1|Page

___________________________________________________________________________

SUBJECT- LAW OF EVIDENCE

TOPIC-PRATAP SINGH V. RAJENDRA SINGH, AIR

1975 SC 1045

Supervised By:
RANJANA DEY

NAME: RATUL KHANDAKAR

ROLL NO: 23
COURSE: LLB 3YEARS (5TH SEMESTER

Memorial on Behalf of the Respondent

2|Page

In the Honorable Supreme Court of India

At New Delhi, India

Petition No: 1045/ 1975

_________________________________
In the Matter of

Mr PRATAP SINGH . …………………..... Petitioner

Versus

RAJENDRA SINGH ………….…. Respondent

CITATION-AIR 1975 SC 1045

Memorial on Behalf of the Respondent

3|Page

Memorial on Behalf of the Respondent

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..............................................................2- 4

a) Acts/ Statutes........................................................................................... 2
b) Books....................................................................................................... 2
c) Internet Sources....................................................................................... 2
d) List of Cases............................................................................................. 3

2. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.................................................... 5

3. SYNOPSIS OF FACTS.......................................................................... 6

4. ISSUES RAISED..................................................................................... 7

5. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS............................................................ 8

6. BODY OF ARGUMENTS...............................................................09- 17
 WHETHER THE COURTS HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO
INTERFERE IN THE EXERCISE OF POWER?
 WHETHER THIS CASE IS COVER UNDER CONSTITUTION

 WHETHER THIS CASE IS COVER UNDER REPRESENTATION OF

PEOPLE ACT?
 Prayer............................................................................................ 18

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Memorial on Behalf of the Respondent

4|Page

ACTS/STATUTES:

 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

 RULES OF PROCEDURE and CONDUCT OF BUSINESS in LOK SABHA

 INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 1872

 Representative of people Act 1951

BOOK:

 JAIN M.P., INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, GURGAON, LEXIS NEXIS

BUTTERWORTHS WADHWA NAGPUR, 2010, SIXTH EDITION

 INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT ,AVTAR SINGH,2ND EDITION

 MASSEY I.P., ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LUCKNOW, EASTERN BOOK

COMPANY, 2008, SEVENTH EDITION

 SHUKLA V.N., CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, LUCKNOW, EASTERN BOOK

CORPORATION, 2008, ELEVENTH EDITION.

INTERNET SITES:

 www.judis.nic.in
 www.loksabha.nic.in
 www.manupatra.com
 www.indlaw.com

LISTS OF CASES

Memorial on Behalf of the Respondent

5|Page

1.  Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975-----------------------------------

2. Rajendra singh vs pratap singh AIR 1975 SC 1045 --------------------------------------

3. Munir Ahmed vs State of Rajasthan-------------------------------------------------12 \

4. State of gujrat vs Aniruddha singh AIR 1997 SC 508---------------------------------

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Memorial on Behalf of the Respondent

6|Page

The Petitioner in the present case has approached the Hon’ble Supreme court of India under
Section 3, 6 and 29 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872

The Respondent respectfully submits to this jurisdiction invoked by the Petitioner.

All of which is urged in detail in the written submission and is submitted most respectfully
before this Court

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Memorial on Behalf of the Respondent

7|Page

: The hiring or procuring, whether on payment or otherwise, of any vehicle or vessel by a

candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election
agent, or the use of such vehicle or vessel for the free conveyance of any elector (other than
the candidate himself, the members of his family or his agent) to or from any polling station
provided under section 25 or a place fixed under sub-section (1) ofsection 29 for the poll :

