SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1969 Supreme(SC) 100

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.M. SIKRI, R.S. BACHAWAT AND K.S. HEGDE, JJ.
H. V. Kamath, Appellant
Versus
C. H. Nitraj Singh, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 1517 of 1968, D/- 24-2-1969.
Advocates appeared
M/s. K. A. Chitaley, Y. S. Dharmadhikari, S. S. Khanduja and K. B. Rohatgi, Advocates, for Appellant; Mr. G. N. Dikshit, Advocate, for Respondent.

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr. M. A. Qayoom, Adv., Mr. Shafqat Nazir, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. N. H. Shah, AAG, Mr. S. A. Naik, AAG, Mr. Mir Suhail, Advocate.

Headnote:In an election speech of Congress nominee chief minister announced grant of increased dearness allowance to class III and IV employees — whether amounts to corrupt practice by the candidate.

       –This does not amount to a gift, offer or promise of any gratification within the meaning of Section 123(1)(A). As held in H.V. Kamath v. C.H. Nitraj, AIR 1970 SC 211, it is not possible to say that the government was the agent of the respondent. It is true that Congress Party was then in power. But the exemption was not given by the Congress Party. It was given by the Ordinance which was passed by the Government. Nor such announcement by the Chief Minister, it is alleged carry the matter any further.

       

Judgment

BACHAWAT, J.: This appeal is directed against the judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissing an election petition for setting aside the election of the respondent Chaudhury Nitiraj Singh to the Hoshangabad Parliamentary Constituency No.27. The appellant was the Praja Socialist Party candidate with the election symbol "hut". The respondent was the Congress Party Candidate with the election symbol "Two bullocks with yoke on". The voting took place on February 20, 1967. The votes were counted on February 21 and February 22, 1967. The respondent having got a majority of about 20,000 votes was declared duly elected. The petition charged the respondent with several corrupt practices. The appellant now presses before us only the charge under paragraph 5 (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv), paragraph 5 (v), paragraph 6 and paragraph 7 (ii).

2. At the time of the election, the Congress Party, was in power and the Chief Minister Shri D. P. Mishra belonged to the Congress Party. In November 1966 the respondent was nominated by the Congress Party as its candidate for the Hoshangabad Parliamentary Constituency. The substance of the charge as made in paragraph 5 (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) and as pressed before us is that on December 23, 1966 the Government of Madhya Pradesh headed by Shri D. P. Mishra promulgated an Ordinance No.19 of 1966 exempting agriculturists holding land less than 7.50 acres or paying land revenue not exceeding Rs.5 from payment of land revenue, that Shri D. P. Mishra as the agent of the respondent and with his consent made speeches at Narsinghpur and Piparia on February 16, 1967 announcing the benefit of such exemption and that the respondent thus committed the corrupt practice under Section 123 (1) (A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The evidence shows that the question of exemption of uneconomic holding from payment of land revenue was being agitated for some time past. Towards the close of 1966 a resolution was moved by the members of the opposition parties in the Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha urging such exemption. But no bill to that effect was then passed. The Government reconsidered the matter and when the Vidhan Sabha was not in session it passed Ordinance No.19 of 1966 granting the exemption. The Ordinance was later replaced by Act No. 6 of 1967 which was published on April 26, 1967. The exemption was advocated by the Praja Socialist Party also and was welcomed by all parties. Nevertheless on the eve of the election the opposition parties started a campaign stating that the object of the exemption was to forfeit the land to the State and raised the slogan "Lagan Maaf Zamin Saaf". The propaganda was refuted by the Congress Party. In an election speech on February 16, 1967 Shri D. P. Mishra raised the slogan "Lagan Maaf Sab Party Saaf". His object was to tell the voters that the exemption should be granted and that the opposition parties should be routed in the election. It also appears that one Shri S. K. Dixit a member of the Congress Party published a pamplet Ex.P-2 on or about February 7, 1967 refuting the false propaganda that the exemption was temporary and was granted with a view to forfeit the lands and urging the electors to vote for the Congress. On the materials on the record it is impossible to hold that the respondents committed the corrupt practice under Section 123 (1) (A). The Ordinance was passed by the Government of Madhya Pradesh. As a result of the Ordinance a large number of agriculturists got exemption from land revenue. Such an exemption does not amount to gift, offer or promise of any gratification within the meaning of Section 123 (1) (A). Nor is it possible to say that the government was the agent of the respondent. It is true that the Congress Party was then in power. But the exemption was not given by the Congress Party. It was given by the Ordinance which was passed by the Government. Nor does the announcement of the declaration at the meetin






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top