l Appeal No 1519 of 1968
Appeal under section 116A of the Representation of the People Act 1951 from the judgment and order dated May 28 1968 of the Madras High Court in Election Petition 11 of 1967
RM Seshadri and R Gopalakrishnan for the appellant
section V Gupte A C Muthanna SS JavaIi Anjali K Verma and OC Mathur for respondent No 1
G Ramanujam and A V Rangam for intervener
CJ This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madras 28th May 1968 by which the election of the appellant Seshadri has been set aside
The election in question was to the Madras Legislative Council from the Madras District Graduates Constituency
That constituency consisted of 19498 votes and the total votes polled were 12153
Since the voting was by a single transferable vote three 1029 out of the five candidates were eliminated at different counts with the result that their votes were transferred to the second person named by the elector on the ballot
At the final count the appellant Seshadri received 5643 votes and G Vasantha Pai his nearest rival who is the first respondent in the appeal received 5388 votes
Seshadri was therefore elected by a majority of 255 votes
The election petition was filed by G Vasantha Pai to question the election of Seshadri on many grounds
Only one ground prevailed namely that he had employed cars which had been hired or procured for the conveyance of the voters to the polling booths which numbered 73 in this constituency
The other charges were numerous but they need not be mentioned here because in our opinion this charge has been substantiated
It may be mentioned that Seshadri filed a petition of recrimination but it was dismissed because he failed to furnish security required under the Act
Later he corrected this mistake but the petition was not accepted because it was held to be delayed
The learned Judge who  heard the case held that instead of Seshadri Vasantha Pai deserved to be declared elected under the law
In this appeal therefore Seshadri contends that the decision in his respect was erroneous and in the alternative that in any event Vasantha Pal could not be declared as the successful candidate
We shall deal with these two points separately
It may further be mentioned that in the original order passed by the learned Judge he had not named Seshadri as guilty of corrupt practice
By a subsequent order he reviewed his previous order and gave a declaration
This point also will require to be considered in this judgment
The allegation in the election petition was that a large number of motor cars were hired or procured from various sources for the conveyance of the voters to the polling booths
These were sometimes occupied by persons wearing badges which bore the name of Seshadri and sometimes were received at the polling booths by persons who wore the same badges
From this it is inferred that the motor cars were used for the conveyance of voters by Seshadri as one of the contesting candidates
Such conduct if it is established amounts to a corrupt practice under section 1235 of the Representation of People Act
The short question therefore on the first point is whether Seshadri was guilty of this corrupt practice
The appeal has been fought by Seshadri on the grounds that the plea which was included on this head in the election petition was vague and not sufficiently definite so as to give him notice of the charge he had to meet that a charge of corrupt practice is of the nature of a criminal charge and must therefore be 1022 proved by the election petitioner himself beyond all reasonable doubt that there exists some room for doubt and therefore he should have the benefit of it and that the learned Judge who tried the case improved both the pleading on the subject and the evidence led by the election petitioner by calling certain witnesses and looking into documents which he had procured on his own behalf
It is therefore contended that all the evidence which the learned Judge collected suo motu should not be locked at and the case of the petitioner should be confined to the bare plea which was raised in this case
If this is so says Seshadri the election petition deserves to be dismissed because the case as found was not clear in the plea and was certainly lacking in the proof as required by law
Since the matter is one fought primarily with regard to pleadings in the case we shall begin by setting out the pleas which have been advanced by the election petitioner
The plea consists of several parts
The election petitioner states that the Swatantra Party and its agents conveyed the voters to and from the polling booths in certain cars hired or procured from Ms Kumarswamy Automobiles and TS Narayanan Authorised Tourist Taxi Operators
The petitioner goes on to say that the detailed analysis of the use of the cars and particulars of the user are given in a schedule attached to his petition
That schedule names a large number of cars which were used and at many polling booths in different divisions for the purpose of carrying the voters to the polling booths
Some of these cars came admittedly from the garage of Messrs Kumarswamy Automobiles and some others from the other motor garage named by us or were loaned for the day by certain private owners including companies
The essence of this plea is that cars were procured or hired for the conveyance of the voters
There is however no mention in the plea as to who had hired the vehicles or caused them to be procured and it is this fact which has been made much of by Seshadri in the appeal before
