H. H. RAJA HARINDER SINGH versus S. KARNAIL SINGH

Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 208 · Decided: 20-12-1956 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI, T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR, BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA, S.K. DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

208 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1957] 
H. H. RAfA HARINDER SINGH 
ti. 
S. KAP.NAIL SINGH 
(BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYAR, B. P. SINHA 
and S. K. DAs JT.) 
Election petition-Limitation for filing expirinz on a holida~ 
Petition filed next 
day-Whether petition 
time~barred-Candidate 
putting his own servants to election work-Whether the servants are 
employed for payment in connection with the election-Whether tAe 
salaries of such servants are election expenses-Representation of tit~ 
People (Conduct of Elections and Election Petitions) Rules, 1951. 
n·. 118 and 119-General Clauses Act (X of .1897), s. 10. 
The last day for filing the election petition 
was 
a Sunday 
and the day following was a public 
holiday. The petition 
was 
presented on the next day after the public holiday. 
Held, that s, JO of the 
General Clauses Act was applicable 
and that the petition was presented within time. 
The appellant, who retains a large staff of subordinates, was 
charged with employing 54 of them for purposes of the election in 
violation of Rule 118, and with failure to include their salaries in 
the return of his election expenses. The election tribunal found 
that 25 of the old paid employees of the appellant took part in 
his election campaign, that their number exceeded the statutory 
number provided by Rule 118 
and that consequently the appel-
lant was guilty of a major corrupt practice under s. 123 (7) of the 
Representation of the 
People Act, 1951. 
The tribunal further 
held that there was no evidence to show that the employees were 
engaged specifically for 
the purposes of the election, 
that 
they 
had been in the service of the appellant for a long time and that 
the emoluments paid to them were not election expenses. 
In thc-
result the tribunal set aside the election of the appellant : 
Held, that where a person has been in the employment of a 
candidate even prior to his election and his duties do not include 
election work but he takes part in the election, and the work 
which he does is casual and is in addition to his normal work, 
he is not within Rule 118. 
But if the work in connection with 
the election is such that he could be regarded as having been 
taken 
out of his normal work and put on election work, then he 
would be within Rule ll8. 
Hartlepooles (:ase, 6 O'M. & H. l and Borough of Oxford Case, 
7 O'M. & H. 49, referred to. 
If the members of the staff of a cattdidate do 
their normal 
work and do casual work in connection with the election, the 
payment of salary to them Would be payment on account of their 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
2f'f) 
employment as such members of the stall and not m connec-
tion with the election. 
CrVIL 
APPELLATE 
JurusmcTION : 
Civil 
Appeal 
No. 132 of 1956. 
Appeal by special leave from the 
judgment and 
order dated May 16, 1955, of the Election Tribunal, 
Rhatinda, in Election Petition No. 14 of 1954. 
C. K. Daphtary, 
Solicitor-General 
of 
India, /. B. 
Dadachanji, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and K. C. 
Pu.ri, for the appellant. 
N. C. Chatterji, A. N. Sinha and Gopal Singh, for 
respondent No. 1. 
1956. December 20. 
The Judgment of the 
Court 
was delivered by 
VENKATARAMA 
AIYAR J.-The 
appellant 
was one 
of the candidates who stood ~or elec~ion to the Legis--
lative 
Assembly of the Patiala and East Punjab States 
Union from the Faridkot Constituency in the 
General 
Elections held in 1954. 
He secured the largest number 
of votes, and 
was declared duly elected. 
The result 
was notified in the Official 
Gazette on 
February 27, 
1954, 
and 
the 
return of the election expenses was 
published 
therein OJ) May 2, 1954. On May 18, 1954, 
the first respondent filed a petition under s. 81 of the 
Representation of the 
People Act No. XLIII of 1951, 
hereinafter referred to as the 
Act, and therein 
he 
prayed that the 
election of 
the appellant might 
be 
declared void on the ground that he and his agents 
had committed various corrupt and illegal practices, of 
which 
particulars were given. 
The 
appellant filed a 
written statement 
denying 
these 
allegations. 
He 
therein raised the further 
contention that the election 
petition 
had 
not 
been presented 
within the time 
limited by law, and was, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 
/ 
Rule 119, which prescribes the 
period 
within 
which 
election petitions have to be filed, runs, so far as it is 
material, as follows : 
II9. "Time within which an election petition shall 
be presented :-An election p

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