ii

Provided that the hiring of a vehicle or vessel by an elector or by several electors at their joint
costs for the purposes of conveying him or them to and from any such polling station or place
fixed for the poll shall not be deemed to be a corrupt practice under this clause if the vehicle
or vessel sp hired is a vehicle or vessel not propelled by mechanical power Provided further
that the use of any public transport vehicle or vessel or any tramcar or railway carriage by
any elector at his own cost, for the purpose of going to or coming from any such polling
station or place fixed for the poll shall not be deemed to be a corrupt practice under this
clause".That, the High Court overlooked the well established principle that the charge of a
corrupt practice in the course of an election must be treated as quasi-criminal in character
which has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. We will deal with these objections, in the
reverse order, starting with the last mentioned ground of attack on the High- Court's
judgment. The judgment rests largely on appreciation-of oral evidence. It could not,
therefore, be easily disturbed us as has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court even in first
appeals on facts in election cases. If the High Court overlooks serious infirmities in the
evidence adduced to support the case accepted by it or misreads evidence or ignores the
principle that a charge of corrupt practice, in the course of an election, is a grave one which,
if established, casts a serious reflection and imposes a disability upon the candidate held
guilty of it, so that the Court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt about its veracity,
this Court will not hesitate to interfere. That the charge of corrupt practice must be treated as
the quasi criminal in character which has to be proved beyond the responsible doubet.

ISSUES RAISED

Memorial on Behalf of the Respondent

8|Page

I) which Court found the charge of a corrupt practice to be established upon

oral and documentary evidence given to support it ?

II) Whether the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of a witness are

most unsatisfactory the Tribunal ?

III) Whether this case is fall under constitution of India or not ??

IV) whether on payment or otherwise, of any vehicle or vessel by a candidate or

his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his
election agent, or the use of such vehicle or vessel for the free conveyance of
any elector?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Memorial on Behalf of the Respondent

9|Page

I)

we find that the learned Counsel for the appellant has repeatedly referred to the fact that the
respondent, whose election petition succeeded before the learned Judge, was a defeated
former Minister of the ruling Congress party. Learned Counsel wanted us to infer that,
because, the respondent had been welcomed and garlanded by- the President of the Motor
Truck Drivers' Union of Ganaur,. the evidence of motor drivers was easily available to him.
In other words, we were asked to assume that the motor drivers would be prepared to commit
perjury, at the instance of the President of the Motor Truck Drivers' Union, only to please a
former defeated Minister

II)

It is, therefore, argued, not without force, that the date of the challans was not seriously
disputed by the appellant before the High Court so that this question should not be allowed to
be argued before us. It was also contended on behalf of the respondent that there had been
some tampering with the record in the Magistrate's Court which explained the contrary
evidence given by Subash Chander, P.W.11, the Ahalmad of a Magistrate's Court, showing
that the challan was dated 17-3-1972. It was orally prayed that we should summon and
examine, at this stage, the original record from the Court of the Magistrate, concerned.
However, as no argument appears to have been addressed on this question in the High Court
we think that this as a matter which the High Court can and should itself examine after
summoning the record from the Magistrate's Court as we propose to send the case back to it
for reconsideration after taking some further evidence

RESPONDED ARGUMENT

Memorial on Behalf of the Respondent

10 | P a g e

1.has been argued on behalf of the respondent that there is enough evidence of the motor
truck drivers and of the voters carried as well as documentary evidence, including a log book
of a driver, to show that the truck used on behalf of the respondent were carrying voters to the
election booth, and were, therefore, challaned on 11-3-1972 because carrying of passengers
in truck was not permitted

2.It is, therefore, argued, not without force, that the date of the challans was not seriously
disputed by the appellant before the High Court so that this question should not be allowed to
be argued before us. It was also contended on behalf of the respondent that there had been
some tampering with the record in the Magistrate's Court which explained the contrary

3.It was orally prayed that we should summon and examine, at this stage, the original record
from the Court of the Magistrate, concerned. However, as no argument appears to have been
addressed on this question in the High Court we think that this as a matter which the High
Court can and should itself examine after summoning the record from the Magistrate's Court
as we propose to send the case back to it for reconsideration after taking some further
evidence.

BODY OF ARGUMENTS

Memorial on Behalf of the Respondent

11 | P a g e

I) WHETHER THE COURTS HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO INTERFERE IN

THE EXERCISE OF POWER?