His contention is that without the particulars being sufficiently full and precise it was not possible for him to controvert the case set up against him particularly as the case of the election petitioner was supplemented by the learned Judge by calling at a later stage court witnesses who deposed to the connection between the cars and Seshadri
We have therefore to determine first whether the plea which was raised was sufficient for the purpose of investigation before we go to see whether the plea has received adequate support through evidence
Seshadri personally argued his appeal on two separate occasions
On the first occasion he confined himself entirely to the pleas he expounded it and urged in support that the plea in the election petition did not allege anything nor did the evidence in 1023 support establish anything further
But before the case concluded Seshadri made a request to us that as he had misunderstood his own position with regard to the appeal regard being had to certain observations of the Court he had not argued the case fully on the first occasion and he should be allowed an opportunity to supplement his arguments by urging the points de novo
Since Seshadri was conducting his case in person and appeared to be under some emotional stress we felt that the ends of justice would be satisfied if we accorded him a second opportunity and this is how the case was set down again for hearing
On the second occasion Seshadri supplemented his arguments with numerous citations from the law reports in support of two propositions namely that the particulars should be complete before the evidence could be looked into and secondly that amendment of the pleadings through evidence is not permissible
It may be mentioned here that the evidence in the case discloses that not one two or three cars were used but as many as 63 cars were employed
This evidence has been weighed by the learned Judge
He has gone critically into every aspect of it and come
to the conclusion that many cars in fact were used
The learned counsel for Vasantha Pai placed in our hands a tabulated statement of the evidence bearing upon the use of the cars and having looked into the judgment of the learned Judge as also the evidence with the aid of the tabulated statement we are satisfied and it is sufficient to say for us that we entirely agree with the conclusion of the learned Judge that many cars were in fact used for conveyance of voters in this constituency
The alternative suggestion that on some of the days an election from the Teachers  Constituency was going on and that since the polling booths were sometimes located for the two constituencies in the same building it is possible that the cars were used for that election and not this does not merit any consideration
The suggestion is extremely vague and the evidence even more tenuous
It is said that one Varadachari was responsible for the hiring of the cars and that in our opinion does not stand either substantiated or any scrutiny
We are therefore satisfied with the finding of the learned Judge in the High Court that cars that were employed for conveyance of voters and that they were in fact used in this constituency and none other
The question then remains as to who was responsible for this Now the plea on this subject as we have said is contained in several parts of the election petition
One part we have summarised above
The second part was that the Swatantra Party_ was supporting Seshadri and that the workers of the Swatantra Party were working strenously for his success
From this it has been reasoned in the High Court that the Swatantra Party was an agent of Seshadri
Its actions therefore would be his actions L6Sup
CI69 14 1024 if he was a Consenting party
In this connection it is also stated that Seshadri was being supported by some persons connected with him who helped him by procuring these vehicles for the conveyance of the voters
In the schedule which is filed with the plaint a large number of cars is mentioned and the schedule shows in one of its columns to which polling booths were the voters carried
It is too detailed to be reproduced here
Suffice it to say that it contains names of six divisions and 17 polling booths
It also mentions over two dozen cars which were so used
In the body of the election petition the petitioner further stated as follows Besides Tourist Taxis the petitioner understands the Private Commercial Firms and Cinema Producers placed at the disposal of the first respondent their cars for conveying voters
The persons who were conveying the voters were members of the Swatantra Party who were acting as the Agents of the first respondent under the guidance in particular of Mr HV Hande
The Agents of the first respondent wore a distinctive badge with RM Seshadri printed in bold letters attached to a blue ribbon and pinned to their shirts
They were either escorting the voters or receiving them at the polling stations specified above
In Booth Nos 60 to 65 prominent among the persons so escorting was Violin Mahadevan who had a badge pinned to his shirt and who the petitioner understands is a member of the Swatantra Party
In Saidapet South the petitioner states the car MSS 3336 conveying the voters was in charge of an Advocate s Clerk by name TK Vinayagam of No 16 Karani Garden II Street Saidapet Madras 15
The said Vinayagam was wearing a badge of Mr Seshadri
