LexK. VENKATESWARA RAO AND ANR. versus BEKKAM NARASIMHA REDDI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H K. VENKATESWARA RAO AND ANR. v. BEKKAM NARASIMHA REDDI & ORS. August 13, 1968 [M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J. AND G. K. MITTER, J.J Representation of the People Act, 1951, ss. ?9(b), 82(b) & 86(1)- Corrupt practice alleged against candidate who had withdrawn from con- test-Such c..·andUlate not impleaded during period of limitation of elec- tion petition-Petition liable to be dismissed-Application for condonation of delay whether permissibl~ApplicabiJity of s. 29(2) and s. 5 of Limi· tion Act, 1963-Candidate who withdraws from conte•t whether a candi· date within meaning of s. ?9(b) ands. 82(b) of Representation of the People Act-Procedure under s. 99 of Act whether applicable to such candldate. The election of the first respondent to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly at the General Election held in 1967 was challenged by the appellants in an election petition. Various cdrrupt practices were alleged therein to hav~ been committed by the first respondent, his agenll; and ·supporters. One of these was that the first respondent paid a bribe to one R who had also filed nomination papers, in order to secure his withdrawal as a candidate. After the issues were framed the appellants made an application to the Court for impleading R but it was dismissed. The first respondent then filed an application under s. 86(1) praying for the dis- missal of the election petition on the ground that there had been non- compliance with s. 82(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 inasmuch as R against whom corrupt practice had been alleged had not been made a party. The appc.Ilant'i filed an application seeking to with- draw the allegation against R and in the alternative to implead him as a respond-ent. They also prayed for condonation of delay in making the application. The learned Judge of the High Court trying the election petition dismissed the aforesaid applicarions and refused to condone the delay. Th~ appellants came to Lhis Court. The contentions in the appeal were : (i) that the allegation against R did not amount to an illegation of corrupt practice, (ii) that s. 5 and s. 29(2) of the Limitation Act. 1963 were applicable to the case and the High Court and this Court had power to condone the delay made by the election petitioner in impleading a necessary party, (iii) that R, having withdrawn from the, contest was not a 'candidate'. and (iv) that the procedure under s. 99 ought to have been followed in respect of R. HELD : (i) The raint of illegal gratification attaches not only to the payer but also to the payee. It could not therefo'rc be accepted that the allegation against R that h·2 had received illegal gratification did not amount to corrupt practice. [682 C-D] (ii) The plea for condonation of delay in impleading R could not be accepted. It is \Veil settled that amendments to a petition in ~ civil proceeding and the addition of parties to su·ch a proceeding ate generalJy possible subject to the law of limitation. But an election petition stands on a different footing. The trial of such a petition and the powe'rs of' the court in respect thereof are all circum·scribed by the Representation of the People Act. The Indian Limitation Act of 1963 is an Act to consolidate and amend the law of limitation of suits and other proceedings and for 679 680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1969] I SCR parposcs connected thcrcwitll. The provision' of this Act will apply to all ci••il p·roccedings and ~omc ~pl->claJ criminal proceedings \Vhich can be taken in a court of la\\' unless the application thereof has been excluded by some enactment: the extent of such application is governed by s. 29(2) of the I .. imilation Act. Ho\\'Cver the L1mi1a1ion Act cannot apply to proceedings like an election petition inasmuch ai; thi: Representation of the People-Act is a complete and sclf~ontained code which doc~ not admit of the introduction of the principles or the provi~ions of the 1aw con- tained in the Indian I.imitation Act. [686 11·687 BJ Kanu2rajc;, /\'aclar v. K:ai;u Thcrar, [19591 S.C.R. 583 and Basappa v. Ayyappa, [1959] S.C.R. 611. applied. A. Sree11i1.:asan v. l:.-lcctio11 Tribunal, Madras, 11 E.L.R. 278 and Tippmrry ccse, (1875) 3 O'M & II. 19, referred to. After the amendment of the Representation of the People Act in 1966 there is IlO\V no section in the Act Ylhich equates an order n1adc by the High Court under s. 98 or s. 99 to a de
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.