LexIQBAL SINGH versus S. GURDAS SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
884
IQBAL SINGH
v.
S. GURDAS SINGH & ORS.
September 19, 1975
[A. ALAGIR!SWAMI, P. K. GosWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.]
Representation df the People Act (43 of 1951), s. 123(1}-Corrupt prac-
tice of bribery-'Gratification' and 'Bargaining for votes', what amounts to.
In the· election to Parliament from a constituency in Punjab the respon·
dent wa~ declared elected. 1be appellant filed an election petition alleging,
inter alia,; (i) that at least 15,000 invalid and void votes had been included
and counted in favol,lr of the respondent, and (ii) that the Chief· Minister of
Punjab, who was the brother of the respondent, directed, (a) the distribution
to Harijans of large sums of money for construction of Dharam.shalas, and (b)
the issuei of a Iar~ number of gun licences, as gratification for inducing voters
to vote for the respondent, and that thereby, the corrupt practice of bribery
under s. 123(1), Representation of the People Act, 1951, was committed. The,
High Court dismissed the election petition.
Dismissing the appeal to this Court,
A
B
c
HELD : (I) On the evidence, the High Court was right in holding that
D
the appellant had not succeeded in establishing the allegation regardin.1t the
15.000 votes. {889F] .
(a) Rllle 56 of the Conduct or Elections Rules. as anrended in 1971, pro•
vides that only a ballot paper which did not contain both the mark and the·
signature of the polling officer would be invalid. Even then it does not auto-i
matically become invalid. If the Returning Officer was satisfied that the. failure
to affix the stamp or signature was due to the fault of the polling officer but
the ballot paper was1 itself genuine he could include it among the valid ballot
E
papers, because·, under pressure of work, the polling officer might have failed
either to affix the' stamp or his signature. {887F-H]
(b) The evidence· adduced on behalf of the appellant Js not consistent as
to the grou_nd of invalidity of the ballot papers; as to how the number of
15,000 was arriv~d at; and as to whether they were: counted in favour of the
respondent or both the appellant and the respondent.
[889E-F]
(c) There cannot be any hard and fast rule as to the circumstance9 when
F
an order of recount would be permissible and it always d'epen@s upon the
circumstances of the case.
On the facts of the present case, there is not the·
sligh~est justification for ordering a recount.
[889G~H]
(2) In the case of both the allegations regarding Dharamshalas and gun
licences, there was no gratification offered and there was no bargaining for
votes, and hence therei was no corrupt practice.
[896B]
(a) The word 'gratification' in s. 123(1) should be deemed to refer only
to cases where a gift is made of something which gives a material advantage
to the recipient. There is a· distinction betwee,n licence~ which. give a m?~~ial
adv.<i.ntage and those which do not.
F~r example, a licence' t~n a proh1b1tion
area to deal in liqueur confers a matenal advantage on the hcen~e, wp.ereas
a licence enabling a person to imbibe Jiqueur in such an are<1; gives him no
material advantage. It is only the grant of the former that might amount_ to
gratification. Arms licence is a licence f'or regulatory purposes. Its possession
give no material advantage to its po~essor. [893C-GJ
(b) To constitute the corrupt practice of bribery under s. 123(1)
th~re
must be' a bargain for votes. But a bargain for the purposes of the section
does not mean that the candidate or his agent n1akes an offer and the voter
accepts it in the sense that he promises to vote.
It is not necessary that the
G
-+
-
~·
..
A
IQBAL v. GURDAS (Alagiriswami, !.)
885
voter should say that he would vote and that thereafter only the candidate or
his agent should pay the money.
It is enough ,jf the candidate or his agent
makes the gift or promise on that condition,
[893G.894A]
(c) In the present case, the State Government had set apart a sum of
Rs. 50 lacs for the purpOse of construction of Dharamshalas for Harijans_ A
sum of Rs. 3 lacs _ was spent towards the end .of the financial year. in the
district in which this particular parliamentary constituency was situate. Punjab
has ll districts and it cannot, therefore, be said that the amount is disPfopor ..
B
tionately large. [889H·890A]
c
( d) The anxiety to gpend the money towards the end of financial year is
also natural. [890A-B]
(•) It may not be setting up a high standExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.