ION Civil Appeal No 4359 NCE of 1986
From the Judgment and Order dated 30th Sept 1986 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Election Petition No 43 of 1985
RB Mehrotra for the Appellant
SS Khanduja for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by section RATNAVEL PANDIAN J
The appellant was one of the 11 contestants from Niwadi Legislative Assembly Constituency No 34 of Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha
The election was held in the months of FebruaryMarch 1985 the polling date of which was on 231985
The appellant was a nominee of the Janta Party
The first respondent was sponsored by the Congress Party
As the first respondent had secured majority of votes ie by a margin of 5000 votes over and above his next rival candidate namely the appellant herein the first respondent was duly declared on 631985 as successfully elected
The appellant presented an election petition in the High Court Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur calling in question  the election of the first respondent alleging that the first respondent was guilty of adopting corrupt practices within the meaning of sub sections 2 3 and 3A of Section 123 of the Representation of People s Act 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act 
It is hardly necessary to stress 583 that the pleadings were traversed and denied by the first respondent in his statement
The High Court dismissed the election petition and hence by this appeal under Section 116A of the Act the appellant challenges the correctness of the decision of the High Court
Of the several issues framed upon the pleadings of the parties only issues 3 4 and 5 are pressed before us as the main grounds in support of the appeal and the rest are given up
Hence for the purpose of the present appeal we have to examine and deal with these three relevant issues alone as set out by the High Court
These issues are 3 Whether the nomination paper of Shri Pratap Singh son of Mitilal the respondent No 11 had been improperly re jected If so whether the election is liable to be set aside under Section 1001c of the RP Act 1951 4 Whether the respondent No 1 held a meeting at Niwadi on 2821985 and told the electors that he would present silver shield to the electors of the polling booth recording maxi mum number of votes in his favour If so whether respondent No 1 is guilty of corrupt practices under Section 1231 of the Act 5 Whether Shri Shital Prasad Sharma SDO Revenue and Shri Dubey SDO police accompanied with respondent No 1 at various places between 921985 and 2 3 1985 and asked the electors to vote for him Whether Shri Sharma distribut ed money in village Teharka and asked voters to vote for respondent No 17 If so effect
The High court which has dealt with on the various aspects of the matter has held that the appellant has not substantiated all the charges levelled by him against the first respondent challenging the declaration of the first respondent as having been duly elected
Normally this Court in an appeal as the one on hand does not interfere on a finding of facts of this type unless there are prima facie good grounds to show that the High Court has gravely erred resulting in serious prejudice to the appellant
We therefore shall now examine whether there are any compelling reasons justifying our interference with the findings of the High Court
This Court in a catena of decisions has laid down the principles as to the nature of pleadings in election cases the sum and substance of which being 584 1 The pleadings of the election petitioner in his petition should be absolutely precise and clear containing all neces sary details and particulars as required by law vide Dharti pakar Madan Lal Agarwal vs Rajiv Gandhi 1987 Supp SCC 93 and Kona Prabhakara Rao vs M Seshagiri Rao  Anr 2 The allegations in the election petition should not be vague general in nature or lack of materials or frivolous or vexatious because the Court is empowered at any stage of the proceedings to strike down or delete pleadings which are suffering from such vices as not raising any triable issue vide Manphul Singh vs Surinder Singh 1974 1 SCR 52 Kona Prabhakara Rao vs M Seshagiri Rao  Anr and Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal vs Rajiv Gandhi 1987 Supp SCC 93
3 The evidence adduced in support of the pleadings should be of such nature leading to an irresistible conclusion or unimpeachable result that the allegations made have been committed rendering the election void under Section 100 vide Jumuna Prasad Mukhariya  Others vs Lachhi Ram  Others  and Rahim Khan vs Khurshid Ahmed and Oth ers  5 The evidence produced before the Court in support of the pleadings must be clear cogent satisfactory credible and positive and also should stand the test of strict and scru pulous scrutiny vide Ram Sharan Yadav vs Thakur Muneshwar Nath Singh and Others  5 It is unsafe in an election case to accept oral evidence at its face value without looking for assurances for some surer circumstances or unimpeachable documents vide Rahim Khan vs Khurshid Ahmed  Ors   M Narayana Rao vs G Venkata Reddy  Others   Lakshmi Raman Acharya vs Chandan Singh  Ors 1977 2 SCR 412 and Ramji Prasad Singh vs Ram BilasJha and Others  6
