Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.18 seconds)Daulat Ram Chauhan vs Anand Sharma on 16 January, 1984
To quote a few recent ones: Daulat
Ram Chauhan v. Anand Sharma,(1) Manmohan Kalia v. Yash &
Ors.,(2) A. Younus Kunju v. R.S. Unni and Ors.(3) as also an
earlier decision of this Court in Samant N. Balakrishna etc.
v. George Fernandez and Ors. etc.(4)
The sum and substance of these decisions is that a
charge of corrupt practice has to be proved by convincing
evidence and not merely by preponderance of probabilities.
As the charge of a corrupt practice is in the nature of
criminal charge, it is for the party who sets up the plea of
'undue influence' to prove it to the hilt beyond reasonable
doubt and the manner of proof should be the same as for an
offence in a criminal case. This is more so because once it
is proved to the satisfaction of a court that a candidate
has been guilty of 'undue influence' than he is likely to be
disqualified for a period of six years or such other period
as the authority concerned under s. 8A of the Act may think
fit. Therefore, as the charge, if proved, entails a very
heavy penalty in the form of disqualification, this Court
has held that a very cautious approach must be made in order
to prove the charge of undue influence levelled by the
defeated candidate.
Manmohan Kalia vs Yash & Others on 2 April, 1984
To quote a few recent ones: Daulat
Ram Chauhan v. Anand Sharma,(1) Manmohan Kalia v. Yash &
Ors.,(2) A. Younus Kunju v. R.S. Unni and Ors.(3) as also an
earlier decision of this Court in Samant N. Balakrishna etc.
v. George Fernandez and Ors. etc.(4)
The sum and substance of these decisions is that a
charge of corrupt practice has to be proved by convincing
evidence and not merely by preponderance of probabilities.
As the charge of a corrupt practice is in the nature of
criminal charge, it is for the party who sets up the plea of
'undue influence' to prove it to the hilt beyond reasonable
doubt and the manner of proof should be the same as for an
offence in a criminal case. This is more so because once it
is proved to the satisfaction of a court that a candidate
has been guilty of 'undue influence' than he is likely to be
disqualified for a period of six years or such other period
as the authority concerned under s. 8A of the Act may think
fit. Therefore, as the charge, if proved, entails a very
heavy penalty in the form of disqualification, this Court
has held that a very cautious approach must be made in order
to prove the charge of undue influence levelled by the
defeated candidate.
A. Younus Kunju vs R.S. Unni & Others on 8 March, 1984
To quote a few recent ones: Daulat
Ram Chauhan v. Anand Sharma,(1) Manmohan Kalia v. Yash &
Ors.,(2) A. Younus Kunju v. R.S. Unni and Ors.(3) as also an
earlier decision of this Court in Samant N. Balakrishna etc.
v. George Fernandez and Ors. etc.(4)
The sum and substance of these decisions is that a
charge of corrupt practice has to be proved by convincing
evidence and not merely by preponderance of probabilities.
As the charge of a corrupt practice is in the nature of
criminal charge, it is for the party who sets up the plea of
'undue influence' to prove it to the hilt beyond reasonable
doubt and the manner of proof should be the same as for an
offence in a criminal case. This is more so because once it
is proved to the satisfaction of a court that a candidate
has been guilty of 'undue influence' than he is likely to be
disqualified for a period of six years or such other period
as the authority concerned under s. 8A of the Act may think
fit. Therefore, as the charge, if proved, entails a very
heavy penalty in the form of disqualification, this Court
has held that a very cautious approach must be made in order
to prove the charge of undue influence levelled by the
defeated candidate.
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Representation of the People Act, 1951
1