LexABDUL HUSSAIN MIR versus SHAMSUL HUDA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
106
ABDUL HUSSAIN MIR
v.
SHAMSUL RUDA & ANR.
December 20, 1974
[A. ALAGIRISWAMl, V. R. KRISHNA !YER AND R. S. SARKARIA, JJ.]
Representation of the People Act {43 of 1951) Ss. 83, 123(1)(2) and (3) ··
Scope of.
The appellant is a Muslim, whose mother· was a tribal Hindu who was
converted to Islam on the eve of her marriage to a Muslim. In the efoction
to the Assam Legislative Assembly from a ronstituency which is a tribal area
of Assam wi•h a heterogeneous composition of tribesmen vaguely Hindu by
pemwion, plainsmen Hindus and nearly 80% Muslims, the appellant was
declared elected.
The respondent filed an election petition challenging the
election inter a/ia on three grounds : (I) that the appellant offered Rs. 2,000/·
to P.W. 12 a Mu1la to collect votes for him, and though P.W. 12 rt,fusctl
the offer the lllppeliant was gu.ilty of the corrupt practice under s. 123 ( 1)
of the Representation of the People Act 1951; (2) that the appellant was
guilty of corrupt practice under s. 123 (3 )
0 because he canvassed for votes on
the basis of his religion by asking for v1~tes on the ground of his bei~1g the
'°n of a tribal Hindu woman; and (3) that the appellant exercised undue
inftuence by threatening that the persons who might vote for the respondent,
ooultl be identified and would be subjected to the same treatment as peopie
of Bangladesh were by the Pakistanis. thus violating s. 123(2). The High
Court allowed the petition.
Allowing the appeal to this Court,
<Per Alagiriswami, J.)
c
(I) Regarding the first charge, P.W. 12 stated that the &ppellant offered
him money if he would work for him in the election. in the two villages in
L
which he hapixned to be the Mu.'la.
Another witness stated that the ap:pellant
told him that he had offered money to P.W. 12 for helping him :in the
electi0n campaign but that P.W. 12 rejected the offer and, requeste(1 that
witness to make over the money to P.W. 12 itnd prevail upon him to work
for the appellant. These facts do not fall under s. 123(1). Therefore:, it is
Uilllecessary to discuss whether, if money is paid or offered as consideration for
votes promised to be secured by a perscn using his influence it is bribery or
not. because, the question does not arise ou.t of the facts of this ~ase. [108G-
l 09AJ
F
(Per Krishna Iyer and Sark.aria, JJ.)
(!)(a) An appraisal of the evidenee and an overall view of it m~kes it
doubtful whether the appel1ant even met P.W. 12 and therefore, the offer of
the bribe had not been established.
T123B; 126E-Fl
(b) Section 123 ( 1) requires (i) an offer or promise by the candidate etc ..
of ~atification to any person. and (ii) the object must be directly or indirectly
(;
to mdu.ce an elector to vote or not to vote at an election. The purpose of
the provision is to ensure poll puri<y and the exdu~ion of pollution by money
power. If the' payment is to indu:;; an elector
to vote,
be it
din:ct
or
vicarious1y, it is corrupt. If the money is paid as consideration
for votes
promised t? be secured by an important person of the /oca/itv using hi's sway
it is bribery even though indirectly exercised. But, if the candidate pays money
to use his good offices and canvass votes for him it would be a border line
case. In the present case, if P.W. 12 had b~en paid the money striking a
bargain for getting the votes in his ambit of influence it is electoral cormption.
H
On the other hand, if It is money received for the purpose
of
arganising
effectively the election campaign by hiring workers, going grou.nd to places
iu car, meeting people and pcr.mading them to vote for the candidate it is
A
B
c
[)
E
F'
II
A. !I. MIR v. s. HUDA (Krish11a Iyer, J.)
107
proper electioll expenses. The tou:h stone in all these
cas·~s of paymc1:l 01 ·
gratification is to finJ out whether the money is paid in reasonable mea~ure
for work to be done or services to be remlcrcd, and whether the servv.:c'
so offered amount to a bargain for getting votes or merely to Jo propa·ganda 01
hl p.:rsnade voters to vol·~ fur the candidate. The ~rucial point i·; the
nexu-
bctwccn the. gratification and the votes. one being the consideration for the. other.
direct or indirect.
In the present case. the facts as spoken do not even 1f true.
come within the relevant clause namely s. 123( I), because the offer was made
onlv to make P.W. 12 work for the candidate 1/wt is, to pcrsa11de l'Olcc.1· t<:·
suprort the paying candidates. [1Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.