The onus of proof of the allegations made in the election petition is undoubtedly on the person who assails an elec tion which has been concluded vide Rahim Khan vs Khurshid Ahmed and Others   Mohan Singh vs Bhanwar lal  Others  and Ramji Prasad Singh vs Ram Bilas Jha and Others  585 In the light of the above principles we shall now examine the pleadings and the evidence adduced to establish the allegations in the election petition
Reverting to the case the first question that arises for consideration in relation to issue No 3 is whether the nomination papers of the 11th respondent Pratap Singh has been improperly rejected rendering the election of the returned candidate first respondent as void
The 11th respondent Pratap Singh filed his nomination paper for contesting the election from this Niwadi constitu ency and delivered the same to the Returning Officer by his proposer as contemplated under Section 331 of the Act
He also made a request to the Returning Officer to send some authorised person thereby enabling him to make and subscribe the oath as he was seriously iII and could not present himself either before the Returning Officer or any other authorised officer for making or subscribing the oath of affirmation as required under Article 173a of the Constitution of India
The Returning Officer did not comply with the request of Pratap Singh and rejected his nomination on 7285
According to the petitioner this rejection is improper and as such the election is liable to be set aside as per Section 1001c of the Act
The plea of the appellant that the nomination paper has been improperly rejected is countered by the respondent No 1 in his written statement denying the plea of the appellant that he was seriously ill and stating that under Article 173 of the Constitution it is only for the Election Commission to authorise some person enabling the candidate to make and subscribe the oath according to the form set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule that the Returning Officer has no authority to send any Officer to any ailing candidate enabling him to subscribe the oath and that the respondent No 11 neither approached the Election Commission nor made any such request to the Returning Officer
It is seen from the additional document No 9 that the 11th respondent sent the letter of request to the Returning Officer to appoint some authorised officer at Newadi so that he could subscribe his oath and along with that letter he had enclosed a medical certificate given by PW 2
The cer tificate is issued by PW 2 Block Medical Officer PHC Newadi certifying that respondent No 11 was under his treatment as an OPD patient from 6283 for bronchitis for which the 586 patient was advised rest atleast for three days
In his evidence PW 2 has stated that he could not say about the condition of the patient without reference to the certifi cate or the OPD register and he might have advised the 11th respondent to take rest as he usually advised the patients
In the cross examination he has deposed that the 11th respondent had no other ailment and that he was moving in the town
On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence the High Court rejected the plea of the appellant holding bronchitis is not a disease which would incapacitate a person from moving about and under those circumstances there was no justification whatsoever for Pratap Singh not taking oath as required under Article 173 of the Constitu tion
On carefully going through the material on record we also agree with the view taken by the High Court that the 11th respondent was not suffering from any serious ailment which disabled him to take the oath before the Returning Officer
It is not the case of the appellant that the Re turning Officer had any enmity against the 11th respondent or was favourably disposed towards the first respondent
It is apposite to refer to the decision in Harjit Singh Mann vs section Umraon Singh and Others  in which this Court while dealing with the mandatory require ment of taking oath as contemplated under Article 173a has observed thus It is not in controversy that it was obliga tory under clause a of Article 173 of the Constitution for the appellant to make and subscribe before a person authorised in that behalf by the Election Commission an oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule and that he cannot be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the legislature of a State without doing so
The importance of that requirement of the Constitution has been reiterated in subsection 2 of Section 36 of the Act for ground a thereof provides that the Returning Officer shall reject a nomination paper on the ground that on the date fixed for the scrutiny of nominations the candidate was inter alia not qualified to be chosen to fill the seat in the Legislative Assembly under Article 173 of the Constitution
The requirement for the making and subscribing the oath or affirmation was therefore clearly mandatory As the 11th respondent has not taken the oath before the person 587 authorised in that behalf by the Election Commission for no valid reason we are in full agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court that the plea of the appellant that the nomination paper of Pratap Singh has been improper ly rejected is devoid of any merit
