1959 Supreme(Pat) 155

PATNA HIGH COURT
K.Sahai and N.L.Untwalia JJ.
Chandrashekhar Singh
Versus
Sarjoo Prasad Singh
Election Appeal No. 2 of 1959 ;
Decided On : DECEMBER 21, 1959

The omission of certain items from the return of election expenses, the presence of a police officer in the village during the election, the allegation of assault and intimidation of voters, and the failure to provide full particulars of a corrupt practice in an election petition were all considered by the court in reaching its decision.

Headnote:

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951 - SECTION 77 - ELECTION EXPENSES - INTERPRETATION - CORRUPT PRACTICE - SECTION 123(6) - INTERPRETATION - ELECTION PETITION - PARTICULARS OF CORRUPT PRACTICE - SECTION 83(1)(B) - INTERPRETATION.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a candidate in the Bihar Legislative Assembly election, challenged the validity of the election of the respondents on several grounds, including the submission of a false return of election expenses and the commission of corrupt practices.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the omission of two items from the return of election expenses, namely, the security deposit and a sum forfeited for wrongly challenged votes, did not constitute a corrupt practice under Section 123(6) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The court also held that the mere presence of a police officer, who was the son of one of the respondents, in the village during the election did not amount to obtaining assistance from a person in the service of the Government under Section 123(7) of the Act. Furthermore, the court found that the allegation of assault and intimidation of voters was not supported by sufficient evidence and that the election petition failed to provide full particulars of the corrupt practice as required by Section 83(1)(b) of the Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the omission of certain items from the return of election expenses constituted a corrupt practice under Section 123(6) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951? 2. Whether the presence of a police officer, who was the son of one of the respondents, in the village during the election amounted to obtaining assistance from a person in the service of the Government under Section 123(7) of the Act? 3. Whether the allegation of assault and intimidation of voters was supported by sufficient evidence? 4. Whether the election petition provided full particulars of the corrupt practice as required by Section 83(1)(b) of the Act?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 77 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which requires candidates to keep a separate and correct account of all election expenses, and held that the omission of the security deposit and the forfeited sum from the return of election expenses did not constitute a corrupt practice under Section 123(6) of the Act. The court reasoned that the security deposit was not an expense until it was forfeited, and that the forfeited sum was not an expenditure in the true sense of the term. 2. The court interpreted Section 123(7) of the Act, which prohibits candidates from obtaining assistance from certain government officials, and held that the mere presence of the police officer, who was the son of one of the respondents, in the village during the election did not amount to obtaining assistance from a person in the service of the Government. The court reasoned that the police officer was under suspension at the time and that his presence in the village was not sufficient to establish that he had provided assistance to the respondent. 3. The court found that the allegation of assault and intimidation of voters was not supported by sufficient evidence. The court noted that the election petition did not provide the names of the voters who were allegedly assaulted or intimidated, and that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish that the respondents had committed the alleged corrupt practice. 4. The court interpreted Section 83(1)(b) of the Act, which requires election petitions to set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice alleged, and held that the election petition failed to provide full particulars of the alleged corrupt practice of assault and intimidation of voters. The court reasoned that the names of the voters who were allegedly assaulted or intimidated were not provided, and that this omission rendered the petition defective.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appellant's election petition and upheld the election of the respondents.