BABURAO BAGAJI KAREMORE & ORS. versus GOVIND & OTHERS

Citation: [1974] 2 S.C.R. 429 · Decided: 27-11-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BABURAO BAGAJI KAREMORE & ORS. 
v. 
GOVIND & OTHERS 
November 27, 1973 
(P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND P. K. GasWA!dl, JI.) 
42& 
B 
Rtprmntatlon of th• Peopl• Act, 1951-S. 100 mul with sub·stcs. I, 2, 3, 3A, 
4, 5 aiu1 6 of'· 123-Corrupt practlce-Scop• of. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
The first.~pondent was declared elected to tho Maharashtra Losislative A-.bly 
getting tho bighost number of votes. His election was challenged by 4 electors 
on various grounds of corrupt practices under s. 100 read with sub-aectiona 
l, 2, 3, 3A, 4, 5, and 6 of s. 123 and for contravention of the. provisions of s. 127-A 
of the Representation of tho People Act, 1951. 
It was alleged in the petition that the first respondent did not keep separate and 
correct account of all the expenditure incurred and authorised in connection with 
his election, nor were his accounts kept in accordance with s. 77 of the Act read 
with Rule 86 of the Conduct of Election Rules. 
He did not obtain vou-
chers for every item of expenditure incurred etc., as prescribed by s. 77 of the Rules 
framed thereunder. He suppressed many items of expenditure which were in excess 
of the authorised amount of Rs. 12,000/- • Secondly, it was alleged by the peti-
tioners that in an election meeting held on February 18, 1972, the agent who was 
an active supporter of the first respondent, made a false statement of fact in relation 
to the personal character and conduct of respondent no. 2, as well as petitioner 
No. 1. It was alleged that he made a statement in his speech in that meeting that 
~ondent no. 2 secured the withdrawal of the petitioner no. 1 by giving him a bribe 
of Rs. 60,000. 
According to the petitioners, the first respondent a:ot the said statement pub-
lished in· a weekly dated 23rd February 1972, and the statement was published 
with the consent of the ftnt respondent as his election aaent. Further, it was allqed 
that he printed election pamphlets and posters in which he appealed to the voters 
on the grounds of caste and community. The petitioners gave instances to show 
how the propaganda was carried on by issuing pamphlets containing false statement 
of facts and which the first respondent or its maker either believed to be false or did 
not believe to be true. 
The first respondent denied that he made any statement in relation to the personal 
character or conduct of the second respondent, nor did his election agent or workers 
with his consent, make any such statements; nor could it be said that any of the 
statements were reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospect of his oponent. 
It was also averred that the expenditure shown by him in the return of his 
expenses was correct and the return was in accordance with law and the rules framed 
thereunder ; that there was no contravention of s. 77 Of the Act read with rule 86 
of the Rules and denied that he incurred expenditure much more than Rs. 12,000/· 
as alleged. 
Although the third respondent filed his written statement, practically admitting 
G 
all the allegations in the petition against the 1st respondent, subsequently he filed 
an application fOr permission to withdraw the power of his counsel one Mr. Desh· 
mukh through whom he filed the written statement. Dcshmukh was permitted 
to withdraw his written statement. 
The~fter, the third 
respondent 
did 
not take any part in the proceedings. Respondent No. 4 neither appeared, 
nor filed his written statement. Later, the 
trial proceeded 
ex~parte against 
both.respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Respondent No. 2 though reproaonted, ; .. did not file 
his written statement. On these pleadings, as many as· 31 issues were framed by tho 
High. Court of which issue no, t related to a preliminary objection that the petition 
H 
was liable to be rcjer,ted for non.joinder of all the persons who had filed their 
nomination papers for the election. Tbe·High Cowt decided the 1st issue against 
the first respondent, but all other issues were held not proved by the petitioners, 
and therefore, the petition was dismissed with costs. Before this Court, the appel~ 
Ian ts restricted their case to the three heads ·of corrupt practices viz. (I) under s .. 
2-M602SuP.CI/74 
430 
SUPREME COUil T llEPOll TS 
( 1974 J 2 S,C,ll. 
123(4) of the Act, for publicationof false statement of facts in relation! to personal 
A 
character or conduct of the candidate or in relation to the candidature or its with· 
drawal; (2) under s. 123(6) fo:r incurring or authorising expenditure in contraventio

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.