N RAMA REDDY Vs. V V GIRI
LAWS(SC)-1970-4-36
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
April 27,1970
N.RAMA REDDY
Appellant
VERSUS
V.V.GIRI
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
S PARTAP SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [RELIED ON]YUSUFALLI ESMAIL NAGREE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [RELIED ON]
Cited Judgements :-
D R PUNJAB MONTOGOMERY TRANSPORT CO VS. RAGHUVANSHI PVT LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1981-12-9] [REFERRED TO]MUNAF AND ORS. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2015-3-68] [REFERRED TO]
H N RAI VS. AJAY MOHAN [LAWS(BOM)-2008-7-130] [REFERRED TO]
INDER CHAND VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1994-7-13] [REFERRED TO]
R K ANAND VS. REGISTRAR DELHI HIGH COURT [LAWS(SC)-2009-7-92] [REFERRED TO]
JIL W/O. PRIYANK CHOKSI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2024-7-110] [REFERRED TO]
SAMSONELECTRICALS VS. HANSRAJ MIGLANI [LAWS(DLH)-2007-3-238] [REFERRED TO]
SAEEDA IRFANA VS. INSPECTOR OF POLICE R4 PONDY BAZAR POLICE STATION T NAGAR CHENNAI 17 [LAWS(MAD)-2001-10-72] [REFERRED TO]
SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2008-8-287] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SINGH VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2013-3-24] [REFERRED TO]
POOTHOLI DAMODARAN NAIR VS. BABU V K [LAWS(KER)-2005-3-8] [REFERRED TO]
JAI KISHAN DASS VS. RAM BABU AGGARWAL [LAWS(MPH)-1996-7-100] [REFERRED TO]
R M MALKANI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-1972-9-31] [RELIED UPON]
DINESH SINGH VS. STATE OF U P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-321] [REFERRED]
NATASHA SINGH VS. CBI (STATE) [LAWS(DLH)-2017-8-209] [REFERRED TO]
JAGARLAMUDI TIRUPATHAIAH VS. KOLASANI SUBBARAO [LAWS(APH)-1982-12-26] [REFERRED TO]
BHIKABAI VS. ARVIND BHALCHANDRA TAMBOLI AND ANOTHER [LAWS(BOM)-1983-1-53] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1981-4-13] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. SHAILENDRA KAMALKISHOR PANDE [LAWS(GJH)-2007-6-64] [REFERRED TO]
HAVOVI KERSI SETHNA VS. KERSI GUSTAD SETHNA [LAWS(BOM)-2011-1-14] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL JAVHER SHIVDASANI VS. AIR INN PVT LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2009-1-125] [REFERRED TO]
ARJAN SINGH VS. S R BAWA AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2018-1-111] [REFERRED TO]
A R PERIYASAMY VS. G KARUNAKARAN [LAWS(MAD)-2008-12-142] [REFERRED TO]
JAYDEVBHAI GHANSHYAMBHAI SOLANKI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2020-1-131] [REFERRED TO]
S K KANTA VS. QUAMANIL ISLAM [LAWS(KAR)-1992-9-11] [REFERRED TO]
ARYA CHOWDHRY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2006-2-61] [REFERRED TO]
STATE THROUGH REFERENCE VS. RAM SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2014-3-175] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN LAL VS. HMT LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2009-12-116] [REFERRED TO]
D SRINIVASA RAO VS. STATE, REP BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, CBI/SPE, HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2017-4-81] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-9-161] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. ELANGOVAN [LAWS(MAD)-2010-4-269] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. ELANGOVAN [LAWS(MAD)-2010-4-269] [REFERRED TO]
DILIP TAKHTANI VS. STATE [LAWS(MPH)-2011-1-39] [REFERRED TO]
NAVNEET ARORA VS. STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) [LAWS(DLH)-2018-5-175] [REFERRED TO]
SATHIS VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2015-3-288] [REFERRED TO]
MUNIKRISHNA @ KRISHNA ETC. VS. STATE [LAWS(SC)-2022-9-183] [REFERRED TO]
WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. SHANSKA INTERNATIONAL CIVIL ENGINEERING AB. [LAWS(CAL)-2001-5-60] [REFERRED TO]
SKANSKA INTERNATIONAL CIVIL ENGINEERING AB VS. WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(CAL)-2000-12-6] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPTI KAPUR VS. KUNAL JULKA [LAWS(DLH)-2020-6-77] [REFERRED TO]
S KRISHNAIAH VS. GURU RAGHAVENDRA TRADERS [LAWS(APH)-2014-9-121] [REFERRED TO]
G SHYAMALA RANJINI VS. M S TAMIZHNATHAN [LAWS(MAD)-2007-11-230] [REFERRED TO]
ZIYAUDDIN BURHANUDDIN BUKHARI VS. BRIJMOHAN RAMDASS MEHRA [LAWS(SC)-1975-4-8] [RELIED ON]
RAM SINGH VS. COLLECTOR RAM SINGH [LAWS(SC)-1985-8-26] [RELIED ON]
A C JAILAVUDHEEN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2025-1-115] [REFERRED TO]
MUTCHI SANNI BABU VS. MELASTRI ATCHEM NAIDU [LAWS(APH)-2018-11-14] [REFERRED TO]
RANJAN DWIVEDI VS. STATE OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2006-11-62] [REFERRED TO]
LACHHAMANDAS VS. DEEPCHAND [LAWS(RAJ)-1973-4-19] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Vaidialingam, J. -
(1.)On April 1, 1970 Shri Jagat Narain (R. W. 25) was being cross-examined by the counsel for the petitioners in Election Petition No. 5 of 1969, when certain suggestions were put to him that he had tried to dissuade the first petitioner in the said Election Petition, viz., Shri Abdul Ghani Dar from filing the election on political reasons and when the witness denied not only those suggestions but also certain other suggestions put to him, counsel for the petitioner represented that Shri Abdul Ghani Dar had a tape recording of the talk that took place between him and the witness and he sought permission from the Court to play the same for being put to the witness. Objection was raised by Mr. C. K. Daphtary, learned counsel for the respondent, that the tape recorded conversation was not admissible in evidence. In view of this objection, counsel on both sides were heard regarding the admissibility of the tape recorded conversation, on April 2, 1970 and, after hearing arguments on both sides, we then expressed the opinion that the tape recorded conversation could be received in evidence and that we would give our reasons later. The further cross-examination and re-examination of the witness proceeded in respect of the tape-recorded conversation which was played in Court in the presence of the witness.
