Back
1958 Supreme(All) 76
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
V. Bhargava and M. L. Chaturvedi, JJ.
KARAN SINGH - Appellant
Versus
JAMUNA SINGH - Respondents
First Appeal 24 Of 1953
Decided On : 04/16/1958
JAGDISH SVARUP, KAMAL NARAIN SINGH, S.C.KHARE
Headnote:
ELECTION LAW - CORRUPT PRACTICE - USE OF NATIONAL SYMBOL - PORTRAIT OF MAHATMA GANDHI - WHETHER A NATIONAL SYMBOL - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 123 (3) OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951 - HIRING OF BULLOCK CARTS FOR CONVEYING VOTERS - WHETHER A CORRUPT PRACTICE - INCURRING OR AUTHORISING OF EXPENDITURE IN CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 77 OF THE ACT - WHETHER A CORRUPT PRACTICE - PROCUREMENT OF SERVICES OF LEKHPALS FOR FURTHERANCE OF CANDIDATURE - WHETHER A CORRUPT PRACTICE.
Fact of the Case:
Election petition filed by the appellant, Karan Singh, challenging the election of the respondent, Jamuna Singh, to the U.P. Legislative Assembly from Gunnaur constituency in the 1957 general election. The petition alleged various grounds for setting aside the election, including bribery, use of national symbols, hiring of bullock carts for conveying voters, and non-compliance with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Finding of the Court:
1. The appellant failed to prove that any offer of a bribe was made to Komal Prasad to stand as a candidate or that any such offer was accepted by Komal Prasad. 2. The use of posters with the portrait of Mahatma Gandhi and the words "Congress Tor Do" constituted a corrupt practice of using a national symbol for the furtherance of the candidature of the respondent. However, the portrait of Mahatma Gandhi was not a national symbol within the meaning of Section 123 (3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as it was not like or similar to the national flag or the national emblem and had not been declared as such by a resolution of the Constituent Assembly. 3. The appellant failed to prove that the respondent had hired bullock carts for conveying voters at the instance and with the consent of the respondent. 4. The appellant failed to prove that the respondent had incurred or authorized expenditure in contravention of Section 77 of the Act, as the expenses incurred or authorized by the respondent did not exceed the prescribed limit. 5. The appellant failed to prove that the services of a large number of lekhapals had been procured by the respondent for the furtherance or the prospects of his candidature.
Issues: 1. Whether the use of posters with the portrait of Mahatma Gandhi and the words "Congress Tor Do" constituted a corrupt practice of using a national symbol for the furtherance of the candidature of the respondent. 2. Whether the portrait of Mahatma Gandhi was a national symbol within the meaning of Section 123 (3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 3. Whether the appellant had proved that the respondent had hired bullock carts for conveying voters at the instance and with the consent of the respondent. 4. Whether the appellant had proved that the respondent had incurred or authorized expenditure in contravention of Section 77 of the Act. 5. Whether the appellant had proved that the services of a large number of lekhapals had been procured by the respondent for the furtherance or the prospects of his candidature.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The use of posters with the portrait of Mahatma Gandhi and the words "Congress Tor Do" constituted a corrupt practice of using a national symbol for the furtherance of the candidature of the respondent, as it was likely to assist the candidature of the respondent and influence the voters. 2. The portrait of Mahatma Gandhi was not a national symbol within the meaning of Section 123 (3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as it was not like or similar to the national flag or the national emblem and had not been declared as such by a resolution of the Constituent Assembly. 3. The appellant failed to prove that the respondent had hired bullock carts for conveying voters at the instance and with the consent of the respondent, as the evidence given on behalf of the appellant was not satisfactory. 4. The appellant failed to prove that the respondent had incurred or authorized expenditure in contravention of Section 77 of the Act, as the expenses incurred or authorized by the respondent did not exceed the prescribed limit. 5. The appellant failed to prove that the services of a large number of lekhapals had been procured by the respondent for the furtherance or the prospects of his candidature, as the evidence given on behalf of the appellant was not reliable.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs for the calculation of which the fee of counsel for the respondent was fixed at Rs. 400/-.
( 1 ) THE polling for the election of a member to the U. P. Legislative Assembly from Gunnaur constituency in district Budaun in the last general election took place on the 28th of February, 1957. The counting took place on the 2nd of March, 1957, and, on the same date, the result was declared. Jamuna Singh respondent whose candidature was sponsored by the Praia Socialist party, received 14361 votes and was declared elected. Karan Singh appellant received the next highest number of votes. He was a candidate on behalf of the Congress and he received 11007 votes. A third candidate, Kamal Prasad, was an independant candidate and he received 7227 votes. Karan Singh then presented an election petition to the Election Commission on the 15th of april 1957, which was referred for trial to the Election Tribunal, Budaun. The Tribunal dismissed this petition with costs on the 6th of December, 1957 and the present appeal has been filed against that dismissal of the petition.
( 2 ) IN the election petition presented by the appellant, a number of grounds were put forward for the prayer that the edection of the respondent be declared void. On the basis of these grounds and in view of other points arising the Tribunal framed 19 issues. It is not at all necessary to mention all those issues because, when learned counsel for the appellant began his argument in this appeal, he made a statement that he would confine his arguments to only a few issues, viz. , issues nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10 (a) to 10 (d) and 13. He gave up the case of the appellant on the remaining issues so that we need not deal with them at all.
( 3 ) ISSUE No. 1 was framed on the basis of the allegation that the corrupt practice of bribery was committed by the respondent on the 6th January, 1. 957 at Babrala by making an offer or promise to Sri Komal Prasad, a partner in his firm, by relinquishing the profit of his share with the object of inducing him to stand at the election, as the respondent knew that he could not succeed in a direct contest and, for this reason, Komal Prasad fought the election. The Issue was "whether komal Prasad was made to stand in the election as a candidate because of the offer or promise of the respondent to forego his share of profits in the partnership business. If so, its effect. " The respondent, of course, denied that he had, made any offer or promise to Komal Prasad in order to induce him to stand as a candidate at this election. The fact that Komal Prasad and the respondent are partners of a firm is admitted as also the fact that both of them stood as candidates from, the same constituency in addition to the appellant who was the third candidate. It is also admitted on behalf of the respondent that he and Komal Prasad were on good terms before the election and continued to be on good terms even after the election. The burden, however, lay on the appellant to establish that Komal Prasad had been induced to stand as a candidate by the offer of a bribe by the respondent. To establish this allegation the appellant examined five witnesses. He could produce no documentary evidence at all. (After discussion of evidence His Lordship proceeded:) in view of this state of evidence, we consider that the learned Judge of the Election Tribunal arrived at the correct finding that the appellant had failed to prove that any offer of a bribe was made to Komal Prasad to stand as a candidate or that any such offer was accepted by Komal prasad.
( 4 ) THE next issue, which we have to deal with, is issue no. 7 which is as follows:-- "whether the respondent, his agents, supporters and workers with the consent and connivance of the respondent exhibited the photo of Mahatma Gandhi to further the prospects of the respondents election? If so, its effect. " the allegation in the election petition was that the respondent had made a systematic appeal to a national symbol by exhibiting the photo of Mahatma Gandhi, father of the nation, through pamphlets used in th