At Raja Annamalaipuram the petitioner learns that a green coloured Station Wagon MSP 5398 was in charge of Mr Venkataraman member of the Swatanthra Party and residing at 30 IV Main Road Raja Annamalaipuram Madras 28
The petitioner states that in almost every polling booth Tourist Taxis and cars engaged by the first respondent were being used by the Swatanthra Party Agents for conveying voters
 Seshadri contends that in this plea only four names are mentioned namely HV Hande Violin Mahadevan TK Vinayagam and Venkatraman
He starts therefore by analysing whether the connection between these persons and him had been successfully established and further whether they were responsible for 1025 conveying voters to the polling booths in the cars
He examines critically the evidence of these witnesses before us and also the other evidence bearing upon the subject and contends that the evidence taken as a whole does not establish their connection with him or with the voters or with the cars
We shall therefore begin by considering what was said about these persons by Seshadri
In regard to Hande Seshadri s contention is that no other person had spoken about Hande excepting the petitioner PW 33 and he spoke about him only in one place
He therefore states that the evidence on this part is extremely insufficient because it depends upon the interested word of the petitioner himself
He refers us to his deposition contained in pages 419 to 531 of the Paper Book but he draws our attention in particular to certain passages where only one car was mentioned by him in connection with Hande
That car was MSR 7065
The evidence of the election petitioner was that as he was emerging from Doraiswamy Road he found that this car was going past him with a gentleman with a blue upper cloth
The gentleman looked at him and he found that it was Hande
According to Seshadri this evidence was not sufficient to show that Hande was conveying voters to the polling booth
On this part of the case Seshadri is right because the evidence of the complicity of Hande with the hiring or procuring of the cars was not established nor his complicity with regard to the carriage of voters to the polling booths
With regard to Vinayagam Seshadri s argument is that the fact is deposed to by the election petitioner himself who said that he had seen a car with a lady and a gentleman arriving at the polling booth and that a lawyer s clerk opened the door and received them
This car bore the number MSS 3336
Support for this evidence is sought by the election petitioner through the evidence of Laxshaman Hegde PW 15 who said that he had seen an Ambassador car carrying two voters just halting at the polling booth
Two voters whom he knew from before came down from the car
A short gentleman  directed them to the polling booth
Vasantha Pai then asked the witness if the person was known to the witness
As he did not know the name of the gentleman he could not tell him but Vasantha Pai noted the number of the car
This person who received the voters at the polling booth was later identified by the witness as Vinayakam
The way in which he obtained this information has been given by him in his deposition
He appears to have obtained it from the person concerned
Whatever it may be there is nothing incriminating in a worker of the party receiving a voter at the polling booth
Polling agents cannot canvass within 100 meters but there is nothing to show in the law that they cannot open the door of a car in which a voter has arrived
The gravamen of the charge as Seshadri correctly points out was that Vinaya 1026 kam was wearing a badge such as we have described and that of course is a different matter and we are not concerned with it here
On the whole therefore this evidence does not show that the cars were hired by Seshadri
It only furnishes some link in the circumstantial chain to which we shall later refer and that in our opinion is the only use to which this evidence can be put
The next person connected with the use of the car is Venkatraman
Three persons deposed to his connection
of these one is the election petitioner himself the others are PWs 23 and 27
Seshadri argues that we should not believe these witnesses one because he is himself a party and the other two because they were connected intimately with the prospects of Vasantha Pal
KV Padmanabha Rao PW 23 is said to be the junior of Vasantha Pal and was canvassing for him
He was standing near the vehicle with a list presumably of the voters and at that time several vehicles arrived there
He stated that he connected Venkataraman with Seshadri because he was moving about in the company of one Sivasankaran Junior of Seshadri in the IInd Main Road
He had also seen him with Sivasankaran going with lists in his hand from house to house
Later he found out from some of his friends what was the purpose of this visit and was told that they were asking the voters whether they needed any conveyance for the next day s polling as they had command over a large number of vehicles
The latter part of the evidence is hearsay and Seshadri is perfectly right in claiming that it should not be accepted
The fact remains that the witness did see Venkataraman moving with the clerk of Seshadri and therefore there is room for thinking that they were connected together
TL Ram mohan PW 27 it is said was assisting Vasantha Pai
He wrote a letter Ext
P 109 and his evidence is also described as hearsay
We need not therefore go by his evidence to reach the conclusion that the cars were hired by Seshadri or some one on his behalf
