BHANU KUMAR SHASTRI versus MOHAN LAL SUKHADIA & ORS.

Citation: [1971] 3 S.C.R. 522 · Decided: 22-01-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.K. MITTER · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

522 
BHANU KUMAR SHASTRI 
v. 
MOHAN LAL SUKHADIA & ORS. 
January 22, 1971 
[G. K. MITTER AND A. N. RAY, JJ.] 
The Rtpresenration of the People Act (43 of 1951), ss. 116A, 116C 
and 123( l)~If provisions of 0.42, r. 22 of Civil Procedure Code are 
<pplicable to appeal to Supreme Court under s. ll 6C. 
A 
B 
Chief Minister of State a candidate-Amelioration of public grievances 
C 
bj his orders-When arnoun(s to corrupt practice. 
The first respondent was successful in the election to the State Legis-
lative Assembly. 
At the time of election he was 1he Chief Minister of 
the State. 
The election was challenged by the petitioner on the allega-
tions that by ordering the covering of a nallah, the construction of a 
road, the installation of water ·iaps and rhe grant of pattas to the inha-
bitants of a colony for construction of houses, the first respondent made 
D 
a bargain with the people for votes and thus committed cort'upt practice 
as defined in s. 123(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 
Though the High Court found certain facts against the first respondent, 
it decided all the issues in his favour and dismissed the election petition. 
In appeal to !his Court, 
HELD : (I) On the evidence, oral and documentary, the findings 
E 
of fact found against the first respondent by the High Couh should --be 
reversed, even though no appeal was preferred by the first l:esponde.ilt. 
[541 G-H; 542 HJ 
(2) When it appears that the High Court had not taken into con· 
side!'lltion the entire documentary and oral evidence in arriving at a 
finding and that the High Court had overlooked such important and 
F 
crucial evidence, this Court is justified in deciding in favour of the res-
pondent, after considering that evidence by reversing the findings of fact 
arrived at by the High Court. [542 G-H; 543 A-Bl_ 
(3) Under s. 1!6C of the Act, the procedure in an appeal under 
s. 116A to tliis Court is that subject to the provisions of the Act and 
rules, if any, made thereunder, every appeal shall be heard and deter· 
mined by this Court as nearly as may be in accordance with the pr<>'-
G 
cedure_ applicable to the hearing and determination · of an appeal from 
the final order passed by a High Court in the exerdse of tis original 
jurisdiction and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the 
rules of the Court shall, as far as possible, apply in relation to such 
appeal. 
There are no rules of this Court, -and the provisions contained 
in 0.41, r. 22, C.P.C., are attracted with the result that the respondent 
may support the decision of the High Court even on any ground decided 
against him, without preferring an appeal. [542 B-0] 
H 
Ramanbhai Asht:.1bai Patel v. Dabhi Ajitkumar Fulsinji, [1965] I S.C.R. 
712 and T. N. Angami v. Smt. Ravalu alias Renu M. Shai:r.a, C.A. 
No. 1125/ 1970 dt_. 21.1.1971, followed. 
· 
A 
B 
c 
BHANU KUMAR V. MOHAN LAL (Ray, J.) 
( 4) Ordinarily amelioration of grievances of the public is innocuous. 
and cannot be construed against a candidate who is a Minister. If, how-
ever, there is evidence to indicate that any candidate at the election abused 
his power and position as a Minister in the Government by utilising 
public revenues for conferring advantage or benefit on a particular group· 
of people for the purpose of .obtaining their votes, different considerations · 
will arise and· it may be held to be a corrupt practice within the meaning 
of s. 123(1) of the Act. [544 D-FJ 
In the present case, in all the instances relied upon by the appellant 
the evidence showed that there were long standing public grievances and 
the Government had from time to time made suggestions and recom-
mendations for redress of the grievances and amelioration of the condi-
tion of the people. 
It cannot be said that on the eve of election there 
was any sudden or spontaneous outburst of public activity in the shape 
of diverting money to win electors to the side of the first respondent by 
throwing baits or giving them any particular and specially favoured treat-
ment. [544 G-H; 545 Al 
Ghasi Ram v. Dal Singh, [1968] 3 S.C.R. 102 and Om Prabha Jain· 
v. Abhash Chand, [1968] 3 S.C.R. 111, referred to. 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1515 of 
E 
F 
G 
1968. 
Appeal under S. 116-A of the Representation of the People-
Act, 1951 from the judgment and order dated May 10, 1968 of 
the Rajasthan High Court in Election Petition No. 8 of 1967. 
A. S. Bobde, Guman Lal Lodha, J. S. Rastogi, J

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