sharma and anr.(1 ). In that case this Court came to the conclusion that the particulars of a corrupt practice falling under s. 123 ( 6) may in an appropriate case be introduc- ed by amendment. By doing so, no additional ground of corrupt practice can be said to have been introduced. If it had been necessary for the case, we would have allowed that amendment application and sent back the case for further trial.
But for the reasons to be presently stated, we have thought it unnecessary to do so. In dealing with the expenditure incurred in connection with the election meetings, the first and the important question that has to be decided is as to when the election campaign of the respon- dent commenced.
According to the appellant, it commenced on February 23, 1969. But according to the respondent it com- menced on February 27, 1969. Decision on this question has great bearing on the other points arising for decision. Hence we shall first address ourselves to that question.
The learned trial judge did not give any positive finding on this question. In the course of his judgment he doubted the evidence of the respon- dent on this point but by taking a facile view of the evidence on record, he just rejected the evidence of the appellant as un- acceptable and wholly accepted the evidence of the respondent as regards the number of meetings held though he felt that the re~pondent has not come forward with a truthful version.
It is true that in election cases oral evidence has to be examined with great deal of care because of the partisan atn10s- phere continuing even after the election. But it will be wrong on the part of courts to just brush aside the oral evidence even when the evidence is highly probable and the same is corroborat- ed by unimpeachable documentary evidence. As
me~tioned earlier, according to the appellant, the res~ndent started his elec- tion campaign with a well attended meeting on. February . 23, 1969 at Ariyankuppam. In support of that version he exammed P.Ws. 3 4 7 13 16 and 19. Their evidence was corroborated
by Exht~. P. is ;nd P. 35. But the learned trial judge rejected this evidence without examining them. B:e came to the conclu- sion that the witnesses examined are partisan witnesses.
There- fore much reliance cannot be placed on their testimony. ~ut he failed to attach sufficient importance to the tell-tale eV1dence (I) [1971] I S.C.R. 8. [1972] 2.S.C.R. afforded by Exhts. P. 17 and P. 35.
Ex. P. 15 is an applica- tion made by the respondent to the Inspector of Police, 'C' Circle, Pondicherry. Therein the respondent stated : "Please grant me permission to hold a public meet-
ing at Ariyankuppam Cuddalore Road in front of market, on tbe occasion of inauguration of my electoral office on 23-2-1969 from 9 to 12 a.m. and to make use of loud-speakers." The pem1ission sought for was granted by the Inspector. The Inspector, P.W. 24 deposed that he deputed a Head-constable to cover that meeting and report about the same.
It is gathered from the •evidence of P.W. 24, that in Pondicherry, before hold- ing a meeting, permission of the police will have to be obtained and it i~ the usual practice there to depute a police officer to cover tire meetings and report about the speeches made by
th~ speakets, P.W. 24, further says that he deputed a Head-constable to cover the meeting to be held in conection with the inauguration of the election campaign of the respondent and in that connection the IJiead-constable in question submitted to him the report Exh. P-3'5.
The report in question was proved through the Inspector without any objection. The report says that the election cam- paiJ!:ll. of 1he respondent was inau}1,urated by holding a public meet- ing on February 23, 1969 and that meeting was addressed by as many as eight persons in addition to the respondent.
This report was received by the Inspector on the 25th of February. Despite this clinching evidence afforded by Exhts. P. 15 and P. 35, the respondent made bold to deny the factum of having held a meet· ing on the 23rd. In view of this documentary evidence, the learned trial judge was unable, accept the evidence of the respon- dent.
All the same he opined that it was immaterial whether the election campaign was- inaugurated on the 23rd or on the 27th, since he was inclined to accept the evidence of the respon- dent that he had held only seven meetings and not more.