We can only use this evidence if there were some other evidence to which it can be read as corroborative because by itself it does not furnish proof of the hiring of vehicles by Seshadri
it only shows that the vehicles were in fact used and that the vehicles were bringing voters to the polling booth
The connection of Violin Mahadevan was deposed to by four witnesses
V Murali PW 5 who works in the chamber of two lawyers Rao and Reddy admitted that hewas working for Vasantha Pai
He also said that he saw Violin Mahadevan wearing the badge and standing near the polling booth
He stated this to Vasantha Pai and communicated to him his own observation
He admitted that he did not know Violin Maha 
devan from before but somebody had told him about him
He could not name the voters who had been brought
He saw that Violin Mahadevan was wearing the same badge which we have 1027 described and the voters were accosted by persons wearing the same badge and were received at the polling booth
section Ramamurthy PW 10 saw Venkataraman
He admitted that he had not seen anybody brought by Venkataraman and he also did not know the names of the voters who were brought
But the evidence of section Ramamurthy PW 10 is sufficient to show that the voters did in fact come by cars to the polling booth
Therefore to that extent his evidence is material in determining whether the alleged corrupt practice was committed or not
A Sankaran PW 20 also saw Violin Mahadevan receiving voters at the polling booths
Seshadri contends that as the plea was limited to the naming of these four persons it is clear that the plea as made was insufficient to bring home the charge which is now brought to his door namely that he had hired or procured these vehicles
As has been said above the hiring and procuring of the vehicles is a totally different matter
These witnesses only speak to what they saw at the polling booths and their evidence is believable that voters were brought to the polling booth
The question is by whom The case then goes on to another point and that is Where did the cars come from Neither side had examined either Kumarswamy or the owner of the other garage or any other person
The learned Judge then felt that he should examine some court witnesses and he summoned three namely Kumarswamy CW 2 Krishnaswamy CW 3 and one Ganesan CW 1
He also called for a report from the police as to whom the cars belonged and he perused the evidence of these three witnesses as also the report sent by the police and come to the conclusion that the hiring or procuring was by Seshadri himself
A great deal of argument is therefore directed by Seshadri to exclude the evidence of these witnesses and the reference to the police to find out to whom the cars belonged
In this connection Seshadri cites a number of ruling which he says show quite clearly that a plea cannot be allowed to be magnified particularly by evidence not brought by the parties but at the instance of the Court
This requires an examination closely
The first contention of Seshadri is that the Court trying the election petition is limited by the law which is contained in the Representation of the People Act and the Rules made thereunder
This law according to him confers no power upon the Presiding Judge to enter the arena to summon witnesses on his own behalf
The learned Judge who summoned witnesses passed a very short order while doing so
He did not refer to any law on the subject but extracted a passage from the trial of Warren Hastings in which it was stated that a Judge is not to be a dummy but is to take an active interest in the case
Seshadri contends therefore that the action of the Judge in summoning the court 1028 witnesses was entirely erroneous and that this evidence should be excluded
The Vower of a Civil Court to summon court witnesses is contained in O XVI r 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Now the Representation of People Act enjoins that all the powers under the Code can be exercised and all the procedure as far as may be applicable to the trial of civil suits may be followed in the trial of election petitions
It would appear therefore that in the absence of any prohibition contained in the law the Court has the power to summon a court witness if it thinks that the ends of justice require or that the case before it needs that kind of evidence
It must be remembered that an election petition is not an action at law or a suit in equity
It is a special proceeding
The law even requires that an election petitioner should not be allowed to withdraw an election petition which he has once made and that the election petition may be continued by another person so long as another person is available
The policy of election law seems to be that for the establishment of purity of elections investigation into all allegations of real practices including corrupt practices at elections should be thoroughly made
Here was a case where a large number of cars were used presumably for the purpose of carrying voters to the booths
The question is in the face of this voluminous evidence was it not open to the judge if evidence was available to establish who had procured or hired vehicles to summon witnesses who could depose to the same  In our opinion such a power was properly exercised by the learned judge
Although we would say that the trial should be at arms length and the Court should not really enter into the dispute as a third party but it is not to be understood that the Court never has the power to summon a witness or to call for a document which would throw light upon the matter particularly of corrupt practice which is alleged and is being sought to be proved
