preponderance of probability in civil cases

harish (Querist) 08 August 2008 This query is : Resolved
sir/madam

i am not getting the supreme court judgements on preponderance of probability in civil cases for reference. pls help me regarding any citation referring the above phrase

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Guest (Expert) 08 August 2008
PETITIONER:
SURINDER SINGH

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
HARDIAL SINGH AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT29/10/1984

BENCH:
MISRA RANGNATH
BENCH:
MISRA RANGNATH
BHAGWATI, P.N.
ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)

CITATION:
1985 AIR 89 1985 SCR (1)1059
1985 SCC (1) 91 1984 SCALE (2)659
CITATOR INFO :
RF 1986 SC1253 (20)
D 1986 SC1534 (11)
R 1990 SC1731 (3)

ACT:
Constitution of India-Art. 136-Supreme Court-When would
interfere with findings of the High Court reached on
assessment of evidence.
Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951

HEADNOTE:
i-Section 123-Allegation of Corrupt Practice made in an
election petition-How should be established-Whether on basis
of preponderance of probabilities as in civil litigation or
proof beyond reasonable doubt as in Criminal trials.
ii-Section 116A(1)-Election appeal-Nature of findings
of facts-If could be interfered with by Supreme Court.
iii-See. 123 (2)-Corrupt Practice of Undue influence-
Nature and proof of-Whether disturbing election meeting a
corrupt practice u/s. 123 (2)-Whether appointment by the
returned candidate of a person charged for murder as his
polling agent amounts to exercise of undue influence.
iv-Sec. 123 (1) (A)-Corrupt Practice of Bribe-Whether
ameliorating grievances of the public while canvassing for
votes amounts to corrupt practice.
The appellant was declared elected on May 31, 1980 to
the Punjab Legislative Assembly from a constituency known as
Non-shehra-Pamuan Assembly Constituency. Respondent Nos. 1
and 2, two voters of the Constituency challenged his
election before the High Court on two grounds, namely, (1)
that the appellants supporters disturbed a meeting of the
Akali Party by using fire arms and fatally injuring one and
otherwise inflicting injuries on many others and thus he
committed a corrupt practice of undue influence u/s. 123
(2) of the Representation of the Peoples Act 1951; and (2)
that the appellant in order to get the votes of one Bagicha
Singh Chakiwala and his family members as also of his
brotherhood, promised to Bagicha Singh to get the uncovered
electric wires, which were dangerously passing over his
house, removed after paying its expenses etc. and so he
approached the Punjab State
1060
Electricity Board employees, put pressure on them and got
the amount of expenses deposited and the wires removed on
30th May 1980 i.e. One day before the poll. Thus, the
appellant had committed a corrupt practice of Bribery u/s.
123 (1) (A) of the Act. The High Court declared the election
of the appellant void holding that both the corrupt
practices had been committed by the appellant himself or
through others with his consent and were covered by ss 123
(1) (A), (B) and (2) of the Act. Hence this appeal,
The respondent-petitioners in addition to the above-
mentioned two grounds of challenge contended (i) that the
charges of corrupt practice should be allowed to be
established on the basis of preponderance of probabilities
as in civil litigation and not by asking for proof of the
allegation beyond reason able doubt as in a criminal case;
(ii) that it was the practice of the Supreme Court in
election appeals not to enter into re-appreciation of
evidence and disturb findings of fact reached by the High
Court and therefore the Supreme Court should not attempt a
re-appreciation of the evidence while dealing with this
appeal; and (iii) that the appointment of Gurdial Singh who
had disturbed the Akali Meeting and had also been charged
for murder, by the appellant as his polling agent in the
Gandiwind Polling Booth amounted to exercise of undue
influence within the meaning of the Act.
Allowing the appeal,
^
HELD: (1) Section 116-C makes it clear that an appeal
to the Supreme Court und