Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (2.00 seconds)
Documents citing S. Baldev Singh Mann vs S.Gurcharan Singh Mla & Ors on 5 February, 1996

Sushil Singh A/O Uday Nath Singh vs Shree Parbhu Narain Yadav Son Of Ram ... on 23 December, 2005

In S. Baldev Singh Mann v. S. Gurcharan Singh MLA and Ors. , it was held that allegations of corrupt practices within the meaning of Sub-section (1) to (8) of Section 123 of the Act are regarded quasi criminal in nature requiring proof of the same because the consequences are not only very serious but also penal in nature. It does not only result in the declaration of the election to be void but also disqualifies the returned candidate who may be punished for imprisonment under Section 135A of the Act. The Court, therefore, insists upon a proof of such allegations of corrupt practices and not to decide the case on preponderance of probabilities. The evidence thus has to be judged having regard to these settled principles.
Allahabad High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - S Ambwani - Full Document

Nand Singh vs Ajit Inder Singh on 3 June, 1999

In S. Baldev Singh Mann v. S. Gurcharan Singh MLA, (1996) 1 JT (SC) 692 : (AIR 1996 SC 1109) the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the case of alleged booth capturing. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Court should insist on strict proof of corrupt practice under Sub-sections (1) to (8) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act as the same are quasi-criminal in nature. It will be useful to refer to the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court on this point contained in para 8, which reads as under :
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Hiraman Ratan Baisane vs Election Returning Officer And Ors. on 11 August, 2006

17. Relying upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of S. Baldev v. Jeja Singh, 1975(4) SC 406, Chandrika Prastid Yadav v. State of Bihar , Mr. Chinnasamy v. K. C.P. Lamisamy Mr. Shah submitted that it is now well settled that judicial recount is not a matter of right. There is difference between the recount within the counting station and the judicial recount. The judicial power of recount is to be exercised sparingly. The principle of maintaining secrecy of ballot is sacrosanct. The narrow margin of votes or no prejudice to the other side is a not ground for ordering judicial recount. High degree of proof is required for ordering judicial recount. In the present case the learned Judge has not recorded any specific finding about the alleged replacement of result sheets. The learned Judge in para 28 of the Judgment has held that the R.O. is guilty of committing breach of duty by rejecting the application for recount without any sufficient reason.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - J P Devadhar - Full Document

Abhiram Singh vs C.D. Commachen (Dead) By Lrs.& Ors on 2 January, 2017

“12....Election petitions alleging corrupt practices are proceedings of a quasi-criminal nature and the onus is on the person who challenges the election to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt.” (Id at p. 572) 12 The standard of proof is hence much higher than a preponderance of probabilities which operates in civil trials. The standard of proof in an election trial veers close to that which guides a criminal trial. This principle was applied in another decision of three Judges of this Court in Baldev Singh Mann v. Gurcharan Singh (MLA)[48] in the following observations:
Supreme Court of India Cites 117 - Cited by 54 - M B Lokur - Full Document

Subhash Kumar Sojatia vs Devilal Dhakad on 26 April, 2022

SCC 87 Page 278; Rajesh Bhatia and ors. vs. G.Parimala and ors. 2006 (3) ALD 415; M/s Shri Shiv Shakti -4- EP NO.01/2019 Agency vs. Vinod Kumar 2010 SCC Online Raj 2712; Manohar Joshi vs. Damodar Tatyaba @ Dadasaheb Rupwate and others (1991) 2 SCC 342; Baldev Singh Mann vs. Gurcharan Singh (MLA) & others (1996) 2 SCC 743 & Magraj Patodia vs. R.K. Birla and others AIR 1971 SC 1295.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - A N Kesharwani - Full Document
1