LAXMI NARAYAN NAYAK versus RAMRATAN CHATURVEDI AND ORS.

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 581 · Decided: 22-12-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

LAXMI NARAYAN NAYAK 
A 
v. 
RAMRATAN CHATURVEDI AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 22, 1989 
(S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND KULDIP SINGH, JJ.] 
B 
The Representation of Peoples Act, 1951: Sections U3(2), (3) and 
(3A)-Corrupt Practice-Bribery-Proof of-Element of 'bargain-
ing'-Necessity for. 
Elections to the Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha were held in the 
months of February /March 1985. The appeUant and Respondent No. 1 
were the contesting candidates from Niwadi Legislative Assembly consti-
tuency No. 34. Respondent No. 1 having secured majority of votes, was 
declared elected on 6.3.1985 to the Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha. 
The appellant challenged the election of the respondent No. 1 in the 
High Court of Madhya Pradesh Jahalpur alleging that the r.rst respon-
dent was guilty of adopting corrupt practices within the meaning of 
sob-sections (2), (3) and (3A) of Section 123 of the Representation of 
Peoples Act, 1951. Respondent No. 1 denied the allegations made in the 
election petition. The High Court dismissed the Election Petition hold-
ing that the appellant had not substantiated all the charges levelled by 
him against respondent No. 1. Hence this appeal by the appellant. 
Before this Court the appellant pressed only issues 3, 4 and 5 and gave 
up the rest. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
c 
D 
E 
HELD: An election petition where corrupt practices are imputed 
F 
must be regarding as proceedings of a quasi-criminal nature wherein 
strict proof is necessary. Since, a charge of corrupt practice, the conse-
quence of which is not only to render the election of the returned candi-
date void, but in some cases to impose on him a disqualir.cation it must 
be proved on appraisal of the evidence adduced by both the . parties 
particularly by the election petitioner who assails the. election of a 
G 
returned candidate. [591B-C] 
The element of bargaining is completely absent in the present 
case. Needless to say that it is necessary for the purpose of proving the 
corrupt practice of bribery to establish that there was an element of 
bargaining. (592C l 
H 
581 
582 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal v. Rajiv Gandhi, [1987] Supp. 
SCC 93; Kona Prabhakara Rao v. M. Seshagiri Rao & Anr., [ 1982] 1 
SCC 442; Manphul Singh v. Surinder Singh, [1974] I SCR 52; Jamuna 
Prasad Mukheriya & Ors. v. Lachi Ram & Ors., (1955] 1 SCR 608; 
Rahim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed & Ors., (1974] 2 SCC 660; Ram 
Sharan Yadav v. Thakur Muneshwar Nath Singh & Ors., [1984] 4 
B SCC 649; Rahim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed & Ors., 11975] I SCR 643; 
M. Narayana Rao v. Govenkata Reddy & Ors., (1977] 1 SCR 490; 
Lakshmi Raman Acharya v. Chandan Singh & Ors., (1977] 2 SCR 412 
and Ramji Prasad Singh v. Ram Bi/as Jha & Ors., (1977] 1 SCC 260; 
Mohan Singh v. Bhanwar Lal & Ors., (1964] 5 SCR 12; Harjit Singh 
Mann v. S. Umraon Singh & Ors., (1980] 1 SCC 713; Iqbal Singh v. S. 
Gurdas Singh & Ors., [1976] 1 SCR 884; Lalroukung v. Haokholal 
C Thangjam & Anr., ELR Vol 41 Page 35, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4359 
(NCE) of 1986. 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30th Sept. 1986 of the 
E 
Madhya Pradesh High Court in Election Petition No. 43 of 1985. 
R.B. Mehrotra for the Appellant. 
S.S. Khanduja for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. The appellant was one of the 11 
contestants from Niwadi Legislative Assemby Constituency No. 34 of 
Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha. The election was held in the months 
F 
of February/March 1985, the polling date of which was on 2.3. 1985. 
G 
The appellant was a nominee of the Jan ta Party. The first respondent 
was sponsored by the Congress Party. As the first respondent had 
secured majority of votes i.e. by a margin of 5,000 votes over and 
above his next rival candidate, namely the appellant herein the first 
respondent was duly declared on 6.3.1985 as successfully elected. 
The appellant presented an election petition in the High Court 
Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, calling in question the election of the 
first respondent alleging that the first respondent was quilty of adopt-
ing corrupt practices within the meaning of sub-sections (2), (3) and 
(3A) of Section 123 of the Representation of People's Act, 1951 
H 
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). It is hardly necessary to stress 
L.N. NAYAK v. RAMRATAN [PANDIAN, J.] 
583 
that the pleadings were traversed and denied by the first respondent in 
his statement. T
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.