MANNI LAL versus SHRI PARMAI LAL & ORS.

Citation: [1971] 1 S.C.R. 798 · Decided: 13-08-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

798 
MANNI LAL 
v. 
SHRI PARMAI LAL & ORS. 
August 13, 1970 
[J. C. SHAH AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.] 
Representation of the People Act, 1951, s. 8(2)-Disqualification--
Candidate stood convicted on dar. of his election but acuittal in appeal-
Efject of--Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 .r. 56(2) (b )-Rejection of 
ballot paper~A1ark made l1:ith otherwise than the seal supplied, 
The appellant challenged the election of the first respondent to the 
State Legislative Assembly on the grounds : (1) the respondent was dis-
qualified under s. 8(2) of the Representation of the People Act, be-
cause, on the date of his election he stood convicted for offences under 
.the Penal Code, 
though later, he was acqutted by the High Court and 
,(ii) the Returning Officer rejected some ballot papers cast in 
the 
appellant's favour holding that the marks made on those '1allot papers 
were made otherwise than with the instrument supplied for the pmposc 
and that those ballot papers were therefore liable to rejection 
under 
r.56(2) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. The High Court dis-
missed the petition. In appeal to this Court, 
HELD : Dismissing the appeal, 
( 1) In a c1 iminal case. acq_uittal in appeal docs not take effect nr..:rdy 
from the date of the appellate order s~tting aside the conviction, it has 
the effect of retrospectively \viping out th!.! coriviction and sentence 3\\'ard-
.ecl by the lower court. The opinion whether a successful candidate was 
disqualified on the date of his election is to be formed by the High Court 
at the time of pronouncing judgmenl in the election petition. When the 
High Court ,had before it the order of acquittal which had taken effect 
retrospectively. it was impossible for the court to arrive at the opinion that 
on the date of election the respondent was disqualified. The High Court 
was therefore, right in holding that the respondent was not disqualified 
and that his election was not void on the ground. [800 Fl 
(2) For rejection under r. 56(2) (d) there must be a definite finding 
that the ballot papers bore marks made otherwise than with the seal 
supplied for the purpose. In the present case. the finding recorded by the 
High Court amounted to holding that the marks made could not be identi-
fied with the seal which was supplied for marking the votes. 
On this 
finding the Hijlh Court was right in not upsetting the order of Returning 
Officer for reiectin~ these votes. and consequently an inference follows 
that they must have been made by some other means. 
If these votes 
were not to be counted in favour of the appellant. the appellant's case had 
to fail because, on the evidence recorded and the issues framed on the 
basis ~f the pleadings in the election petition. !he respondent bacl still a 
majority of valid votes. [803 Al 
CML APPELLATE Jmrsmcnr.-, : Civil Appeal No. 2632 of 
1969. 
Appeal u,nder s. 116-A of the Representation of the People 
Act, 1951 from the judgment and order dated October 27, 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
MANNI LAL v. PARMA! LAL (Bharga.va, J.) 
799 
A 
1969 of the Allahabad High Court in Election Petition No. I of 
1969. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
G. N. Kikshit, for the appellant. 
K. C. Sharma, M. S. Gupta and S. K. Dhingra, for respon-
dent No. 1. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Bhargava, J. 
This is an appeal by Manni Lal who was one 
of the candidates for election to the U.P. Legislative Assembly 
from Ahirori (Scheduled Caste) Constituency of Hardoi District. 
and who was defeated at that election by respondent No. 1 Parmai 
Lal. 
The election was challenged on two principal grounds. One 
ground was that respondent No. 1 was disqualified under section 
8 (2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter 
referred to as "the Act") for being chosen as a member of the 
Legislative Assembly, because he was convicted for offences under 
sections 148 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code on 11th January, 
1969, and was sentenced to imprisonment exceeding two 
years. 
The other ground was that a number of ballot papers cast in 
favour of the appellant had been wrongly rejected instead of being 
counted in favour of the appelant, that some ballot papers were 
wrongly counted for respondent No. 1 instead of being rejected. 
and that some ballot papers were wrongly counted in favour of 
respondent No. 1 instead of being counted in favour of the appel-
lant or other candidates. 
The High Court of Allahabad framed 
three different issues in respect of 

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