Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. According to the petitioner- Krishna Mohan, who was in-charge of the area for reporting about the elections, while discharging his duties, found that polling at Booth No. 125 of the Assembly Constituency was rigged and some persons took away ballot papers. One such ballot paper they dropped on the road, which was carrying the No. 183125 and had the vote mark on the symbol of 'Hand' and signed by one Sivanath Reddy. Krishna Mohan's report in this behalf along with a photograph of the ballot paper was published in the newspaper. The police, however, at the instance of the Ruling Telugu Desam Party M. L. As. of Kurnool District, registered a case against Krishna Mohan, the reporter. As per the instructions of the local political bosses, the Returning Officer gave a complaint that one ballot paper was missing and Krishna Mohan was arrested by the police.

12. It has been urged before us that when possession without due authority of the ballot paper is declared an offence and there is no dispute to the fact that Krishna Mohan was in possession of a ballot paper without due authority, offence as afore-mentioned is committed by him and it is for him to explain that his possession is not without any authority. We have given our anxiousconsidcrations to this aspect of the matter. Had this been a case of the loss of the ballot paper being detected by the informant - Deputy Chief Electoral Officer or any other person and in course of the search of the missing ballot paper, it would have been found in possession of Krishna Mohan, it could be said that he possessed a classified document without due authority and thus committed an offence at the election in which the said ballot paper was used or was likely 10 be used. Krishna Mohan himself revealed that he had found ballot paper which miscreants had thrown on the road and reported to the newspaper, which the newspaper, in turn published that election at Polling Booth No. 125 was rigged and that miscreants had taken away ballot papers and one such ballot paper, which had fallen while they were running away from the scene of occurrence, was found by him. It is he who informed through the newspaper all concerned and the public at large and it is that information by him which activated the Returning Officer and others and the First Information Report is registered. As we have observed earlier, it fails to satisfy in test of reason how, when Krishna Mohan informed that election at Booth No. 125 was rigged and miscreants removed ballot papers and one such ballot paper he had found, respondents decided to register a ease against him for the possession of the ballot paper and ignored altogether allegations of serious electoral offences, which he reported through newspaper to all concerned. Principles which the Courts have evolved in respect of malice in its legal sense arc slated quite candidly in several pronouncements of the Courts in India and in the Judgment of the Supreme Court in S. R. Vcnkataraman v. Union of India, . Significant extracts on the principle of malice in law from Shearer v. Shields. 1914 AC 808, Pilling v. Abergele Urban District Council, (1950) 1 KB 636, The Queen on the Prosecution of Richard Westbrook v. The Vestry of St. Pancras (1890J 24 QBD 371, and Sedler v. Sheffleld Corporation (1924) 1 Ch. 483, are quoted which reads as follows : (at Pp. 51-52 of AIR) "Malice in law is, however, quite different. Viscount Haldane described it as follows in Shearer v. Shields, (1914) AC 808 at p. 813 :--

13. There are some allegations made on behalf of the petitioners that respondents have acted at the instance of the political party in power and the local Member of Legislative Assembly in particular, but the allegations are all mostly of general nature and lack in confidence. It will be difficult to treat the act of the respondents as a malicious vendetta and for collateral reasons. It may thus be not a case of malice in fact, but on principles as above, it is indeed a case of mala fide in law as we consider reasonable that when Krishna Mohan's report was taken as the best for registering a case for missing ballot paper, all that he said would have been taken into notice and not such part of the report in which he said he possessed a ballot paper. While recording the case it could only be proper for the respondent to register a case of rigging at Polling Station No. 125, removal of ballot paper by some miscreants and that one such ballot paper was dropped on the road by one of them when they were escaping after committing the electoral offence. It is immaterial for the inference of legal mala fide in the registration of the case against Krishna Mohan whether the Returning Officer, the District Superintendent of Police and the Inspector of Police acted in good faith. It is enough for the inference that the registration of the case against Krishna Mohan for the afore-mentioned crimes is mala fide in law to notice that respondents failed (o take into account the entire report of Krishna Mohan and instead decided to charge him of the offence in respect of which there was no report with them except Krishna Mohan's own version. Respondents have admitted that they were informed about the missing ballot paper only from Krishna Mohan's report and thus they have acknowledged that doings as alleged by him were not known to them from before and although Krishna Mohan's report disclosed commission of serious electoral offences, they registered no case and made no efforts to verify the truth or otherwise of his allegations.