RAM SINGH Vs. COLLECTOR RAM SINGH
LAWS(SC)-1985-8-26
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
August 07,1985
RAM SINGH
Appellant
VERSUS
COL.RAM SINGH
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
RAM SHRAN YADAV V. THAKUR MUNESHWAR MATH SINGH [RELIED ON]RAM DIAL VS. SANT LAL [RELIED ON]
S PARTAP SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
YUSUFALLI ESMAIL NAGREE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [RELIED ON]
SAMANT N BALKRISHNA VS. GEORGE FERNANDEZ [RELIED ON]
SAMANT N BALKRISHNA VS. GEORGE FERNANDEZ [RELIED ON]
RAGHUVIR SINGH VS. RAGHUBIR SINGH KUSHWAHA [RELIED ON]
N RAMA REDDY VS. V V GIRI [RELIED ON]
R M MALKANI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [RELIED ON]
RAZIK RAM VS. JASWANT SINGH CHOUHAN [RELIED ON]
MOTI LAL VS. CHANDRA PRATAP TIWARI [RELIED ON]
ZIYAUDDIN BURHANUDDIN BUKHARI VS. BRIJMOHAN RAMDASS MEHRA [RELIED ON]
BALWAN SINGH VS. PRAKASH CHAND [RELIED ON]
SULTAN SALAHUDDIN OWASI VS. MOHAMMAD OSMAN SHAHEED [RELIED ON]
RAM SHARAN YADAV VS. THAKUR MUNESHWAR NATH SINGH [RELIED ON]
S HARCHARAN SINGH VS. S SAJJAN SINGH [RELIED ON]
Cited Judgements :-
TUKARAM S DIGHOLE VS. MANIKRAO SHIVAJI KOKATE [LAWS(SC)-2010-2-46] [REFERRED]KULDEEP BISHNOI VS. SPEAKER [LAWS(P&H)-2014-10-8] [REFERRED TO]
MAGAN VS. RAMJI [LAWS(RAJ)-2023-9-196] [REFERRED TO]
BALARAM VS. ARAVINDAKSHAN [LAWS(KER)-1987-9-39] [REFERRED TO]
SOHAN SINGH JODH SINGH KOHLI VS. CHANDRAKANTA GOYAL [LAWS(BOM)-1991-1-76] [REFERRED TO]
RANJAN DWIVEDI VS. STATE OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2006-11-62] [REFERRED TO]
PARVEZBHAI NAVINBHAI RANA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-4-323] [REFERRED TO]
TIRATH SINGH RAWAT VS. C.B.I. [LAWS(DLH)-2013-11-201] [REFERRED TO]
AMAN GAUR VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2011-12-194] [REFERRED TO]
HANSA DEVI VS. KARTAR SINGH ARORA [LAWS(CHH)-2010-11-33] [REFERRED TO]
VIKAS VS. SATISH KUMAR [LAWS(DLH)-2010-4-81] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD AKBAR S/O MOHAMMAD RASHID VS. ASHOK SAHU S/O PURUSHOTTAM SAHU [LAWS(CHH)-2016-5-24] [REFERRED]
ANIL KRISHNARAO APASHINGKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-6-51] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK KUMAR @ BITTOO VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2012-1-439] [REFERRED TO]
ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS. KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL [LAWS(SC)-2020-7-11] [REFERRED TO]
ARCHANA NAGAR, D/O BASANT KUMAR NAGAR VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2016-4-142] [REFERRED]
RAJKUMAR JAISWAL VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2017-5-106] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KAASHYAP INVESTMENT LIMITED VS. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA [LAWS(SB)-2014-9-8] [REFERRED TO]
SATYAJEET @ NANA SHIVAJIRAO KADAM VS. RAJESH VINAYAK KSHIRSAGAR [LAWS(BOM)-2019-3-143] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MP VS. RAFIQUE KHAN [LAWS(MPH)-2011-12-50] [REFERRED TO]
UMA SHANKAR CHOBEY VS. MADAN [LAWS(MPH)-2013-7-266] [REFERRED TO]
M/S.BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED VS. M/S.TVS MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2016-3-275] [REFERRED TO]
DILIP TAKHTANI VS. STATE [LAWS(MPH)-2011-1-39] [REFERRED TO]