This Court has Jurisdiction to interfere in the exercise of Power or Privilege conferred
on the Parliament

This Court has Jurisdiction to interfere in the exercise of power or privileges conferred on the
parliament. In the case of Breadlaugh V. Gosset 1, court observed that what is said or done
within the walls of parliament can’t be inquired into by any court. Similar view was given in
Richard William Prebble V. Television New Zealand Ltd 2.

Further in the case of M.S.M Sharma V. Shri Krishna Sihna3 Hon’ble court said ,
“ Validity of the proceedings inside the legislature of the state can’t be call in question on the
allegation that the proceedings laid down by the law has not been strictly followed. No court
can go into such questions which are within the special jurisdiction of the legislature”.

II) WHETHER THIS CASE IS COVER UNDER CONSTITUTION?

1
1884 (12) QBD 271
2
1994 (S) WLR 970
3
(1961) 1 SCR 96

Memorial on Behalf of the Respondent

12 | P a g e

It is the fundamental right of everyone in this country… to live with human dignity free
from exploitation. This right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21 derives its
life breath from the Directive Principles of State Policy and particularly clauses (e) and (f)
of Article 39 and Articles 41 and 42 and at the least, therefore, it must include protection
of the health and strength of workers, men and women, and of the tender age of children
against abuse, opportunities and facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner and
in conditions of freedom and dignity, educational facilities, just and humane conditions of
work and maternity relief. These are the minimum requirements which must exist in order
to enable a person to live with human dignity and no State neither the Central
Government nor any State Government-has the right to take any action which will
deprive a person of the enjoyment of these basic essentials.”

WHETHER THIS CASE IS COVER UNDER REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE

ACT?

Section 123(4) in The Representation of the People Act, 1951

The publication by a candidate or his agent or by any other person 9[with the consent of a
candidate or his election agent], of any statement of fact which is false, and which he either
believes to be false or does not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or
conduct of any candidate or in relation to the candidature, or withdrawal,10[***] of any
candidate, being a statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that
candidate’s election.

Section of evidence which is related under this case

Memorial on Behalf of the Respondent

13 | P a g e

Section 3 "A fact is said to be proved when after considering the matters before it, the
Court either believes it to exist or con-

siders its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the
particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists".

Hence it has sometimes been argued that the same standard of proof applies to all types of
cases. Such a contention seems plausible. But, what has to be borne in mind is that, in
judging the evidence of a grave charge, prudence dictates that the belief in its correctness
should form the basis of a judicial verdict of guilt only if that belief reaches a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt. If prudence is the real test, it prescribes differing standards of proof
in differing circumstances. Its requirements preclude any Procrustean a bed of uniformly
rigid rules for each type of case. Where the examination-in-chief and cross-
examination of
a witness are most unsatisfactory the Tribunal is not is the provision regarding
powerless in the performance of its duty to ascertain the section are apply for court
truth. There is not only s. 165 of the Evidence Act which section are applicable
enables the Court to put any question it likes to a witness. Case regarding the provision
but there are also provisions of O.XVI, r. 14 CPC. The High court apply in cases for
Court adopted a standard of proof which is not strict enough evidence valuable regard
in appraising the worth of evidence produced to support a practicing witness that is
charge of corrupt practice.

4. That, the High Court erred in relying upon the evidence of challans by the police on 11-3-
1972 of drivers of trucks said to have been used by the appellant when the best evidence in
the possession of the police relating to these challans was not forthcoming so that the
chaplains appeared to have been manoeuvred for the purpose of supporting a false case.

Memorial on Behalf of the Respondent

14 | P a g e

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited,

the respondent, most humbly prays before the Hon’ble court, to be graciously pleased to

hold adjudge and declare that:

1) The Petition be dismissed; and

2) The decision of the Court be Upheld; or

3) To pass any other order which the Hon’ble court may deem fit in the light of
Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

All of Which is most humbly prayed and most respectfully submitted by the Respondent.

Date: S/d_________________

(Counsel for Respondent)

Memorial on Behalf of the Respondent