The next contention is that the election of the returned candidate first respondent is to be declared void as the said election was tainted with corrupt practices within the mischief of Section 1001b of the Act
What are corrupt practices are enumerated and defined in
Section 123 of the Act
The pleading on this aspect in the election petition reads thus The respondent No 1 had organised a rally and a procession on 2821985 at Niwadi
That procession evitimately culminated into a public meeting
Shri Ramratan Chaturvedi Respondent No 1 made a speech in that public meeting and told the electors that he will present a silver shield to the electors of that polling booth which would record the maximum number of votes in his favour
Several electors from Niwadi Legislative Constituency were present in that meeting
The respondent No 1 thus promised a gratification to the electors to vote for him
As the promise was given by the respondent No 1 himself he is guilty of corrupt practice under Section 1231 of the RP Act 1951 and his election is liable to be set aside under Section 1001b of the RP Act 1951
 The first respondent though admitted in his written statement that there was a procession has denied of having addressed any public meeting on 28285 promising any grati fication in the form of a silver shield to the electors of the polling booth where a maximum number of votes would be cast in his favour
The appellant in support of his plead ings besides examining himself as PW 1 examined three more witnesses
PW 14 PW 17 and PW 18
The first respondent examined himself with another as RWs 1 and 3 respectively
The evidence of PW 1 is chat he was informed by PW 16 that the first respondent in a public meeting at Niwadi organised in connection with the election promised that he would present a silver shield to the electors of the polling booth which would record a highest number of votes in his favour
It is to be noted that the appellant who examined himself on 291085 on which date itself the cross examina tion was 588 over further examined himself on 8486 ie after six months of the first examination and then deposed about this alleged promise
Indisputably this evidence is in the nature of hear say
PW 16 claims to have attended the meet ing and heard the first respondent making the speech prom ising the voters that the particular booth where he would secure a highest number of votes would be awarded with a silver shield by him
His further evidence is that those who attended the meeting generally talked amongst themselves that those who would vote for Congress party would get that shield
This witness in his crossexamination states that he did not ask anyone as to who would get the shield and where it would be kept and that he did not inform anyone else except the appellant
He has further deposed the first respondent did not say that the shield would be awarded to the workers
He admits that his brother Nathuram Ahirwar was a Janta Party leader and Member of the Legislative Assembly
Needless to say that the appellant herein was a nominee of the Janta Party
PW 16 nowhere in his evidence has mentioned the date of the alleged meeting
PW 17 falls in line with PW 16 and states that he too attended the meeting in which the first respondent made the promise of gratification of awarding silver shield
The evidence of PW 17 that the first respondent promised that the shield would be given only to the person who would procure a large number of votes in his favour is diametrically opposite to the evidence of PW 16 that the promise of presentation of shield was not for the workers who would procure more votes but only to the partic ular booth where he would secure highest number of votes
PW17 belongs to the same caste to which PW 16 belongs
PW 18 who was a sarpanch of Murara village has stated that the first respondent announced in the public meeting that he would award a shield to the polling stating where he would secure highest number of votes
Admittedly he was in the Socialist Party and that he could not say as to what was meant by silver shield nor he was told by anyone about it
Not even a suggestion was made to the first respondent RW 1 during the cross examination that he made such a promise in the public meeting
PW 3 who was the Superintendent of Pre matric Harijan Hostel Niwadi has testified to the fact that there was no rally started from harijan ashram
He has also stoutly denied the suggestion that on 2821985 there was a meeting within the precincts of Harijan Ashram in which the first respondent promised the award of silver shield
According to him no such meeting was ever held
The High Court on analysis of the above oral evidence after observing that the evidence adduced by the appellant is sketchy and insufficient to prove the corrupt practice  concluded
that the charge of corrupt practice under Sec tion 1231A of the Act is not proved