This, · in our opinion, is an erroneo.us approach. As seen earlier, the respondent has denied having held anr meeting Oil February 23. Bm this denial cannot be accepted as true. For the reasons al-
ready mentioned we feel satisfied that the respondent's election campaign commenced on the 23rd February 1969 and in that connection a meeting was held in Ariyankuppam on that date. Before proceeding further, we may at this stage mention that lhouJ1,h in his written statement, respondent denied havinJ1, held any meeting at all-· a statement which on the face of it cannot be true-in his evidence he admitted having arranged seven
meetings. This he had to admit- in view of the receipts that be had produced along with his return. In his evidence he admitted c c P. c. P. REDDIAR v. s. PERUMAL (Hegde, J.) that he held meetings on February 27, 1969, March 5. 1969 and March 6, 1969 at Ariyankuppam. He also admitted that he held a lll"..eting on March 5, 1969 at Poornamukuppam and on March 6. 1969 at Manaveli and again on the same day at Veerampatnam. Hence admittedly he held seven meetings.
Let us now proceed to see whether the appellant has satisfactorily proved that the res- pondent had hdd any more meetings. We have earlier come to the conclusion that he had held a meeting at Ariyankuppam on February 23, 1969.
The appellant alleged that the r.espondent had held one more meeting at Ariyankuppam on February 24, 1969. To prove this fact he had examined P .Ws. 3 and 4. Their evidence is corro-
borated by Exh. P-16, an application admittedly given by the respondent to the police for permission for holding a meeting on that day and Ex. P.36, the police report sent in that connection. The learned trial judge did not accept the contention of the res- pondent that he had not hold a meeting on Ariyankuppa111 on February 24, 1969.
Then we come to the meeting alleged to have been held on February 26, 1969 at Veerampatinam. On this question the trial court has come to the conclusion that the respondent had held a meding at Veerampattinam on February 26, 1969.
On this point the oral evidence adduced by the appel- lant is corroborated by Ex. P. 17, the application made by the respondent to the police for permission to hold that meeting and P. 38, the report made by the police.
Then we come to the meeting said to have been held at Manaveli on February 28, 1969. The respondent himself admitted in his evidence that he did arrange a meeting at Manaveli on that date.
In his evidence the respondent admitted as having arranged a meeting at Ariyankuppam on March 6, 1969. According to him he arranged that meeting but curiously the learned trial judge came to the conclusion, despite that admission of the res- pondent that P.W. 6 arranged that meeting as that witness in his evidence claimed that he arranged that meeting am! spent for the same.
The learned trial judge over-looked the fact that no such plea was taken by the respondent in his written statement nor was it his case in his evidence that that meeting was arranged for P.W. 6.
For the reasons mentioned above, we are satisfied that in addition. to the seven election meetings which the respondent admitted having arranged, the appelant has been able to satis- factorily prove that the respondent had arranged at least four more meeti.ngs.
Now coming to the question as to the expenditure incurred • in conection with those meetings, it is no doubt for the appellant 11-L643SupCl/72 [IQ72] 2 S.C.R. to prove the same. According to the respondent he had not
maintained any accounts in connection with his election. The expenditure incurred for his election is specially within the know- ledge of the respondent. He has not adduced any evidence in
that connection. He has totally denied having held those meet- ings. That denial for the reasons already mentioned cannot be accepted. Therefore we h:l'\>'e now to find out what would have
been the reasonable expenditure incurred in connection with those meetings. Even according to the respondent for the seven meet- ings held by him, he incurred an expenditure of more than
Rs. 225/-. That means on an average he hact incurred an expense of about Rs. 32/- per meeting. This is clearly an under- estimate. But even if we accept that to be correct, for the four
meetings referred to earlier, he would have incurred iin expendi- ture of Rs. 128/-. If this expense is added to the sum of Rs. 1886/9 p., referred to earlier, the total expenditure incurred exceeds the prescribed limit of Rs. 2,000/-. Hence the respon- dent is clearly guilty of the
corrupt practice mentioned in s. 123 ( 6). Before leaving this case it is necessary to refer to one of the contentions taken by Mr. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the respondent.
He contended that the police reports referred to earlier are inadmissible in evidence as the Head-constables who covered those meetings have not been examined in the case. Those reports were marked without any objection.
Hence it is not open to the respondent now to object to their admissibility-see Bhagat Ram v. Khetu Ram and anr.(1). It was next urged that even if the reports in question are admissible, we cannot look into the contents of those documents. This contention is again unacceptable.