P SURYANARAYANA VS. FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS OF TRAVANCORE LTD [LAWS(KER)-2018-7-47] [REFERRED TO]
JOY KIRITBHAI PARMAR VS. SNEHIKA @ SNEHA NAGINDAS KHANDERKAR [LAWS(GJH)-2018-4-60] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. ELANGOVAN [LAWS(MAD)-2010-4-269] [REFERRED TO]
K S MOHAN VS. SANDHYA MOHAN [LAWS(MAD)-1992-10-28] [REFERRED TO]
ABHAY SINGH S/O LATE ASHOK SINGH VS. RAKESH SINGH @ GHANSHYAM SINGH S/O LATE SURENDRA SINGH THAKUR [LAWS(MPH)-2018-7-165] [REFERRED TO]
DHANESWAR MALLICK VS. NARAYAN BEHERA [LAWS(ORI)-2005-11-15] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJMOHAN SINGH VS. SAROJ PANDEY [LAWS(CHH)-2013-1-65] [REFERRED]
IJIRANGBE JEME VS. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-1987-8-20] [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]
BALMUKUND SINGH GAUTAM VS. NEENA VIKRAM VERMA [LAWS(MPH)-2018-6-30] [REFERRED TO]
SAJJANSINGH VERMA VS. SURENDRA VERMA [LAWS(MPH)-1996-7-61] [REFERRED TO]
MANZOOR ALI KHAN VS. ATEEQ AHAMED [LAWS(KAR)-1991-2-62] [REFERRED TO]
S K KANTA VS. QUAMANIL ISLAM [LAWS(KAR)-1992-9-11] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK KUMAR VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2012-1-543] [REFERRED TO]
SOHAN SINGH JODH SINGH KOHLI VS. CHANDRAKANTA GOYAL [LAWS(BOM)-1991-7-45] [REFERRED TO]
SHARVAN LAL S/O BHANWAR LAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-8-216] [REFERRED TO]
RADHEY SHYAM DHAKAD VS. JAIVARDHAN SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-2017-9-229] [REFERRED TO]
K.P. MOHAMMED VS. ABDUL RAZAK [LAWS(KER)-2019-1-420] [REFERRED TO]
JAMEELA BANO VS. QAZI ABDUL RASHID [LAWS(J&K)-2021-11-2] [REFERRED TO]
PRADIP BURAGOHAIN VS. PRANATI PHUKAN [LAWS(GAU)-2008-7-48] [REFERRED TO]
R JAGADEESHWAR VS. P GOUTHAM GOUD [LAWS(APH)-2003-6-76] [REFERRED TO]
HAVOVI KERSI SETHNA VS. KERSI GUSTAD SETHNA [LAWS(BOM)-2011-1-14] [REFERRED TO]
BLUE COAST HOTELS LIMITED VS. IFCI LIMITED AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2016-3-127] [REFERRED TO]
ANITA BABBAR VS. SH. O.P. BABBAR [LAWS(DLH)-2011-6-84] [REFERRED TO]
NEPAL SINGH RAWAL VS. CBI [LAWS(DLH)-2011-7-96] [REFERRED TO]
BADDAM BALREDDY VS. SULTAN SALAHUDDIN OWAISI [LAWS(APH)-1997-1-64] [REFERRED TO]
ARUNA DEVI P VS. ELECTION AUTHORITY CUM COMMISSIONER [LAWS(APH)-2002-10-50] [REFERRED TO]
VISHAL VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2012-9-466] [REFERRED TO]
DASYAM VINAYA BHANSKAR VS. DHARMA RAO MARTHINENI [LAWS(APH)-2004-4-85] [REFERRED TO]
BHUWAN @ SONU VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2018-5-15] [REFERRED TO]
AMAL CHANDRA DUTTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-1992-8-131] [REFERRED]
SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2008-8-287] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. S.C. JAIN [LAWS(DLH)-2009-7-336] [REFERRED TO]
SAMIR RANJAN BARMAN VS. BHANU LAL SAHA [LAWS(GAU)-1987-12-13] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH RAO S/O D. POLYA VS. MOHANLAL MARKAM S/O BHIKHRAI MARKAM [LAWS(CHH)-2016-10-4] [REFERRED TO]
VINAYAK VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-10-163] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD. ABDULLAH AZAM KHAN VS. NAWAB KAZIM ALI KHAN [LAWS(SC)-2022-11-30] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDER SINGH VS. MALA RAM [LAWS(SC)-1999-9-50] [REFERRED]
S B AMARKHED VS. BASANGOUDA [LAWS(KAR)-1993-6-21] [REFERRED TO]
