HAR SWARUP & ANOTHER versus BRIJ BHUSHAN SARAN & OTHERS

Citation: [1967] 1 S.C.R. 342 · Decided: 14-09-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

HAR SWARUP & ANOTHER 
BRIJ BHUSHAN SARAN & OTHERS 
SPptember 14, 1966 
[K. N. WAl\CHOO, J. M. SHEi.AT AND G. K. Mnrrn, JJ.] 
R•presentatio11 of the People Act, 1951-s. 82(b)-"any 01/ier cand1-
.date'"-meaning oj--candidate after wlthdrawal under s. 37 conunitting 
. corrupt practice-whether necessary party to a petition. 
B and R were two candidates of the same party for election ro the 
U.P. Legislative Assembly in 1962. 
R, however, withdrew his candida-
ture within the time fixed for \\'ithdrawal and B wact eventually elected 
1.o the .Assembly. 
After his election, a petition was tiled by two elector\ 
seeking to set actick: his election on the g,rouod inter alia that a corrupt 
practice was committed during the election in that R, after he had with-
drawn bis candidature, had threatened ao elector with a view to gel him 
to vote for B and obtain others to vote similarly. 
The Election Tribunal held that the threat complained of 
amounted 
to a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123(2) ·read with the 
proviso (a)(i) thereof, that this corrupt practice was cornmilled by R 
and it was therefore necessary to join. him as a respondent to the petition. 
As this Vw'a."' not done, rhe Tribunal dismisi;ed the petition. 
An appeal to 
the High Coun was aloo dismissed. 
la the appeal to this Court it was conrended, on behalf of the appel-
lants, firstly, that there was no allegation of corrupt practice againsl R; 
. and aeccindly, that in "'1Y event R could not come within the meaning of 
lhe words "any other candidate" used in Section 82(b) inaimuch as he 
withdrew his candidature as provided in Section 37 of the Act. 
HELD : dismissing the appeal : 
(i) It could not be said that the allegation of corrupt practice was only 
against B and not against R. 
The 
primary allegation 
was 
against R 
though B was also made liable for the corrupt practice '!lle~ed to 
have 
been committed by R on the ground that it was do!le on hrs behalf and 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
in furtherance of his election. 
[344 B-C) 
F 
(ii) R continued to be a candidate as defined in Section 79(b) o( the 
Act even after he withdrew his candidature; therefore if a corrupt practice 
was alleged against him, he was a neces.<ary party under Section 82(bi 
of the Act. 
[347 A-BJ 
If a candidate committed a corrupt practice before the withdrawal of 
his candidature under Section 37, the provisions of Section 82(b) would 
clearly apply and he would be a necessary party. There was no reason 
G 
why he could not be a candidate for the purpooe of Section 82(b) simply 
because he committed a corrupt practice after his withdrawal. 
1)46 El 
Kapildeo Singh v. Sura/ Narayan Singh, A.I.R. [1959) Pat. 250: dis-
approved; Mohan Singh v. Bhanwarlal & Others, [1964] 5 S.C.R. 12 and 
Amin Lal v. Hunna Mal, [1964] I S.C.R. 393 : referred to. 
CrvrL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1141 of 
1965. 
H 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated April 17, 1963 
of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No. 2 of 1963. 
HAR SWARUP v. BRIJ BHUSHAN (Wanchoo, !.) 
343 
A 
Naunit Lal, for the appellants. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Veda Vyasa and -K. K. Jain, for respondent No. I. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Wanc)\oo, J. This appeal on a certificate granted by the 
Allahabad High Court raises the question of interpretation of 
s. 82 (b) of the Representation of the. People Act, No. 43 of 1951, 
(hereinafter referred to as the Act). 
The facts necessary for 
present purposes are these. In the election to the U.P. Legislative 
Assembly from Dehra. Dun City constituency in 1962, Brij Bhushall' 
Saran respondent was one of the candidates and was declared 
elected. One Raturi Vaid was another candidate at the same 
election. He however withdrew his candidature within the time 
fixed for withdrawal. He belonged to the same party as the return-
ed candidate and. worked Jor him. After the election, an election. 
petition was filed by two electors praying that the election of 
Brij Bhushan Saran be set aside, and one of the grounds with which 
alone we are concerned in the present appeal was that Ratun Vaid 
had threatened an elector after the date of his withdrawal from 
the candidature that the elector's bones would be broken if he 
did not cast his vote for Brij Bhushan Saran and also did not work 
for him and persuade others to vote for him. The Election Tribu-
nal held that this amounted to a corrupt practice within the mean-
ing of 
s. 123(2) read with the provi

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