Once a document is pro- perly admitted, the contents of that document are also admitted in evidence though those contents may not be conclusive evidence. It was lastly contended that the evidence afforded by the
police reports is not relevant. Tnis again is untenable conten- tion. Reports in question were made by government officials in the discharge of their official duties. Those officers had been deputed by their superiors to cover the meetings in question. Pbviously they were deputed in connection with the maintenance of law and order which is the special responsibility of the police. Hence, the question whether those reports were made in com- pliance with any particular provision of law is irrelevant. The first part of s. 35 of the Evidence Act says that an entry in any public record staHng .a fact in issue or relevant fact and (t) A.l.R. 1929 P. C. 110.
c c P, C, P. REDDIAR V. S. PERUMAL \H<gde, J.) made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty is relevant evidence. Quite clearly the reports in question were made by public servants in discharge of their official duty. The issue before the court is whether the respondent had
arranged certain election meetings on certain dates. The police reports in question are extremely relevant to establish that fact. Hence they come within the ambit of the I st part of s. 35, of the Evidence Act. In this connection we would like to refer !o the decision of the Madras High Court in Narn11eerha ~rishna Thevar v. Ramaswami Pandia Thalavar( 1).
Ther~in the learned judges observed thus : "As however the case may not stop here, we think it right to allow the petitioners in Civil Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 845 and 1655 of 1915 for the admission
of certain documents rejected by the Suberdinate Judge, namely (I ) the decree of the Zilah Court of Tinne- velly, dated 31st May 1859 in Original Suit No. 4 of 1859, (2) the Takid of the Collector to the Muzumdar
on the death of the raja in 1850, ( 3) the reply of the Muzumdar and ( 4) the Collector's Takid in 1853 on the complaint of the zamindar's widow as to the con- duct of Maruthappa Thevar who according to the plain-
tiff's case was the father of Gnanapurani's mother. They will accordingly be marked as Exhibits XX.XIV, XXXV, XXXVI and XXXVII respectively and incor- porated in the record. The learned Advocate-General
did' not support the exclusion of the last three on the ground that the copies of correspondence kept in the Collector's and taluk offices were not signed but con- tended that they were not admissible under section 35
of the Indian Evidence Act. We think however that copies of actual letters made in registers of official cor- respondence kept for reference and record are admis- sible under section 35 as reports and records of acts
done by public officers in the course of their official duty and of statements made to them, and that in the words of their Lordships in Rajah Muttu Ramalinga Setupati v. Periyanayagam Pillai (2 ), they are entitled to great
consideration in so far as they supply information of material facts and also in so far as they are relevant to the conduct and acts of the parties in relation to the proceedings of Government founded upon them.''
We are in agreement with the view taken by the Madras High Court in that case. (I) 1.):-.R. 40 Mad. 871 at 678 & 870. , (2) [1974] L. R. I LA. 209. P. 238. Now coming to the value to be attached to the evidence
afforded by those reports, we may usefully refer to tht: decision of the Judicial Committee in Arjuna Naiko and ors. v. Modono- mohono 'Naiko and ors.('). In fact case a person brought a suit for establishing that he was the adopted son of a dismissed Sirdar and 11s such entitled to succeed to the Sirdarship.
In evidence documents coming. from official sources recording statements as to adoption ·made to the officials in the locality not merely by the plaintiff himself in the presence of others but also by other mem- ber and by the dismissed Sirdar himself were produced.
These statements were made at a time when no disputes had arisen and · were made in connexion with a matter of local interest viz. the appointment of a new Sirdar. The Judicial Commiitee held that
the documents carried greatest possible weight and could not be dismissed as mere self-assertions. Similarly in this case, the police reports in question were made by the government officials who are not shown to be inimi· cally disposed towards the respondent or his party.
They were made when there was no dispute and the dispute in question could not have been anticipated. In view of the above conclusion, it is not necessary to go to the other contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant. In the result we allow this appeal, set aside the .order of the High Court, accept the election petition of the appellant and s·~t aside the election of the respondqnt.
The ·respondent shall pay the costs of the appellant both in this Court as well as in .the. High Court. S.C. Appeal allowed. (l 1 A.l.R. l 940 I'. C, 153. c