Baldev Singh Mann vs Surjit Singh Dhiman

2. The facts which are necessary to dispose of the appeal are recapitulated as under:

3. The appellant Baldev Singh Mann filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Shiromani Akali Dal (B) (for short "SAD"), whereas respondent Surjit Singh Dhiman filed his nomination papers as an independent candidate. In the election, respondent Surjit Singh Dhiman got 35,099 votes and appellant Baldev Singh Mann got 34,103 votes and consequently, the respondent was declared elected.

5. The appellant pleaded that the respondent's election was liable to be declared void as the respondent had committed corrupt practices by obtaining and procuring assistance, for the furtherance of the prospects of his election, from Gurbachan Singh Bachhi (hereinafter referred to as "Bachhi") and B.S. Shergill (hereinafter referred to as "Shergill") who were in the service of the government and were gazetted officers.

6. According to the appellant, Bachhi was Administrative Member of the Punjab State Electricity Board. He was appointed on 24.12.2001 and belonged to Bhattiwal Khurd, a village falling in Dirba Constituency.

7. Shergill was posted as Deputy Director, Panchayats, Punjab and was a gazetted officer in the service of the government. He had also remained as the Additional Deputy 4 Commissioner, Sangrur for four years and belonged to Rajpura, a village in Dirba Constituency.

8. According to the appellant, the role of Dhiman and Bachhi which amounted to corrupt practices under section 123(7) of the said Act are as under:

(D) On 5.2.2002, at 5 p.m. a meeting was convened at Chandani Tourist Complex in Nadampur of the voters belonging to Nadampur, Balad Kalan, Phuymanali and Turi. The respondent was present at this meeting. Some officers of the PSEB were also present. Names of some of the persons who were present there at that time were mentioned in the petition and names of the PSEB employees were also mentioned. At this meeting, Bachhi asked the persons present to vote and support the 7 respondent. The respondent also thanked Bachhi and others for supporting him. The appellant came to know about this meeting on 9.2.2002 from Gurmeet Singh and Hakam Singh of Nadampur and Labh Singh of Phumanwali and he immediately sent a fax message to the Chief Election Commissioner. At the said meeting, the respondent had introduced some persons of Chatha Nanhera to Bachhi and asked him to help them in getting out-of-turn power connection from the Board. The respondent told Bachhi that if he is able to release the connection, that would advance his prospects in the elections not only in his own village but also in the surrounding villages. Bachhi asked Thilu Singh to meet him in the office of SDO (Sub Urban) Suman on 6.2.2002 at 10 a.m. (E) The above meeting was held at the scheduled time and Bachhi directed the PSEB official to supply material out of turn for giving connections to the villagers of Chatha Nanhera. He also asked Thilu Singh and others of that village to vote and support the respondent. In the evening at 5 p.m. Bachhi visited Dirba and in the presence of 8 Karnail Singh, Ruldu Singh of Chatha Nanhera informed the respondent that Thilu Singh's work had been done. The appellant came to know about this information from Karnail Singh and Ruldu Singh on 8.2.2002 at 5 p.m. at an election rally addressed by Sukhbir Singh Badal at Dirba. Consequently, the appellant sent a complaint in this regard to the Chief Election Commissioner.

11. The respondent's conduct established that he had obtained assistance from Bachhi and Shergill, both gazetted officers in the service of the Government. These acts constituted corrupt practices. According to the appellant, the respondent had obtained assistance from Bachhi and Shergill in furtherance of the prospects of his election. Hence, the election was liable to be declared void. The respondent had committed corrupt practices as detailed under section 123(7) of the said Act. According to the appellant, the respondent is clearly guilty under section 123(7) of the said Act.

36. We have carefully re-assessed and re-evaluated the entire evidence of record and we concur with the view which has been taken by the High Court. In our opinion, the appellant has failed to prove the basic ingredients of corrupt practices under section 123(7) of the said Act. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.

November 21, 2008