KALYA SINGH versus GENDA LAL AND OTHERS

Citation: [1975] 3 S.C.R. 783 · Decided: 28-02-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A. ALAGIRISWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
KALYA SINGH 
I'. 
GENDA LAL AND OTHERS 
Fehmary 28, 1975 
78 3 
[A. ALAGIRJSWAMJ AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.] 
Represc111a1io11 of the People Ac!, I 95 I, S. I 23(1) (A) (b )-Pa\"/11e111 of 
money lo a person lo rerire from co'i11es1-WhC1/1er a111011n1., lo cor1:11p1 prar:-
flce. 
Section ·123(1)(A)(b) 
of 
the 
Representation 
of the People Act. 
1951-
define> .bribery as 'any .gift. offer or promise by a c-andidate or his· ;1gent or 
by any other person with the consent of "' 
candidate or his 
election agent 
?f any gr;1ti1!cation, to any person. whomsoever. with the ·Jbject. 
directly~ or 
md1rectly of mducmg an elector to vote .or refrain from voting at an election·. 
Respondent No. 1 hied an election petition challenging the election of the 
appellant that he had committed corrupt practice under s. 123 (I) (A) ( b) of 
the Act. 
The High Court declared the election void on the ground that the 
appellant. by p~ying a big sum in cash and promising paym~nt of a similar 
sum by execution of a promissory note, made Respondent No. 3 to retire from 
the contest and publish a pamphlet that the electors should vote for the appel-
lant and not for himself. 
Allowing the appeal to this Court. 
HELD: I (a) It is not possible to ''"lain the judgment of the High Court 
holding the appellant 
guiltv of corrupt 
pract'ces 
within the meaning 
of 
s. I 23 (I) (A) (b) of the Act. 
[790B] 
(b) Mere payment of any gratification to a third person for securing or 
procuring some votes in favour of a particular candidate. without the es\ablish-
ment of any nexus b-ctween the money and the inducement to the Yoter, will 
not be sufficient to prove !hat the voter is indirectlv induc~d on account oi the 
payment of gratification to the third person. 
The ·gratification must have some 
connection or reflection, dii·ect or indirect. in persuading the. voter to vote or 
refrain from voting at an election. If th.e inducement to the voter is not 
caused by the payment of the gratification to a third person but by the per-
suasion or influence or such third person it will not be possible to say that 
·,he gratification had any indirect inducement to the vster. 
:n7F-l 1 J 
(c) Payment of any gratification to any person to work or canvass at an 
elc.:tion is vutside the ambit of the definition. 
[787H] 
(d) If the inducement to the voter is fr~e from the shade or colour of 
the gratification paid to the third person it will not be bribery. lf. howner, 
tbe inducement in a given case is coloured or shaded by the payment of the 
gratification to a third person it would be an indirect inducement to the voter 
himself within the frame of the definition. 
In othl'>r words it is the fact of 
,payment to the third person that must induce the voter. 
It is not enough 
that the third person induces the voter. 
The frame of any 
d7~nition more 
often than not is capable of being made flexible. 
But the prec1SIO!J and cer-
tainty in Jaw requires that it should not be made loose and kept fight as far 
as possible. 
[788A-B] 
G/w,fii Ram v. Dal Singh and others [1968] 3 S.C.R. 102 and Om Pmbha 
]<1in , .. Abnash Chand & anr. [1968] 3 S.C.R. 111, folfowed. 
Abdul H11.1.·:ain Mir v. Sha111s11/ Huda & Anr. [1975] 3 &.C.R. 106 
referred 
to. 
/84 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19751 3 s.c.R. 
Jn the instant case money was not paid to the respondent as consideration 
for votes promised or as a bargain for getting votes but it was money paid 
tv him to retire from the contest and to do propaganda ·and persuade the voters 
to vote fer the appellant. In spite of the propaganda and the appeal of the 
respondent no. 3 'ihc voters were left free not to respond to his persuatio:J. 
J790A] 
CIVIL APPELLAH JuR1so1cnoN : Civil Appeal No .. 16(NCE) of 
1973. 
From the Judgment a·.1d order dated the 11th December, 1972 of 
the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Election Petition No. 22 of 1972. 
G. L Sangh! and D. N. Misra, for the appellant. 
S. S. Khanduja, for Respondent No. 1. 
S. f(. Gambhir, for Respondent No. 2. 
The Judgment of the Col!rt was delivered by 
UNTWALIA, J. There were three candidates to contest the election 
to the Legislative Assembly of Madhya Pradesh from the Bhainsdeshr 
Assembly (Reserved) Constitumcy in the last general elections. 
The 
appellant in this appeal under section ll 6A of the Representation of 
the People Act; ·1951-hcrcinafter referred to as the Act, was declared 
elected to the seat defeating the other two ca'°didates who are re

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