If the Court was satisfied that a corrupt practice had in fact been perpetrated may be by one side or the other it was absolutely necessary to find out who was the author of that corrupt practice
Section 98 of the Act itself allows the Court to name a person who is guilty of corrupt practice after giving him notice and this would be more so in the case of a candidate whose name
appears to be connected with the corrupt practice the proof whereof is not before the Court but can be so brought
In such a ease we think that the court would be acting within its jurisdiction in using O XVI r 14 to summon witnesses who can throw light upon the matter
Having disposed of this preliminarg objection we are now in a position to consider the evidence which was brought but before doing so we must show its relevance to the pleas which had been raised in the case because much discussion was made 1029 of the law of pleadings in the case
We have pointed out above that the plea in essence was that cars were used for the purpose of conveying voters contrary to the prohibition contained in the Election Law
The names of the booths and the divisions in which the booths were situated together with the particulars of the cars and the persons primarily concerned with cars at the polling booths have been mentioned
It is true that the drivers of the cars or the voters themselves have not been examined
But it has been sufficiently pleaded and proved that the cars were in fact used
The connection of Seshadri with the use of the cars has been specifically pleaded
In our opinion the rest were matters of evidence which did not require to be pleaded and that plea could always be supported by evidence to show the source from where the cars were obtained who hired or procured them and who used them for the conveyance of voters
This is exactly what has happened in this case
The learned Judge after reaching the conclusion that a large number of cars were used for conveying voters to the polling booths
felt impelled further to consider who was responsible for hiring them
The names of the two garages were already given and there was the allegation that certain companies and cinema producers were also helping Seshadri by the loan of cars
Since the name of Kumarswamy s garage was mentioned it was but natural for the Judge to have summoned the proprietor of the garage
The proprietor of the garage came and gave the story about the use of the cars by some other candidate but not Seshadri
lie however brought on record documents to show that the cars were hired on payment from his garage by one Krishnaswamy
The next step was therefore to summon Krishnaswamy and he was therefore summoned and questioned
Krishnaswamy admitted that he had hired these cars and paid bills amounting to a few thousand rupees
It is obvious that these cars were not employed for any other purpose that day except for election work
It is ridiculous to imagine that they were ordered for a picnic or for a marriage which did not take p1ace
Therefore the inference was that Krishnaswamy had hired these cars to convey voters to the polling booths
The question therefore boils down to this for whom was Krishnaswamy working Here we have the evidence of various types against Krishnaswamy
Kumarswamy and Krishnaswamv have been amply proved in the ease to be connected with Seshadri
Kumarswamv was shown exhibit c 2A lie stated that it was an order form filled bV R Krishnaswamy
He also admitted that he had received payments and that the trip sheets of the cars were maintained for that date
Those trip sheets are C 7 to C 36
Now with regard to these trip sheets it may be stated that in some of them there was mention that the cars were used for election work but subsequently it was 1030 found that someone had rubbed out that entry
We are not here to find out who was guilty of attempting to create evidence by rubbing this out
The fact remains that some of the trip sheets still read clearly that the cars had been used for election work
exhibit C 6 was the bill which was issued for these cars and it was issued to Krishnaswamy
Therefore the cars were engaged at least from Kumarswamy garage for conveying voters and they were hired by Krishnaswamy and he paid for them
Now Krishnaswamy is connected intimately with Seshadri
He was employed by two companies in which Seshadri was a Director
A party was arranged in honour of Seshadri to celebrate his victory
The arrangement for this was made by Krishnaswamy although the expenses for the party were paid by Seshadri by cheque
Seshadri contends that his entire accounts were
examined but it was not proved from those accounts that he had paid any money towards the hire of the cars
It is not possible for anyone to say how Seshadri if he was willing to pay for the cars would have procured the money
It would have been the worst thing for him to have paid the amount by cheque so that it could enter into the accounts
Obviously such payments would be made in a way that they could not be traced back to the person actually paying the amount
The connection however of Krishnaswamy with the hiring of the cars and with the celebration of the victory of Seshadri furnishes a very important link in the chain of reasoning
It is quite clear to us that the Swatantra Party was in favour of Seshadri