POOTHOLI DAMODARAN NAIR VS. BABU V K [LAWS(KER)-2005-3-8] [REFERRED TO]
GHANSHYAMBHAI MADAVLAL PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2014-12-189] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. RAMESH TUKARAM WAGH [LAWS(BOM)-2020-9-183] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD SHAFI S O MOHAMMAD YUSUF VS. AURANGABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AURANGABAD [LAWS(BOM)-1992-8-34] [REFERRED TO]
SAVE MORESHWAR DINA NATH VS. SHANTARAM KALE [LAWS(BOM)-1989-6-31] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA SHEKHAR DAS S/O. SHANKAR PRASAD DAS VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(GJH)-2015-3-268] [REFERRED TO]
AKHIL KUMAR AGARWAL VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2019-9-46] [REFERRED TO]
JEET MOHINDER SINGH VS. HARMINDER SINGH JASSI [LAWS(SC)-1999-10-82] [REFERRED]
VIMAL VS. BHAGUJI [LAWS(SC)-1995-5-38] [RELIED ON]
CHARANDAS VS. VILAS WISHWANATH SHRUNGARPAWAR [LAWS(BOM)-1990-10-5] [REFERRED TO]
JOY KIRITBHAI PARMAR VS. SNEHIKA @ SNEHA NAGINDAS KHANDERKAR [LAWS(GJH)-2018-1-181] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH VS. GAUTAM ACHARYA S/O LATE P.C. ACHARYA [LAWS(CHH)-2022-5-7] [REFERRED TO]
TILAK RAJ VS. SARLA DEVI [LAWS(HPH)-2014-7-123] [REFERRED TO]
HARISHCHANDRA MENDURAM AGRAWAL VS. RAMESHWARJI GOVINDJI SARSWAT [LAWS(BOM)-2005-2-142] [REFERRED TO]
BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED VS. TVS MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2016-3-227] [REFERRED TO]
HARERAM KAURAV VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2010-4-60] [REFERRED TO]
RATHNAKAR SHETTY VS. STATE AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-12-3] [REFERRED TO]
DINANATH SHARMA VS. TARUN PRASAD CHATTERJEE [LAWS(CHH)-2007-1-16] [REFERRED TO]
S SADAGOPA RAMANUJAM VS. S R RENGASAMY IYENGAR [LAWS(MAD)-1995-1-110] [REFERRED TO]
A DEVEGOWDA VS. PUTTANNA [LAWS(KAR)-2005-5-12] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY RANGLAL CHORASIYA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2009-1-96] [REFERRED TO]
BLUE COAST HOTELS LIMITED VS. IFCI LIMITED AND ORS [LAWS(BOM)-2016-1-251] [REFERRED]
GIRWAR SINGH AND ORS VS. C B I [LAWS(DLH)-2015-4-550] [REFERRED]
I.P.S. AHLUWALIA VS. C.B.I. [LAWS(DLH)-2013-5-330] [REFERRED TO]
WASIUDDIN SIDDIQUI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-9-65] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR MISHRA VS. STATE OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2011-9-338] [REFERRED TO]
DASYAM VINAYA BHASKAR VS. DHARMA RAO MARTHINENI [LAWS(APH)-2004-4-98] [REFERRRED TO (PARA 45)]
JUDGEMENT
FAZAL ALI -
(1.)THE election process in our country has become anextremely complex and complicated system and indeed a very difficult anddelicate affair. Sometimes, the election-petitioner, who has lost the election from a particular constituency, makes out on the surface such a probable616 feature and presents falsehood dextrously dressed in such a fashion as thetruth being buried somewhere deep into the roots of the case so as to beinvisible, looks like falsehood which is depicted in the garb of an attractive, imposing and charming dress as a result of which some courts are prone to fall into the trap and hold as true what is downright false. If, however, the lid is carefully opened, and the veil is lifted, the face of falsehood disappears and truth comes out victorious.