 589 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant herein assails the conclusion of the High Court contending that the High Court has not approached and evaluated the evidence on PWs 1 16 to 18 in the proper perspective and this observations that the evidence is sketchy and insuffi cient to prove the corrupt practices  is unjustifiable and bereft of sound reasoning which submissions are opposed by the counsel for the first respondent
Before adverting to the contesting contentions of the parties we shall examine the legal position with regard to the nature of the proceedings and the quality of evidence required in proof of allegations of corrupt practices Bribery  which is one of the corrupt practices enumer ated under Section 123 of the Act is defined in sub section 1 of that Section
For the purpose of this case we re produce the relevant part of that Section as the allegations contained in the election petition that the promise of gratification was a silver shield to the voters in general of a particular booth where the appellant would secure the highest number of votes in his favour 1 Bribery  that is to say A any gift offer or promise by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent of any gratification to any person whomsoev er with the object directly or indirectly of inducing b an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an election or as a reward to ii an elector for having voted or refrained from voting
The word gratification  is not defined in the Act but the Explanation to sub section 1 of Section 123 furnishes an indication as to what amounts to gratification in the view of the Parliament
In Mohan Singh vs Bhanwarlal  Others  the Constitution Bench of this Court after making a reference to this Explanation observed as follows 590 The Explanation extends the expression gratification  to include all forms of enter tainment and all forms of employment for reward but not payment of bona fide expendi ture incurred at or for the purpose of elec tion if duly entered in the account of elec tion expenses
Gratification in its ordinary connotation means satisfaction
In the context in which the expression is used and its delim itation by the Explanation it must mean something valuable which is calculated to satisfy a person s aim object or desire whether or not that thing is estimable in terms of money but a mere offer to help in securing employment to a person with a named or unnamed employer would not amount to such gratification
 In lqbal Singh vs section Gurdas Singh  Ors  Alagiriswa J speaking for the Bench taking aid of Sections 161 17 IB and 17 iE of the Indian Penal Code stated thus It would be noticed that the Explanation to Section 1231 of the Representation of the People Act and the Explanation to Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code relating to gratifi cation are similar
In addition the Represen tation of the People Act refers to all forms of entertainment and all forms of employment for reward
The employment for reward is covered by illustration a to section 161 of the Indian Penal Code
The words all forms of entertainment in the Explanation to Section 1231 of the Representation of the People Act apparently refer to offence of treating found in section 171 E of the Indian Penal Code
When Parliament enacted the provision regarding bribery in the Representation of the People Act it should have had before it the compara ble provision in the Penal Code
It is to be noticed that the giving of any gratification with the object of inducing the receiver or any other person to vote is an offence while acceptance of gratification by a person either for himself or for any other person or for inducing any other person to vote is an of fence
In other words giving is an offence if paid to the voter or such giving induces another person to vote
It is not giving a gratification in order that he may induce another person to vote that is an offence whereas receipt of a gratification in order to induce another person to vote is an offence
 591 According to Section 1231Abii of the Act any gift offer or promise by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent of any gratification to any person whomsoever with the object directly or indirectly of inducing an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an election is a corrupt practice
See Harjit Singh Mann vs
section Umrao Singh and Others  It is an accepted principle that an election petition where corrupt practices are imputed must be regarded as proceedings of a quasi criminal nature wherein strict proof is necessary
Since a charge of corrupt practices the consequence of which is not only to render the election of the returned candidate void but in some cases to impose him a disqualification must be proved on appraisal of the evi dence adduced by both the parties particularly by the elec tion petitioner who assails the election of a returned candidate
This principle has been reiterated and approved in a series of decisions
See Manphul Singh vs Surinder Singh 1974 1 SCR 52 Rahim Khan vs Khurshid Ahmed   M Narayana Rao vs G Venkata Reddy  Others   Ram Sharan Yadav vs Thankur Muneshwar Nath Singh  Others   Ramji Prasad Singh vs Ram Bilas Jha  Others  and Lalroukung vs Haokholal Thangjom  Anr ELR Vol As pointed out in M Narayana Rao vs G Venkata Reddy   this Court ordinarily and generally does not as it ought not to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the High Court unless there are compelling reasons for the same especially findings recorded on appre ciation of oral evidence
