Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"5. The same meeting was attended and addressed by Shri Joseph Thomas, I.P.S., City Police Commissioner, Trivandrum. Addressing the meeting he exhorted the Parish Priests an(i leaders of Community assembled in that meeting to work for the success of Shri K. M. Mani Ist respondent- "as it was in the interest of the Church and Community". Shri Joseph Thomas went to Palai at the instance of 1st respondent Minister or with his consent and knowledge to k; assist the convening of the meeting of the Bishop and Priests for the furtherance of the prospect of the victory of the Ist respondent in the election. Shri Joseph Thomas actually addressed this meeting exhorting to work for the victory of the 1st respondent. The said Joseph Thomas is a member of the Police Force and a Gazetted Officer. The said Police officer is known for his antipathy towards the opposition Parties. Obtaining or procuring his services for the furtherance of the prospects of the 1st respondent's election is a corrupt practice falling within the mischief of Sec. 123(7) of the Representation of People Act, 1951."

The appellant filed a written statement in which he traversed the averments in the election petition and, in regard to the allegation in paragraph S, he set up the following defence,-

"This respondent denies the averments in para 5 of the petition. This respondent does not know whether Shri Joseph Thomas attended or addressed the meeting as alleged in para S of the election petition. This respondent is not aware of any exhortation having been made by Shri Joseph Thomas as alleged in paragraph S of the petition. This respondent denies that Shri Joseph Thomas went to Palai at the instance A of this respondent. He has not gone to Palai with this respondent's consent and knowledge to assist the convening of any meeting of Bishop and Priests for furtherance of the prospect of the victory of this respondent in the election. This respondent is not aware as to whether Shri Joseph Thomas actually addressed the said meeting exhorting to work for the victory of this respondent. This respondent is not aware of Shri Joseph Thomas having any antipathy towards the opposition parties. This respondent has not obtained or procured his services for furtherance of the prospects of this respondent's election. This respondent is not guilty of any corrupt practice falling within the mischief of s. 123(7) of the Representation of Peoples Act."

the victory of the appellant, was not at the instance of the appellant and he was therefore not responsible for it even on the basis of the averment made in election petition. We are unable to uphold this argument for two reasons. Firstly, it was not the appellant's case in the written statement, or during the course of the trial, that the allegation against him was limited to Joseph Thomas's assistance to the "convening" the meeting at the Bishop's house and did not extend to his exhortation to those present to work for the appellant's victory in the election, and the argument that has now been addressed has been made up subsequently. The appellant cannot therefore be heard to say for the first time in this appeal that he is not answerable for what Joseph Thomas is alleged to have said at the meeting and that the case against him should stand or fall on the basis of the limited allegation that he lent his assistance to the convening of the meeting at the Bishop's house. Secondly, it is necessary, for the purpose of appreciating an argument of this nature bearing on the contents, nature and extent of an allegation recording the commission of a corrupt practice to read the allegation as a whole, and not to disjoint it, or to tear a line here or a line there, from the context. If this test is applied to the averment in paragraph 5 of the election petition, it will be quite clear that the paragraph taken as a whole relates to the allegation regarding the commission of the corrupt practice under sub-section (7) of section l 23 of the Act in obtaining or procuring the assistance of Joseph Thomas not only for convening the meeting of the Bishop and the priests for the furtherance of the prospects of the appellants in the election but also his addressing that meeting and exhorting those present to work for that purpose. The mere fact that the allegation regarding addressing the meeting and exhorting the audience is contained in a separate sentence will not justify the argument that the allegation in paragraph 5 was confined to "convening" the meeting and not to addressing it. This is borne out by the sentences that precede and follow the allegation about convening the meeting where it has clearly been stated that the police officer's services were also obtained or procured for exhorting the priests to work for the furtherance of the prospects of the appellant's election. The allegation was therefore rightly taken in the trial court to mean that the assistance of Joseph Thomas was obtained or procured both for convening and addressing the meeting for the furtherance of the appellant's prospects at the election. The proper way to examine a controversy like this is to consider the substance of the allegation and not its mere form. It may be that a part of the allegation may be made in a separate sentence or sentences, and it may also be that it may appear to be disjointed from the earlier allegation because of inartistic drafting, but it is the substance of the alle-

It has been established by the evidence on record that Joseph Thomas was present after the meeting had commenced and said some thing there. The question is what exactly did he say ?

An allegation regarding the commission of a corrupt practice at an election is 'I very serious matter not only for the candidate but for the public at large as it relates to the purity of the electoral process.

Where therefore the allegation relates to the charge that a candidate obtained the assistance of a police officer for the purpose of addressing a meeting on the eve of the poll and exhorting these present to work for his victory. it is reasonable to expect that wherever possible, a transcript of his speech shall be made available to the Court in support of the allegation. Besides furnishing the precise material relating to the allegation to the election Court, it has the advantage of giving the respondent an opportunity of meeting a precise allegation. But it may be that this may not be possible in a given situation. In that case it will be reasonable and fair to expect that the election petitioner will produce a contemporaneous record of the points that were made in the speech, or at least its substance. But no such record has been made available in this case. Even a gist of what Joseph Thomas said at the meeting, has not been stated in the election petition and the election petitioner has contended himself by making the cryptic statement that Joseph Thomas "addressed this meeting exhorting to work for the victory of the 1st respondent". That may well have been the impression or the opinion of the election petitioner on hearing what others told him about the speech because he was admittedly not present at the meeting. All the same, some other witnesses have been examined about the purport of the speech, and we shall examine what they have stated.