LexINDER LAL versus LAL SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1962
Sri Sntya .1Va1ain
Sill th
v.
Dist1ict Enginr:<r,
P. W.D.
Mudholkar J,
1962
Ftbruary fl.
•
114 SUPRE:IIE COURT REPORTS [.962] St.:I P.
crossing of the' Roadways buses over t.he ferry
betwe<'n l\farch 16, 191">4, and the dnto on which the
licence in favour of the appellant expired.
•
The costs of the appellant here and in the
High Court will lrn borne by the r•,8pondents.
Appeal allou:ed.
IXDER LAL
v.
LAL SINGH
(P. B. GA.JJ·::>DRAC:ADKAU, A. K. SARKAU e.ncl
IC N. \VANCHOO, JJ.)
Elccfion~--Corn~pf Praclicr-Faf.i;e statement in relatt'on to
7ir.u;o11al 1;/ir1ractcr ()Y r:onducl of canitidaU-StaU.nient alleging
]Htrr},osing of i·of-es-lj tf'dales to pi.rsonal charactr:r-Rcpres~nla
rion of II« l'eop!c Act, 1951 ( 4:J of Jli:jl), "· 123 (4).
Respondent I was declared rlected to the Legislative
Asscrnbly.
llis election \\'as challenged, inter a./ia, on the
ground that he had committed the rorrupt practice under
s. 123 (4~ of the Rep"sentation af People Act, 1951 of making
false statements in relation to the
personal character ·or
conduct uf H.espo11dent 2, a defeated candidate. The state-
rrcnts "·ere rontained in a pamphlet issued by the agent of
Respondent I ,,·ith his consent.
Among
other statements
the patnphlct contained a false statement that the Respon-
dent 2 \\'as ''purchasrr of the cpponents of the Congress hy
rncans of moneyn.
Respondent I cont,nded that the state-
n1ent related to the public: or political character of Respon-
dent 2 an<l not to his private character and did not fall
within the mischief of s. 123 (4).
!If-Id,
that the statement
r~lated to the
personal
character of l{t"spondent 2 and Respondent 1 "'"·as guilty of
thr. corrupt practice under s. 123 (4) of the Ar.t. The offend-
ing staternent amounted to an allegation that Respondent 2
bought the votes of the opponents of the Congrc~s by offer-
ing bribes.
Bribery \Vas itself a corrupt practice and an
allegation of bribery involved moral t11rpitude anrl·clearly
and
unfquivocally
affected
the
private
character of
Respondent 2.
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 115
CrVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 280 of 1961.
Appeal by special le!llle from the judgment
and order dated August 2, 1960, of the Rajasthan
High Court in D. E. Civil Misc. (Election) Appeal
No. I of 1960.
G. 8. Pathak, A. V. Viswanatha 8astri, 8. N.
Andley and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant. ·
G. C. Mathur, for the respondent No. 2.
1962. February 8. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-This appeal by special
leave arises out of an election petition filed by the
appellant challenging the validity of the eleotion of
respondent No. J, Lal Singh on several grounds.
The ·appellant is an elector in the Chittorgarh
Constituency and the election which led to the
present petition was held in March. 1957, for the
Rajasthan Legislative
Assembly
from the said
constituency. As a result of the election, respon-
dent No. 1 was declared to have been duly elected
on the 11th March, 1957. He secured 7272 votes
whereas respondent No. 2 Laxman Singh
s/o
Maharawal Sir Bijey Singh secured 7261 votes and
respondent No. 3 Chhogalal secured 569 votes.
The appellant's cqse was that respondent No. l's
election was invalid inasmuch as he had practised
corrupt practices at the said election. According to
the appellant, respondent No. l procured or abet-
ted or attempted to 'procure either by himself or by
his agents or by other persons with his connivance
or that of his agents the reception of invalid votes
and .as a result of the said votes, the result of the
Election had been materially affected. The appel-
lant stated in detail the manner in which the said
invalid votes had been procured. The appellant
further pleaded that respondent No. l, his agents
and other· persons with the connivance of respon-
dent No. I or that of his agents published such
' 1861
/ndtr Lal
v.
Lal Singh
1962
lndv L•l
Y.
Lal Sinih
Go;ir1dragarllr.ar J.
116 SUPRE::\fE COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.
stR.tements of facts (Exts. 3 & 6) which were false
nnd which thev either bolieved to be false or did
not believe . to ··be true, in rrlation to the personal
character or conduct of' respondent Xo. :! whirh
were likely to prejudice tho prospect of respondent
Ko. 2 at the election. It is on thrse two grounds
that the appellant claimed a declaration that the
election of respondent ;\o. l was im-.ilid.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.