Bearing in mind the above proposi tion of law we shall scrutinise the evidence available on record and find out whether the conclusions arrived at by the High Court suffers from any infirmity warranting inter ference of the said conclusions
As we have pointed out in the earlier paragraph of the judgment PW 1 appellant only after a period of 6 months of his first examination in the Court came forward with this allegation that the first respondent made a promise of gratification
Indisputably his evidence is in the nature of hear say
PW 16 whose brother was a Janata Party leader and an MLA does not mention even the date of the meeting in which the first respondent is said to have made the promise
The evidence of PW 16 and PW 17 is inconsistent and contra dictory as we have pointed out supra
There is no consistent evidence as to the 592 nature of the statement said to have been made by the first respondent
Whilst PW 16 and PW 18 state that the first respondent promised the award of the silver shield to the particular polling booth where he would secure the highest number of votes PW 17 states that the promise was only to the person who would procure a large number of votes
There fore in view of this inconsistent unsatisfactory and vague evidence no conclusion could be arrived at that the first respondent made the promise to any particular person or persons who would secure the highest number of votes in his favour
There is absolutely no evidence that the first respondent made any promise of gratification to any elector or electors who would vote in his favour
Similarly there is no evidence that voters were influenced by the alleged promise of gratification or the first respondent obtained any promise from the voters in return as a condition for the shield alleged to have been presented
Thus the element of bargaining  is completely absent in the present case
Needless to say that it is necessary for the purpose of proving the corrupt practice of bribery to establish that there was an element of bargaining 
See Harjit Singh Mann vs section Umrao Singh and Others  In this connection reference can be made to a decision of this Court in lqbal Singh vs Gurdas Singh  Ors  In that case the election of the returned candidate was challenged by the appellant therein on various grounds one of which being that the returned candidate or his agent held out an inducement to get gun licences issued for people who would vote for the returned candidate
The Court rejected the plea on the ground that there was no evidence regarding bargaining of votes by promise of gun licences and there was no evidence of obtaining promise of votes from the voters in return
For the reasons above mentioned we come to the conclu sion that the appellant has not discharged the onus of proof cast upon him by adducing cogent reliable and satisfactory evidence but on the other hand he has miserably failed to establish the charge of corruption
Now we shall pass on to the last contention
The charge under issue No 5 is that Shri Shital Prasad Sharma Sub Divisional Officer Revenue and Shri Dubey Sub Divisional Officer Police accompanied the first respondent to various places between 921985 and 23
1985 and requested the electors to vote in favour of the first respondent and that Shri Sharma distributed money in the village Teharka and asked the voters to vote in favour of the first respondent
593 It is found from the judgment of the High Court that this issue was earlier declared vague and it was thereafter the first part of the issue which was re cast as per the particulars substituted in the amended pleadings in para graph 6a of the election petition
These allegations relate to the charge of obtaining or procuring the assist ance of the Government servants in service for the further ance of the prospects of the election of the first respond ent failing within the mischief of Section 1237 of the Act
These allegations are stoutly opposed by the first respondent inter alia contending that these pleadings are in violation of the provisions contained in Section 83b of the Act as no details of the date and place of commission of each such practice have been mentioned and in absence there of it is not possible for this respondent to effectively rebute such vague allegations and the allegations that Shri Sharma distributed money to the voters are also too vague to be rebutted properly as the names of the voters to whom money is said to have been paid and also lack of par ticulars with regard to the date time and the amount of money allegedly distributed
In support of the above allegations the appellant examined himself and six other witnesses of PWs 1 11 12 14 15 16 and 18
Barring this oral evidence there is absolutely no contemporaneous documentary evidence
Though the appellant filed the application in August 1985 under Section 865 of the Act praying for amendment of his elec tion petition he has not testified to the amended pleadings in his examination held on 9101985 but tendered evidence only on 841986 that is after six months of his earlier examination