Seshadri relies upon finding which has been given by the Court in which it is stated that the Judge found that the first respondent the Swatantra party and the persons mentioned therein acted as agents of the first respondent and committed corrupt practices under section 1235 with which we are now dealing
The argument was that this finding
is somewhat obscure because it shows that the first respondent was the agent of the first respondent himself
It seems to us that the learned Judge in recording this finding gave it unthinkingly taking the words from the plea in the petition
It is quite clear that the learned Judge reaches the conclusion that the Swatantra party was working actively in support of Seshadri
It is of course not proved that he was the adopted candidate of the party nor is it proved that he had appointed any particular person as his agent but it is quite clear that the Swatantra party was actively supporting him
Thus there is the presence of the workers of the Swatantra party like Hande Vinavakam Violin Mahadevan and Venkatraman on the scene at the polling booths
It may also be mentioned that in one of the trip sheets one Kalyanasundaram had signed in token of the cars having been used
This Kalyanasundaram was the polling agent of Seshadri
The circumstantial 1031 evidence is now complete
There is the hiring of the cars from the Kumaraswamy Garage by Krishnaswamy the payment of money by Krishnaswamy to the garage Krishnaswamy s attachment to Seshadri because of his past connection and the further proof that he arranged the party on his behalf after his victory and the trip sheet was signed by Kalyanasundaram the polling agent of Seshadri
The amount paid was so large that only a candidate would incur that expense and no supporter
If there was any doubt as to who hired or procured these cars it is resolved by the concatenation of circumstances which clearly demonstrate that it could have been only Seshadri and no one else who had hired these vehicles
We can infer this circumstantially even though direct evidence be not available
In addition there is the patent fact that Seshadri did not himself go into the witness box and clear these facts standing out against him although opportunity  was offered
It is true that Seshadri complained before us that the plea was vague that it had been magnified by the evidence brought in this manner and the Court allowed the election petitioner to take advantage of the evidence so brought but we have already held that the evidence was legitimately brought and that it could be led in the case
As to the plea we have already shown that it was sufficiently cogent to establish the connection between Seshadri and the hiring and procuring of the cars
The missing links were supplied by that evidence by showing the connection of the only person who had hired the cars and paid several thousand rupees for their hire
If that person is intimately connected with Seshadri the conclusion is inescapable that it was Seshadri for whose benefit the cars were hired or procured
In our opinion the circumstantial chain of evidence is sufficient to show the connection between him and the use of the cars for the conveyance of voters
As to the rulings which were cited before us it is sufficient to say that each case is decided on its own facts and circumstances
It is true that better particulars can only be given by the party but that is only where better particulars are required
It was not necessary for Vasanta Pai to have pleaded his evidence in this behalf
He made a very full plea by giving the numbers of the cars by naming the polling booths at which voters were brought and by stating quite categorically that it was Seshadri who had procured these cars for the conveyance of voters
Rest was matter of evidence and the facts had to be established by evidence
It may be that without the evidence of Kumaraswamy and Krishnaswamy the case might have taken a different turn but we have already pointed out that the learned Judge very correctly brought these two persons intimately connected with the cars into the Case before him and to give their version
Their version is partly 1032 true and partly false and the false evidence was to exclude Seshadri from the charge
In our opinion this also demonstrates the connection between these persons and Seshadri which had been established in other ways through their own mouths
We accordingly hold that this corrupt practice was brought home
It remains to consider the argument of Mr Gupte whether Vasanta Pai could be declared elected
This will depend on our reaching the conclusion that but for the fact that voters were brought through this corrupt practice to the polling booths the result of the election had been materially affected
In a single transferable vote it is very difficult to say how the voting would have gone because if all the votes which Seshadri had got had gone to one of the other candidate who got eliminated at the earlier counts those candidates would have won
We cannot order a recount because those voters were not free from complicity
It would be speculating to decide how many of the voters were brought to the polling booths in the cars
We think that we are not in a position to declare Vasanta Pai as elected because that would be merely a guess or surmise as to the nature of the voting which would have taken place if this corrupt practice had not been perpetrated
In the result therefore we set aside the direction that Vasanta Pai is elected to the constituency
There will inevitably have to be a fresh election in this constituency
