H. V. KAMATH versus CH. NITIRAJ SINGH

Citation: [1969] 3 S.C.R. 813 · Decided: 24-02-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
H.V.KAMATH 
v. 
CH. NITIRAJ SINGH 
February 24, 1969 
[S. M. SIKRI, R. S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.j 
Representation of People Act 
(43 of 1951), s. 123--Government 
fa·sued Ordinance henefitinJ? certain agriculturists prior .fo election-Suc-
cessful candidate's party in power-Allowances granted to Government 
employees-Du111111y pa111phlets omitting unJ'uccessful candidate's election 
s_rnzbol-Whether an1~)11nt.s to corrupt practice. 
The appellant, an unsuccessful candidate filed an election petition tor 
setting aside the election of the respondent who got elected as a Congress 
candidate to a Parliamentary constituency. 
The respondent was chraged 
with several corrupt practices, viz.. (i) by an ordinance the Government 
of the State in which the Congress Party was in power, granted exemption 
to certain agriculturists' holdings from payment of land revenue and the 
Chief Minister announced the bonefit though the exemption was claimed 
for snmetime past by the opposition parties the ordinance 
was passed 
prior to the election; the opposition parties started a campaign stating that 
the object of the exemption was to forfeit the land; the Chief Minister 
refuted the charge and told the voters that the exemption should 
be 
granted and that the opposition parties should be routed in the election; 
a member of the Con~ress Party-D, published a pamphlet refuting the 
false propaganda that exemption was temporary and urging the electors 
to vote for the Congress; (ii) the Chief Minister on the eve of the elec-
tion announced inc'reased dearness allowance 
to 
~rtain Government 
employees; (iii) the respondent or bis agent distributed 
dummy 
ballot 
papers with the respondent's name and his election symbol, and also that 
of appellant's name but without 'his election symbol printed thereon, there-
by conveying an impression th~t the appet1ant had withdrawn his candi-
dature, and further, that the respondent and his agents on the eve of the 
election told the voters that the appellant had withdrawn, so the respon-
dent had committed corrupt practice under s. 123(4); and (iv) a member 
of the police force in the service of the Government with the consent of 
the respondent actively canvassed for the respondent, thereby committing 
corrupt practice under s. 12'3(7). The High Court dismissed the petition, 
HELD : The appeal must be dismissed. 
(i) On the materials, on the record,. it was impossible to hold that the 
respondent committed the corrupt practice under s. 123(1)A. The ordi-
nance was passed by the Government of Madhya Pradesh. As a result 
of the ordinance a large number of agriculturists got exemption from 
land revenue. 
Such an exemption did not amount to a gift, 
offer or 
promise of any gratification within the meaning of s. 123 ( 1 )(A) nor was 
it possible to say that the Government was the agent of the respondent. 
The Congress Party was then in Power. But the exemption was not given 
by the Congress Party. It was given by the Ordinance which was passed 
by the Government. Nor does the announcement of the declaration by 
the Chief Minister or by the pamphlet carry the matter any ful'ther. It 
was not possible to say that either the Chief Minister or D acted as the 
agent of the respondent. [815 GJ 
814 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1969] 3 S.C.R. 
(ii) The grant of the increased dearness allowance could not be re-
A 
garded as a gift, offer or promise of any gratification within the meaning 
of s. 123(l)(A) nor it was possible to say that the Government or the 
Chief Minister was the agent of the respondent. The employees of the 
Government had given notice to go on strike a week before the election 
and without their cooperation the entire election would have been at a 
standstill. The Government thought that the demand of the employees 
was legitimate and therefore announced it on the eve of the election to 
B 
meet it. !816 D-F] 
(iii) The dummy ballot papers were in contravention of the instruc-
tions issued by the Election Commission of India. The appellant's name 
should not have been printed in them. But it was impossible to say that 
the dummy papers conveyed to the voters the impression that the appellant 
had withdrawn his candidature. The statement of the appellant's witnesses 
could not be accepted that on the eve of the election the respondent and 
C 
his agents informed the voters that the appellant had withdrawn his candi-
dature. 
The voters knew that there were t

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