BALWAN SINGH versus PRAKASH CHAND & OTHERS

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 335 · Decided: 04-02-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.K. GOSWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
• 
\ 
BALWAN SINGH 
v. 
PRAKASH CHAND & OTHERS 
(Vice-Versa) 
February 4, 1976 
[P. K. GOSWAMI AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] 
335 
Representation of People Act, 1951-S. 123(5)-Corrupt Practice-Procuring 
of G tractor and trolly belonging to the candidate's wife for carrying voters to 
tlif' polling station-1! .corrupt practice. 
·Words and phrases "procuring", nieaning of-
A 
B 
Practice-A1nendment ,of election petition after the period prescribed for 
C 
presentation-If could be done-Whether obligatory for the election petitioner 
to examine hitnself at the trial. 
The appellant's election to the State Assembly \Vas set aside by the High 
Court on the ground of corrupt practice fallip_g under s. 123(5) of the Repre~ 
sentation of People Act. 
The appellant, it v,:as alleged, hired and pro:::ured 
vehicles for the free conveyance of voters. This was however denied by the 
appellant. The High Court allowed amendment of the election petition by 
inserting a new .sub-paragraph 12(d), stating that the names of the persons 
D 
who hired or procured the vehicles for carrying the voters to the polling station 
were given in schedule lll(i) of the petition, on the view that the information 
given was a necessary particular to -allege and prove that the vehicle was used 
for the conveyance of the voters. 
It was contended in this Court_1 (i) that the tractor in which the voters were 
alleged to have been carried to the polling station, was taken there in some 
other connection and that though the tractor was in the name of his wife as 
benamidar. it really belonged to the appellant and, as such, no question of 
E 
hiring or procuring it, whether on payment or otherwise, arose so as to make 
it fall within the purview of s. 123 (5) of the Act; and (ii) that the High 
Court had committed a serious error of law in allowing: the election petition 
to be amended after the expiry of the period prescribed for its presentation. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : 
The finding of the High Court that the appellant procured the 
tractor with trolly and used it for the purpose of transporting the voters to the 
F 
polling station and thereby committed a corrupt practice within the meaning 
of s. 123(5) of the Act is correct. [348E] 
(1) (a) There is no justification for contending that there could be 
no 
question or occasion for hiring or procuring the tractor because it belonged to 
the appellant. It cannot be urged that the tractor, which belonged to his wife, 
must be deemed to belong to the appellant or that it should be inferred that 
she was a n1ere benamidar when that was not the appellant's cas~ anyw'here. 
The tractor belonged to the wife of the appellant and was not his own property. 
G 
f341E-F] 
(b) It would amount to "procuring" the tractor if it could be shown that 
the appellant obtained or got or acquired the tractor from his wife. 
The 
dictionary meaning of the word "procure'' is "to obtain as by request loan, 
effort, labour; get, gain, come into possession of". This is the correct meaning 
of the word used in s. 12(5). [34\G-H] 
( c) It is not ahyays possible for an election petitioner to adduce direct 
evidence to _prove that a particular vehicle was hired or procured by the candi-. 
date or his agent or by any other person with the consent of the candidate 
or his election agent, but this can be inferred from the proved circumstances 
where such inference is justifiable. [348B] 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
336 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1976] 3 S.C.R. 
Bhagwan Datta Shastri v. Badri Narayan Singh and others, A.LR. 1960 S.C. 
200; Shri Un1ed v. Rai SinJ?h and others. A.LR. 1975 S.C. 43: Ratn Awadesh 
Sinf{h v. Suniitra Devi and Others. [19721 2 S.C.R. 674: Rahim Khan v. Khurshitl 
Ahmed and others, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 643; Baburao Ragaji Karemore and others 
v. Govind and others [19741 2 S.C.R. 4zg; and Srnt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. 
Raj Narain, AJ.R. 1975 S.C. 2299, referred to. 
(2) It is futile to contend that a new corrupt practice was allowed to be 
inserted by the Hh~b Court's order of amendment. The 
s-::hedulc 
was 
an 
integral part of the election petition and the original election petition contained 
what was required to be stated by s. 83 of the Act and the amendment was 
n1eant to furnish some further particulars in regard to the same corrupt practice. 
When issue No. 2 was framed by the High Court, the appellant was tully aware 
that the election petitioners had alleged the user of the vf'hi--:les also and that 
\\'

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