(2.)We now proceed to state our reasons for holding that the tape recorded conversation could be admitted in evidence. But we make it clear that we have dealt with only the question regarding the admissibility in evidence of the tape recorded conversation, which is distinct and separate from the weight to be given to such evidence which question will be dealt with in the main judgment to be delivered in the election petitions.
(3.)Before we deal with the question of admissibility of the tape recorded conversation, it is necessary to state that in Election Petition No. 5 of 1969 the petitioners allege that offences of undue influence at the election had been committed by the returned candidate and by his supporters with the connivance of the returned candidate. The material facts relating to the said allegations have also been given in the petition in paragraph 13 of the election petition. It has been alleged that on August 9, 1969 an unsigned pamphlet in cyclostyled form and also a printed pamphlet without bearing the name of its publisher or printer (marked as Exhibits P-18B and P-37B respectively) were published by free distribution among the members of the Electoral College for the Presidential Election. It has been further alleged that the offence of undue influence was freely committed at the election by the returned candidate and the persons mentioned in the election petition and by their supporters and workers with the connivance of the returned candidate, by voluntarily interfering and attempting to interfere with the free exercise of the electoral rights of the candidates and the various electors mentioned in the petition. It is further alleged that with the object of interfering with the free exercise of electoral rights by Sri N. Sanjiva Reddy, a candidate at the election, Sri Jagat Narain and certain other persons named in the petition who are described as supporters and workers of the returned candidate in general with the consent and connivance of the returned candidate published, by free distribution, pamphlets in Hindi and English in cyclostyled form as well as in printed form in which very serious allegations were made against Shri Reddy, which amounted to undue influence upon the persons referred to in the election petition within the meaning of Section 171 {c) of the Indian Penal Code. There is a further allegation that these pamphlets were distributed from August 9, 1969 to August 16, 1969 among all the electors of the Electoral College for the Presidential election and they were also distributed during this period in the Central Hall of the Parliament by the various persons mentioned in the petition, which included Shri Jagat Narain.
(2.)We now proceed to state our reasons for holding that the tape recorded conversation could be admitted in evidence. But we make it clear that we have dealt with only the question regarding the admissibility in evidence of the tape recorded conversation, which is distinct and separate from the weight to be given to such evidence which question will be dealt with in the main judgment to be delivered in the election petitions.
(3.)Before we deal with the question of admissibility of the tape recorded conversation, it is necessary to state that in Election Petition No. 5 of 1969 the petitioners allege that offences of undue influence at the election had been committed by the returned candidate and by his supporters with the connivance of the returned candidate. The material facts relating to the said allegations have also been given in the petition in paragraph 13 of the election petition. It has been alleged that on August 9, 1969 an unsigned pamphlet in cyclostyled form and also a printed pamphlet without bearing the name of its publisher or printer (marked as Exhibits P-18B and P-37B respectively) were published by free distribution among the members of the Electoral College for the Presidential Election. It has been further alleged that the offence of undue influence was freely committed at the election by the returned candidate and the persons mentioned in the election petition and by their supporters and workers with the connivance of the returned candidate, by voluntarily interfering and attempting to interfere with the free exercise of the electoral rights of the candidates and the various electors mentioned in the petition. It is further alleged that with the object of interfering with the free exercise of electoral rights by Sri N. Sanjiva Reddy, a candidate at the election, Sri Jagat Narain and certain other persons named in the petition who are described as supporters and workers of the returned candidate in general with the consent and connivance of the returned candidate published, by free distribution, pamphlets in Hindi and English in cyclostyled form as well as in printed form in which very serious allegations were made against Shri Reddy, which amounted to undue influence upon the persons referred to in the election petition within the meaning of Section 171 {c) of the Indian Penal Code. There is a further allegation that these pamphlets were distributed from August 9, 1969 to August 16, 1969 among all the electors of the Electoral College for the Presidential election and they were also distributed during this period in the Central Hall of the Parliament by the various persons mentioned in the petition, which included Shri Jagat Narain.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.