LexDR. Y. S. PARMAR versus SH. HIRA SINGH PAUL AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 213 In the result, we hold that the sum of Rs. 26,000 received by the appellant_on April 22, 1950, was divi- dend as defined in s. 2(6A) (c) of the Act and is charge- able to tax. The appeal fails, and is dismissed with costs. 1\1 essrs. Dhandhania Redia & Co. v. Appeal dismissed. The Commissioner of Income-tax DR. Y. S. PAIUTAit v. SH. HIRA SINGH PAUL AND ANOTHER (VENKATARAMA AIYAR, GAJENDRAGADKAR and A. K. SARKAR, JJ.) ElcFtion-Corru.pt Practice-Procuring assistance of Govern- ment servant-Candidate appointing person as polling agent, not knowing him to be Government servant-Mens rea, if necessary ingredient-Representation of the People Act (43 of z95r), ss. 46 and z23(7). The appellant, who was a candidate for election to Parlia- ment, signed a very large number of blank forms for the appoint- ment of polling agents and made them over to one Kalyan Singh. Kalyan Singh passed on three of the forms to Kashmira Singh after inserting therein the name of a particular polling station. Kashmira Singh filled in the name of Amar Singh as the polling agent in one of these three forms and gave it to Amar Singh, who, duly signed the form, filed it before the presiding officer of the polling station and acted as the appellant's polling agent. Amar Singh was a member of the armed forces but this fact was not known to the appellant or to Kashmira Singh or Kalyan Singh. After the poll the appellant was declared elected but on an election petition being filed his election was set aside on the ground that he had committed the corrupt practice of procuring the assistance of a person in the service of the Government. The appellant contended that Amar Singh had not been duly appoint- ed as the appellant's polling agent as neither the appellant nor his election agent had made the appointment, and that the appellant could not be held guilty of the corrupt practice for he did not know that Amar Singh was in the service of the Govern- ment and consequently did not have the necessary mens rea. V enkatarama Aiyar ]. October 17. 214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. I958 Held, that the appellant did appoint Amar Singh as his polling agent by personally signing the appointment form. The Dr. Y. S. Pnrmar fact that the name of the polling ~gent was written in the form v. by another person after the appellant had signed it does not Sh. Hira Singh make it an appointment by the other person. Paul and Anoth" Held, further, that the appellant was guilty of the corrupt practice inasmuch as he appointed Amar Singh as his polling agent and Amar Singh by acting as the polling agent assisted in the furtherance of the prospects of the appellant's election. A presumption arises under s. 123(7) Explanation (2) that the appellant by so doing procured Amar Singh's assistance in fur- therance of the prospects of his election, irrespective of whether he intended to procure such assistance or not. The knowledge of the appellant whether the person whose assistance he procur- ed \Vas a person in the service of the Government or not was irrelevant. Mens rea \Vas not a necessary ingredient of the corrupt practice. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 410of1958. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 31, 1958, of the Judicial Commis- sioner's Court, Himachal Pradesh at Simla in Civil Misc. First Appeal No. 2 of 1958. K. L, Misra, Advocate-General for the State of U. P. and S. S. Shukla, for the appellant. Achhru Ram and Ganpat Rai, for respondent Nu. I. 1958. October 17. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by sa,ka' J. SARKAR, J.-This appeal arises out of an election petition filed by the respondent No. l, Hira Singh Paul, whom we shall hereinafter refer to as the respon- dent. The other respondent to this appeal is the Elec- tion Commission, but it has not appeared presumably because it is not interested in the result of the 11 ppcal which involves no claim against it. The only question that it involves is whether tl\e appellant was guilty of a corrupt practice, the details of which will be set. out later, within the meaning of s. 123(7) of the Repre- sentation of the People Act, 1951. In the 1957 General Elections, ten candidates filed . their nomination papers to contest the election from the l\fahasu double member constituency in Himachal . Pradesh. One of the two seats for this constituency • • (1) S.C
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.