He has deposed that on 24285 he saw the first respondent and Dubey SDO Police going together in a jeep towards Orchha and that PW 11 Nathu Ram Naik told him that Dubey had asked him to vote in favour of the first respond ent
He continued his evidence stating that he saw Dubey walking along with the first respondent in a rally organised by the Congress party and headed by the first respondent that PWs 12 and 13 informed him on 2821985 at Niwadi that when these two witnesses refused to vote for the first respondent at his request the first respondent asked Dubey to persuade them to vote for him that thereupon Dubey asked PWs 12 and 13 to vote for the first respondent lest they would not be permitted to sit in a temple presumably in the village
He further deposed that on 2421985 when he visit ed Prithvipur he saw rally headed by the first respondent accompanied by Dubey and Sharma
Later on Shri Chaturbhuj Naik informed that both Dubey and Sharma took the resigna tions of Naik and others from Janata Party
According to PW 11 the SDO police by name Dvivedi 594 asked him as well PWs 14 and 15 to work for the first re spondent and also threatened them that they would be falsely implicated in criminal cases if they failed to do so and that in consequence of it he and PW 15 resigned from the Janata Party and joined Congress party though they subse quently worked for the Janata Party candidate
When this witness was confronted whether he had any documentary evi dence in support of his version he stated that his joining the Congress Party appeared in the local newspaper but he was not having a copy of the same
The evidence of PW 14 is that the SDO police Chaturvedi and SDO Civil whose name he does not know were leading the rally and those two were sitting on the dias of a public meeting organised by the Congress Party and that both them threatened him and PW 11 to work for the first respondent
PW 15 also speaks to the fact that SDO Police Chaturvedi called him as well PW 11 and some others and threatened all of them to resign from the Janata Party and work for the Congress and that when they refused to do so they were all threatened by these two government officials stating that they would be falsely implicated in criminal cases and that they out of fear resigned from the Janata Party and worked for the Congress Party
Be it noted whilst the name of the SDO police is mentioned by PW 1 as Dubey  as mentioned in the amended pleading as well in issue No 5 PWs 14 and 15 mention the name of the said Police Officer as Chaturvedi 
PW 11 gives the name of the Officer as Dvivedi 
The police officer RW 6 swears his name as Dvivedi 
Therefore it follows that the insertion of the name as Dubey  in the amended pleading is incorrect
Thus we find material and irreconcilable contradictions not only amongst the evidence of PWs but also between the pleading and the evidence even in respect of the name of the SDO police which create a legitimate suspicion as to whether Dubey was in any way concerned with the elec tion
PW 12 does not mention the name of the police officer who threatened him to vote for the Congress as well the date of the meeting
It is evidence of PW 16 that Sharma SDO Civil asked all those persons attending the meeting in favour of the first respondent so that they could get the silver shield
PW 18 who admits to have been a member of the Socialist Party has given the evidence falling in line with that of PW 16
On consideration of the evidence of the above witnesses the High Court has held In view of this statement of the election petitioner it must be held that there is no one like Shri Dubey SDO police and therefore there would be no question of respondent No 1 procuring assistance of Shri Dubey
The distinction between Shri 595 Dubey and Shri Dvivedi is rather well known and even the election petitioner is aware of it
Under the circumstances there is no justification why proper plea in that behalf was not taken
If we have to accept the evidence of PW 1 that the SDO police Dubey assisted the first respondent then the evidence of the other witnesses giving a different name either as Chaturvedi  or Dvivedi  has to be rejected
On the contrary if the evidence of the other witnesses is to be accepted then their evidence does not support the issue No 5 that one Dubey assisted the first respondent in his election
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant pleaded that no importance should be attached to the varia tion regarding the name of the SDO police as the fact remains that SDO police had assisted the first respondent and procured votes in his favour
We are unable to see any force in this submission
Next coming to the allegations made against Sharma SDO Civil PW 1 does not allege anything against him and as such on the basis of the evi dence of PW 1 it cannot be said by any stretch of imagina tion that Sharma had assisted and procured votes in favour of the first respondent within the mischief of Section 1237 of the Act
The evidence of the other witnesses relating to the alleged participation of Sharma in the election does not inspire confidence
No acceptable evidence is available that Sharma distributed money