(2.)IN such cases the judicial process and the judicial approach has to be both pragmatic and progressive so that the deepest possible probe is made to get at the real truth out of a heap of dust and cloud. This is indeed a herculean task and unless the court is extremely careful and vigilant, the truth may be so completely camouflaged that falsehood may look like real truth.
Of course, the advocacy of the counsel for the parties does play a very important role in unveiling the truth and in borderline cases the courts have to undertake the onerous task of, "disengaging the truth from falsehood, to separate the chaff from the grain". In our opinion, all said and done, if two views are reasonably possible-one in favour of the elected candidate and the other against him - courts should not interfere with the expensive electoral process and instead of setting at naught the election of the winning candidate should uphold his election giving him the benefit of the doubt. This is more so where allegations of fraud or undue influence are made.
These observations have been made by us in order to decide election cases with the greatest amount of care and caution, consideration and circumspection because if- one false step is taken, it may cause havoc to the person who foses.
(3.)IT is not necessary for us to dwell on or narrate the facts of the case of the parties which have been detailed by the High court in very clear and unambiguous terms. To repeat the same all over again might frustrate the very object of deciding election petitions with utmost expedition. Even so, it may be necessary for us to give a bird's-eye view and a grotesque picture of the important and dominant elements of the controversy between the parties in order to understand which of the two cases presented before us is true.
The evidence in the present case consists of-
(a) oral evidence of the witnesses of the parties,
(b) the documentary evidence,
(c) the evidence consisting of the tape-recorded statements of theconversation between the Deputy Commissioner and the respondent. Col. Ram Singh, corroborated by the respondent himself who was examined as a court witness by us in this court and both sides were given full opportunity to cross-examine him,
617
(d) important points of law arising out of the arguments presentedbefore us, and
(e) authorities of this court or other courts cited before us.
(2.)IN such cases the judicial process and the judicial approach has to be both pragmatic and progressive so that the deepest possible probe is made to get at the real truth out of a heap of dust and cloud. This is indeed a herculean task and unless the court is extremely careful and vigilant, the truth may be so completely camouflaged that falsehood may look like real truth.
Of course, the advocacy of the counsel for the parties does play a very important role in unveiling the truth and in borderline cases the courts have to undertake the onerous task of, "disengaging the truth from falsehood, to separate the chaff from the grain". In our opinion, all said and done, if two views are reasonably possible-one in favour of the elected candidate and the other against him - courts should not interfere with the expensive electoral process and instead of setting at naught the election of the winning candidate should uphold his election giving him the benefit of the doubt. This is more so where allegations of fraud or undue influence are made.
These observations have been made by us in order to decide election cases with the greatest amount of care and caution, consideration and circumspection because if- one false step is taken, it may cause havoc to the person who foses.
(3.)IT is not necessary for us to dwell on or narrate the facts of the case of the parties which have been detailed by the High court in very clear and unambiguous terms. To repeat the same all over again might frustrate the very object of deciding election petitions with utmost expedition. Even so, it may be necessary for us to give a bird's-eye view and a grotesque picture of the important and dominant elements of the controversy between the parties in order to understand which of the two cases presented before us is true.
The evidence in the present case consists of-
(a) oral evidence of the witnesses of the parties,
(b) the documentary evidence,
(c) the evidence consisting of the tape-recorded statements of theconversation between the Deputy Commissioner and the respondent. Col. Ram Singh, corroborated by the respondent himself who was examined as a court witness by us in this court and both sides were given full opportunity to cross-examine him,
(d) important points of law arising out of the arguments presentedbefore us, and
(e) authorities of this court or other courts cited before us.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.