In so far as Seshadri is concerned we think that he was properly named as guilty of corrupt practice although that order was incorporated by the learned Judge through a review
It was his duty to have named persons who had been guilty of corrupt practice and he made this up later
There is no need for any specific power for review since the power to name any person guilty of corrupt practice is already contained in the Act
Whether it comes in the original judgment or by a supplementary or complementary order is not much to the purpose that order was correctly made
In the result the appeal fails and it will be dismissed with costs
RKPS Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellant was elected to the Madras Legislative Council from the Madras District Graduates Constituency
His election was challenged by the Respondent his nearest rival candidate by an election petition alleging mainly that a large number of cars had been employed for the conveyance of voters to the polling booths in violation of section 1235 of the Representation of the People Act 1951
The High Court held that the corrupt practice was established and set aside the appellant s election
It also declared the respondent elected in his place
The original order passed by the High Court did not name the appellant as guilty of corrupt practice but the Court by a subsequent order reviewing its previous order gave a declaration to that effect
In the appeal to this Court it was contended by the appellant that the plea in the petition regarding violation of section 1235 was vague and not sufficiently defined so as to give him notice of the charge he had to meet and furthermore that the learned Judge who tried the case improved both the pleading on the subject and the evidence led by the election petitioner by calling certain witnesses and looking into documents which he had no power to do
It was therefore contended that all the evidence which the learned Judge collected suo motu should not be looked at and if the case of the petitioner was confined to the bare plea raised the petition would deserve to be dismissed because it was not clear in the plea and was lacking in proof
HELD dismissing the appeal On the facts the High Court had rightly found that many cars were employed for the conveyance of voters in the constituency
The circumstantial chain of evidence was sufficient to show the connection between the appellant and the use of the cars for the conveyance of voters
The corrupt practice under section 1235 was therefore brought home
A B i The plea in the petition in essence was that cars were used for the purpose of conveying voters contrary to the prohibition contained in the Election Law
The names of the booths and the divisions in which the booths were situated together with the particulars of the cars and the persons primarily concerned with cars at the polling booths had been mentioned
The connection of the appellant with the use of the cars had been specifically pleaded
Sufficient particulars of the allegation had therefore been given and the rest were matters of evidence which did not require to be pleaded
ii The power of a Civil Court to summon court witnesses is contained in O XVI r 14 of the Co of Civil Procedure
The Representation of People Act enjoins that all the powers under the Code can be exercised and all the procedure as far as may be applicable to the trial 1020 of civil suits may be followed in the trial of election petitions
The court trying an election petition therefore has the power to summon a Court witness if it thinks that the ends of justice require or that the case before it needs that kind of evidence
The policy of election law seem to be that for the establishment of purity of elections investigation into to be that for the nasal factices including corrupt practices at elections all allegations of malpractices include corrupt practices at elections should be thoroughly made
In the present case a large number of cars were obviously used presumably for the purpose of carrying voters to the booths
In the face of this voluminous evidence it was open to the judge if evidence was available to establish who had procured or hired judge summon witnesses who could depose to the same
Such a vehicles to exercised by the learned judge 
1028 B F iii In the present case it was not possible to reach the conclusion the voters were brought to the polling booths in violation of that 235 the result de the election had been materially affected
In a single transferable vote it is very difficult to say how the voting would have gone because if all the votes which the appellant had got had gone to one of the other candidates who were eliminated at the earlier counts those candidates could have won
The declaration of the respondent s election would be merely a guess or surmise as to the nature of the voting which would have taken place if the corrupt practice had not been perpetrated and the High Court s direction declaring him elected must therefore be set aside
1032 B D iv The appellant was properly named as guilty of corrupt practice although the order was incorporated by the learned Judge through a review
It was his duty to have named persons who had been guilty of corrupt practice and he made this up later
There is no need for any specific power for review since the power to name any person guilty of corrupt Practice is already contained in the Act
Whether it comes in the original judgment or by a supplementary or complementary order is not much to the purpose that order was correctly made
1032 E