Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
K. N. WANCHOO, JAGAT NARAYAN, JJ.
Sheopatsingh
Versus
Narishchandra
Civil Misc. Appeal No. 9 of 1958 against order of Election Tribunal, Ganganagar, in Petn. No. 414 of 1957
Decided On : 07-05-1958
ELECTION LAW - REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951 - SECTION 123(1)(A), 123(6), 77(1), 77(2), 77(3), 123(7), 123(5), 123(4), 100(1)(B), 100(1)(D), 100(2) - ELECTION PETITION - CORRUPT PRACTICES - BRIBERY - INCURRING OR AUTHORISING OF EXPENDITURE IN CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 77 - OBTAINING ASSISTANCE FROM GOVERNMENT SERVANTS - TRANSPORT OF VOTERS BY MECHANICALLY PROPELLED VEHICLES - PUBLICATION OF FALSE AND DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS - CONSENT OF CANDIDATE - MATERIAL AFFECTING RESULT OF ELECTION - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS - APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE - INFERENCE OF CONSENT FROM CIRCUMSTANCES - ELECTION DECLARED VOID.
Fact of the Case:
Election petition challenging the election of the successful candidate on grounds of corrupt practices. The Tribunal found the candidate guilty of four corrupt practices and declared his election void. The candidate appealed against the decision of the Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
1. The allegation of bribery against the candidate was not proved as the taking of a bribe on the part of a candidate did not amount to a corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 2. The candidate incurred election expenses in excess of the prescribed limit of Rs. 6,000/- and did not maintain a separate and correct account of the expenditure incurred or authorised by him in connection with the election. 3. Two Government servants were found to have assisted the candidate in the election. 4. The candidate procured and used mechanically propelled vehicles for the transport of voters to and from the polling stations. 5. The candidate got published a pamphlet containing false and defamatory statements about the personal character and conduct of the defeated candidate.
Issues: 1. Whether the taking of a bribe on the part of a candidate amounted to a corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Act, 1951? 2. Whether the candidate incurred election expenses in excess of the prescribed limit and failed to maintain a separate and correct account of the expenditure? 3. Whether the candidate obtained assistance from Government servants in the election? 4. Whether the candidate procured and used mechanically propelled vehicles for the transport of voters? 5. Whether the candidate got published a pamphlet containing false and defamatory statements about the personal character and conduct of the defeated candidate? 6. Whether the candidate's consent could be inferred from the circumstances of the case? 7. Whether the corrupt practices materially affected the result of the election?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the allegation of bribery against the candidate was not proved as the taking of a bribe on the part of a candidate did not amount to a corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 2. The court held that the candidate incurred election expenses in excess of the prescribed limit and did not maintain a separate and correct account of the expenditure incurred or authorised by him in connection with the election. The court held that a contravention of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 77 of the Act was a corrupt practice. 3. The court held that two Government servants were found to have assisted the candidate in the election. 4. The court held that the candidate procured and used mechanically propelled vehicles for the transport of voters to and from the polling stations. The court held that the consent of the candidate could be inferred from the circumstances of the case. 5. The court held that the candidate got published a pamphlet containing false and defamatory statements about the personal character and conduct of the defeated candidate. 6. The court held that the corrupt practices materially affected the result of the election.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decision of the Tribunal declaring the election of the candidate void.
JAGAT NARAYAN, J. :-
This is an appeal under S. 116A of the Representation of the People Act No. 43 of 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) by Shri Sheopatsingh against the decision of the Election Tribunal at Ganganagar declaring his election to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly to be void on a petition under S. 81 of the Act by Shri Harish Chandra.
2. The election for the membership of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from Hanumangarh Constituency was held in the month of February and March 1957. Shri Sheopatsingh and Shri Ramchandra contested the election. Shri Sheopatsingh polled 18,530 votes and Shri Ramchandra got 17,136 votes. Shri Sheopatsingh was accordingly declared elected by the Returning Officer on 18-3-1957. Polling took place on alternate days commencing from 25-2-57 and ending on 11-3-57. 4th February, 1957 was last date for withdrawing the nomination papers.
3. The petition was filed by Shri Harish Chandra who is an elector in the Hanumangarh Constituency. The election of the successful candidate was called in question on the allegation that he committed a large number of corrupt practices. All the allegations contained in the petition were denied by the appellant. The allegations with regard to the bribing of voters and undue influence made in the petition were found to be vague and were deleted. Issues were framed with regard to the following corrupt practices.
(1) Bribery to Moti Ram Sethi candidate - Issue No. 2.
(2) Incurring or authorising of expenditure in-contravention of S. 77. Issue No. 8.
(3) Obtaining assistance from Government servants - Issue No. 4.
(4) Transport of voters by mechanically propelled vehicles - Issue No. 5.
(5) Publication of false and defamatory statements - Issue No. 6.
4. The Tribunal recorded a finding in favour of the appellant on issue No. 2, but it decided the remaining 4 issues in favour of the petitioner. As a result of these findings it allowed the election petition with costs, declared the election of the appellant void and disqualified him for a period of six years for voting at any election under S. 141 of the Act. Against this decision the present appeal has been filed. It is urged that the findings of the Tribunal are erroneous.
5. In para 3(a) of the petition it was alleged that the appellant secured the withdrawal of Shri Motiram Sethi who had also filed his nomination paper to contest this election by paying a bribe of Rs. 3,000/-. Shri Motiram Sethi withdrew his nomination paper on 4-2-57 the last date for withdrawal. The Tribunal found that this allegation had not been proved and this finding was not challenged before us. Issues were framed on 14-8-57 and the evidence for the petitioner was recorded from 13-9-57 to 18-11-57. When the petitioner closed his evidence the appellant moved an application on 18-11-57 that Shri Motiram Sethi was a necessary party under S. 82(b) of the Act as an allegation of corrupt practice had been made against him and the petition was liable to be dismissed under S. 90(3).
The Tribunal held that only the giving of a bribe was a corrupt practice under S. 123 of the Act and not the taking of it and as such no allegation of corrupt practice had been made in the petition against Shri Motiram Sethi. On behalf of the appellant it is argued that the decision of the Tribunal on the point is erroneous.
6. Bribery to a candidate is defined under S. 123(1)(a) 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, any gift, offer or promise by a candidate or his agent or by any other person, of any gratification to any person whomsoever, with the object directly or indirectly of inducing
(a) a person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw from being, a candidate, or to retire from contest, at an election";
7. The question as to whether the taking of a bribe on the part of a candidate amounted to a corrupt practice under the Act came up for consideratio
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
