D. P. MISHRA versus KAMAL NARAYAN SHARMA AND ANR.

Citation: [1971] 1 S.C.R. 8 · Decided: 13-03-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

D. P. MISHRA 
V. 
KAMAL NARAYAN SHARMA AND ANR. 
March 13, 1970 
[J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.j 
Representation of the 
People Act, 
1951-Corrupt 
Practice-S, 
I23(b)-fncurring of expenses beyond permissible limit-S. 123(4)-
·f'alse staten1erlf.\ ahout rival candidt<te held proved but benefit of doubt 
given by High Court-Duty of HiRh Court to co1ne to judicial conclusion 
S. 99-Duty tu nanie·person proved guilty of corrupt practice-S. 116A-
Appeal to High c·ourt-Lin1itation-Li111itfltion Act ss. 4 and 12 applica-
bility of Limitc.tion Act, Article l lf>.~"Under the Code of Civil Procedure", 
nieaning-A111en{/111ent of petition-S. 90(5)-Application to a1nend add-
ing to the particular.~· of expenditure-If new plea of corrupt practice. 
The first respondent challenged the appellant's election on the ground 
that he had committed various corrupt practices at the election held in 
June, j'963. 
The Election Tribunal negatived the allegations of corrupt 
practices and di>missed the petition. The High Court allowed an appeal 
under S. 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and declared 
the appellant's election void under s. 100(1) (b) of the Act. 
The Court 
held it was proved that the appellant had incurred or authorised expendi .. 
ture in excess of the permissible limit in s. 77 of the Act, and he was, 
therefore, guilty of a corrupt practice within the meaning of s. 123(6). 
The order of the election Tribunal wa~ delivered on December 28, 
1966. The certified copy of the order was supplied to the respondent on 
April 27, 1967. The High Court was closed for the summer recess between 
May 7, 1967, and June 29. 1967 and the memorandum of lppcal was 
lodged in the office of the Registrar of the High Court on July !, 1967. 
During the examination of one of the witnesses before the Tribunal 
it appeared from the statements made by him that the appellant had 
spent a large amount of money for purchasing cloth for banners used for 
the purpose of elections, and that amount was not disclosed in the state-
ment of expenditure. 
The respondent applied to the Tribunal to amend 
the petition, but the Tribunal rejected the applications. 
In the appeal 
before the High Court the respondent repeated his request for Jeave to 
amend the petition. 
The High Court granted the application observing 
that the application was merely intended to amplify the particulars of the 
corrupt practice which had already been alleged in the election petition. 
Jn respect of an allegation of a corrupt practice under s. J 23 ( 4) the 
High Court had held that it w•s proved that S. who was the agent of 
the appellant printed _and published statement~ of facts which v.1ere false 
in relation to the personal character and Conduct of the re9pondent and 
that the appellant did not believe any of them to "be true; and those state-
ments were reasonably 
calculatel~ to prejudice the election prospects of 
the respondent. The High Court observed that S might have in his own 
enthusiasm published the false statements and. therefore, the Court gave 
the "benefit of doubt" to the appellant "with much hesitation". 
The 
I-Iigh Court also rejected an application mnde at the hearing that a pro-
ccedinii should be drawn under s. 99 of the Act against S and a notice 
should~ be issued to him to show cause why he should not "be named as 
having committed ccirrupt practice under s. 123 ( 4) of the Act. 
In aooeal to this Court it \vas contended : (i) the anoeal to the 
High Court was barred by limitation and the High Court had no power 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
D. P. MISHRA v, .!'. N. SHARMA (Shah, J.) 
9 
to entertain and decide the appeal; (ii) the High tour1 was not justified 
in allowing the particulars of the corrupt practices set up in the petition to 
be modified and to allow the petition to be amended at the stage of the 
hearing of the appeal or in recording evidence in support of the fresh 
corrupt practices so set up; and (iii) that the evidence did not justify the 
finding that any corrupt practice was committed by the appellant as found 
by the High Court. 
HELD: (i) The right to appeal against the order of a Tribunal is 
conferred by s. ll 6A of the Act. 
The Act plrovides a special period of 
limitation different from the period of limitation prescribed by article 116 
of the Limitation Act, 1963, for an appeal to the High Court under the 
Code of Civil Procedure from any decree or order. But the express

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