In opposition to the evidence let in on the side of the appellant RW 6 SDO police by name Dvivedi has deposed that he was assigned duty at Dabra on 2421985 in connec tion with the visit of the Prime Minister and that he was not in the Headquarters on that date and the distance be tween Niwadi and Dabra is about 80 kms
RW 4SDO Civil Sharma has denied all the allegations made against him by the appellant
Much argument was advanced on the basis of Exh
P 6 a photograph showing that in a meeting addressed by Chaturvedi this witness was also present but RW 4 ex plains that it was not a meeting of the Congress Party but was a public meeting held to facilitate first respondent on his return from foreign trip
RW 1 in his evidence totally denied all the allegations covered by issue No 5
On a scrupulous examination of the evidence of the witnesses examined on the side of the appellant we arrive at an irresistible conclusion that the appellant has misera bly failed to establish the allegations of corrupt practices within the mischief of Section 1237 of the Act relating to issue No 5
Even assuming that RWs 4 and 6 had accompa nied the rally as pointed out by the High Court no ines capable inference can be drawn that these two officials were assisting the first respondent in procuring votes and proba bly they might have ac 596 companied the rally for maintaining the law and order
Further when the learned Judge of the High Court who has very carefully marshalled the evidence has not found it possible to candidly accept the evidence of these witnesses for the reasons assigned in the judgment we find no reason to take a contrary view
Moreover we too after a close scrutiny of the evidence and the pleadings especially relat ing to issue No 5 are in agreement with the views of the High Court and are fully satisfied that the appellant has miserably failed in substantiating his charges covered by issue No 3 to 5 which are alone pressed before us as indi cated in the earlier part of this judgment and the judgment under appeal does not suffer from any legal infirmity re sulting in serious prejudice to the appellant
In the result the judgment of the High Court is upheld and the appeal is dismissed with costs
Y Lal Appeal dis missed


Summary:
A dispute between the appellants and respondent No 1 was referred to an arbitrator who made an award and filed it before the civil court
On objection by the appellants the prayer for making the award a rule of the court was reject ed
On appeal the High Court confirmed the same
This Court refused special leave and a petition for review was also dismissed
Meanwhile respondent No 1 applied to the Collector for summoning the award and for realising the escaped duty and penalty
The application was allowed
The appellants moved the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 and the authority set aside the Collector s order
The respondents challenged the said order in a writ petition before the High Court which allowed the same and remanded the case to the Collector for deciding it afresh
Aggrieved the appellants filed this appeal by special leave contending inter alia that a Respondent No 1 had no locus standi to move the Collector for impounding the award b the Collector had no authority to pass the im pugned order after a decade and c the Collector did not have the power to enquire into the correct valuation of the property which was subject matter of the award
Disposing of the appeal this Court HELD 11 It is well settled that if a court acts with out jurisdiction its decision can be challenged in the same way as it would have been challenged if it had acted with jurisdiction ie an appeal would lie to the court to which it would lie if its order was with jurisdiction
532A 530 12 There is no question of limitation arising and it cannot be said that what had to be done promptly in 1976 could not be done later
The orders of the Collector dated 1571983 and 2271983 were passed as the follow up steps in pursuance of the civil court s direction dated 18376 and no valid objection can be taken against them
The Col lector therefore shall have to proceed further for reali sation of the escaped duty
532G 13 The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority had full power to interfere with the Collector s order provided it was found to be erroneous
But this Court does not find any defect in the Collector directing taking of steps for reali sation of the stamp duty
532B Janardan Reddy and Ors
vs State of Hyderabad and Ors
   relied on
The instant case comes from Uttar Pradesh where express provisions have been made by the insertion of Sec tion 47 A authorising the Collector to examine the correct ness of the valuation
Hence the Collector had the power to enquire into the valuation of the property which was the subject matter of the award
533A B Himalaya House Co Ltd Bombay vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority  referred to
It is clarified that on the strength of the present judgment it will not be open to the respondent to urge that the effect of the High Court decision dated 871981 and the order of this Court dismissing the special leave petition therefrom and later the review application have disappeared or have got modified
533D E