Judgment

N.P. SINGH, J.-

These appeals have been filed against the judgment of the High Court dismissing, two election petitions filed on behalf of the appellants, questioning the validity of the election of respondent C.K. Jaffer Sharief (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent") to the Lok Sabha from Bangalore North Lok Sabha Constituency.

2. The appellants challenged the election of the respondent, primarily on the grounds (i) that the respondent arranged large-scale mass free feedings for the electors during the election, which amounted to a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123(1)(A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act); (ii) that the said respondent incurred expenditure at the said election in contravention of Section 77 of the Act which amounted to a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123(6) of the Act; and (iii) that the declaration of the result of the respondent was in violation of the provisions of the Act inasmuch as several thousand votes which should not have been counted in his favour and ought to have been rejected as invalid, were counted in favour of the respondent, which has materially affected the result of the election of the respondent and as such his election is liable to be declared void under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) and (iv) of the Act.

3. The relevant part of Section 123(1) is as follows:

"123. Corrupt practices.- The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act:

(1)Bribery, that is to say-

(A) any gift, offer or promise by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent of any gratification, to any person whomsoever, with the object, directly or indirectly of inducing-

(a) ....

(b) an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an election ....

Explanation.- For the purposes of this clause the term gratification is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or gratifications estimable in money and it includes all forms of entertainment and all forms of employment for reward but it does not include the payment of any expenses bona fide incurred at, or for the purpose of, any election and duly entered in the account of election expenses referred to in Section 78."

(emphasis supplied)

In view of Section 123(1)(A)(b), any gift, offer or promise by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent, of any gratification, with the object of "directly or indirectly" inducing a voter to vote, shall be deemed to be bribery and as such shall amount to a corrupt practice. Mass feeding of the electors after the process of election has commenced and before the date of poll may induce directly or indirectly the electors to vote in favour of the candidate who has arranged such feast for them in course of the election. In the case of Mohan Singh v. Bhanwarlal AIR 1964 SC 1366 : 1964 Mah LJ 233 : 1964 NMP LJ 249, a Constitution Bench of this Court, while commenting on the expression gratification in Section 123(1)(A), held that:

" Gratification in its ordinary connotation means satisfaction. In the context in which the expression is used, and its delimitation by the Explanation, it must mean something valuable which is calculated to satisfy a persons aim, object or desire, whether or not that thing is estimable in terms of money; ...."

It was further stated that Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 123 of the Act extends the expression gratification to include all forms of entertainment.

4. In the case of Rajendra Prasad Jain v. Sheel Bhadra Yajee AIR 1967 SC 1445 : (1967) 3 SCR 19 this Court said:

"In our opinion, when considering the scope of the words offer of bribery in the Election Law, we should not place a narrow construction on that expression. In fact, the scope of that expression should be extended in order to ensure that elections are held in an atmosphere of absolute purity, and a wide meaning should be given