M. KARUNANIDHI ETC. versus H.V. HANDE & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1983] 2 S.C.R. 629 · Decided: 31-03-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

; 
629 
M. K.ARUNANIDHI ETC. 
V. 
H.V. HANDE & ORS. ETC. 
March 31, 1983 
[A.P. SEN AND E.S. VENK~TARAMIAH, JJ.J 
Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951)-lnterpretation of~ 
Sub..,s. (I) of s./17-Two parts-Deposit of security man<iatory-Strict C0111Pliance 
necessary-Mode of deposit dtrutory-Substantial compUance sufficient, sub-s. 
A 
B 
(3) of s 81 read with sub-s. (2) of s.83-]$1ection petiMncCopi<S thereof-include 
rchedu/e or annexure-/ntegral part-If inclutkd in pleadings-Copy of electjon 
G 
pttition .servcdwithout annexure-Non-compliance with sub-s. (3) of s.81--
Dismissal of p~titfon in limint. 
Madras High Court (Election Petitions) Ru'es, 1967-Rules 8 a_nd 12 read 
with Madras High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1956 order 31, r.2-lnterpretation 
of-Cash deposited in Reserve Bank through pre-receiptsd challan prepared :0-; 
by Hig/1 Court-Substantial comvliance. 
Interpretation-Rule of-Statute mandatory or directory dep.nds upo11 intent 
and not language pf the Act. 
Respondent No. 1 in C.A. 38 of 1981 ftl•d an election petition under 
the Representation of the People Act challenging the election of the appellant 
to the State Legislative Assembly on various grounds. The petition was accom.. 
E 
panied by <\pre-receipted chaltan prepared by the Accounts Department of 
th~ High Court on the basis of the lodgment schedule initialled by the Assistant 
Registrar II, showing that a sum of Rs. 2000!- had been cr~dited to the ac<;:ount 
of the Registrar, High Court, Madras, in the Reseive Bank of India, MHdras, 
as security for costs. The facts are more ·or less si.milar to all the appeals. 
In C.A. 38/81, which has additional facts, the respondent pleaded. inlet alia, 
F. 
that the appellant was guilty of corrupt practice under sub-s.(6) of s, 123 of 
the Act. He alleged tbat the appellant had erected about 50 fancy bannero each 
costiDB not less than Rs. 1000/- and _if this expenditure of Rs. 50,000/- was 
added to the amount already disclosed by him in his return of election 
expenses it would exceed ttie prescribed limit thus an1ounting to a cofrupt 
practice. The respondent filed a photograph of one such fancy banner with 
the election petition but did not annex a copy of this photograp' t.O tt.e COpY 
G' 
of. the ~lection Petition furnished .to the appellant. 
The appellant raistd two preliminary objections as to the maintainability 
of the petition on the ground of non compliance with· ~ub-s.(1) of s. 117 read 
with r. 8 of the Election Petitions Rules, and with oubCs.(3) of s. 81. High Court 
overruled both the objections and held : (I) there was mbstantial compliance 
ff 
with sub-s. (1) of s. 117; and (2) the banner could not be treated· as· a11 intogF&l 
part of the election petition but was merely a piece of evidence as to the nature 
~nd trpe of the fancy banners erected br the appellant an~ therefore faUure 
630 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1983) 2 S.C.R. 
to supply a copy of its photograph to the appellant along with the copy of the 
A 
election petition did not amoum to a breach of sub-s.(l) of of s. 81. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
On appeal, this Court by its order dated April 2, 19;1 remitted back 
the issue with regard to non-compliance of subs. (1) ofs. 117 read with r. 8 
for a decision afresh on the b;isis of the evidence to be led by the parties. 
After_considering the eviderice, the High Court adhe_!ed to its earlier view. 
The appellant contended in this Court: (I) the provisions of sub-s. (I) 
of s. 117 were maridatory ; there was no distinction between the requiren1ent 
as to the making of securily deposit and the manner of making such deposit ; 
the words "in accordance with the rules of the High Court" in sub-s. 117 were 
mandatory; r. 8 n1ust be read as forming part of sub·s. (1) of s. 117 by 
incorporation ; in view of the definite stand taken by lhe respondent that he 
had complied with r. 8 it was not possible to fall back on Order 31 of the 
Madras High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1956. There was no compliance 
with ·.r. 8 as the security amount was not deposited with the Registrrar in cash. 
(2) There was no contpliance \vith the requirements of sub-s. (3) of s. 81 as 
the copy of the election petition served on hitn was not accon1panied by a copy 
of the photograph of the fancy banner. 
Dismissing all the appeals and special leave petitions except C.A. 38/81 
which partly succeeds and is allo,ved. 
HELD:. l(a). Sub-s. (1) of s. 117 is in two parts. The first part provides 
that at t

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