MOHAN SINGH versus BHANW ARLAL & OTHERS.

Citation: [1964] 5 S.C.R. 12 · Decided: 03-10-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1963 
12 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1964] 
have been duly constituted under s.7 A, and the reference 
made on December 18, 1957 is to be deemed to have 
H.H. the 
been made as if the Tribunal were constituted under 
Maharana Sahibs. 7 A of the amended Act. 
The Validating Act is 
Sim Bhagwat 
. 
. 
' 
Singh Bahadur because of Item 22, List III of the Seventh Schedule 
of Udaipur 
to the Constitution, within the competence of the 
v. 
State Legislature, and it was reserved for the considera-
The State of tion of the President and has received his assent. 
Raiasthan 
It must by virtue of Art. 254(2) prevail in the State 
Shah J. 
1963 
October 3 
of Rajasthan. 
The contentions raised in this appeal must there-
fore fail. 
The appeal is dismissed with costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
MOHAN SINGH 
v. 
BHANW ARLAL & OTHERS. 
(P.B. 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, 
K. SUBBA RAO, 
K.N. 
WANCHOO, J.C. SHAH AND 
RAGHUBAR DAYAL JJ.) 
Election-Corrupt Practice-lngredients-Pub/ication of leaf' 
lets-If and 1vhen 
ronstilute corrupt practice-"Gratification"-
Meaning of-The Representation of the People Act, , 195 l (43 of 
1951), SS. 82, 123(1) (B) and 123 (4). 
The appellant was declared elected to the Madhya Pradesh 
Legislative Assembly. 
Another candidate Himmat Singh with-
drew his candidature before the date of polling. 
Respondent l 
one of the defeated candidates, challenged the election by a petition 
under the Representation of the People Act alleging that the 
appellant had disqualified himself by committing corrupt practices. 
lt was alleged that he had shortly before the polling of votes publish-
ed two leaflets in Hindi containing statements of fact with regard 
to the personal character or conduct of respondent 1 which were 
false and which the appellant believed to be false or did not believe 
to be true and that the statements were calcul.ited to prejudice the 
prospects of respondent I at the election. The appellant denied 
-
- ' 
5 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
13 
the said allegations and applied to the Election Tribunal for dis-
missing the petition in limine because Himmat Singh against whom 
allegations of corrupt practice in regard to the withdrawal of 
candidature \Vere n1adc, was not joined as a respondent. The 
Tribunal rejected the application a1id held that it was established 
on the evidence that the appellant did commit corrupt practice 
by publishing the two leaflets. 
In appeal the High Court agreed 
with the Tribunal. 
It was urged on behalf of the appellant that 
the election petition was liable to be dismissed in limine, as it did 
not comply with the requirements of s.82 of the Act, that the appel-
lant did not publish the leaflets, and that in any event the publica-
tion did not constitute a corrupt practice within the meaning of 
s. 123(4) of the Act. 
Held: (i) The election petition was not detective. There was 
no allegation of corrupt practice against Himmat Singh. It was 
merely alleged that the appellant had offered to assist or help 
Himmat Singh in obtaining employment with '"Dalauda Sugar 
Factory or elsewhere". 
The acceptance of offer which constitutes 
a motive or reward for withdrawing from the candidature must 
be acceptance of gratification. Gratification does not include 
offers and acceptances of mere promises, but requires 
an offer 
and acceptance relating to a thing of some value, though not necessa-
rily estimable in terms of money. 
A mere offer to help in getting 
employment is not such offer of gratification within the meaning 
of s. 123(1)(8) as to constitute it a corrupt practice. 
On the 
allegations therefore, it was not necessary to implead Himmat 
Singh as a respondent to the petition. 
(ii) The onus of establishing a corrupt practice is undoubted-
ly on the person who sets it up, and the onus is not discharged 
on proof of mere preponderance of probability, as in the trial 
of a civil suit; the corrupt practice must be established beyond 
reasonable doubt by evidence which is clear and unambiguous. 
(iii) Jn considering whether a publication amounts to a corrupt 
practice within the meaning of s. 123(4) the Tribunal would be 
entitled to take into account matters of common knowledge among 
the electorate and read the publication in that background, for 
one of the ini;redients of the particular corrupt practice is the ten-
dency of the statement in the publication to be re<>sonably calcula-
ted to prejudice the prospects of thctt candidate's election. The 
test in cases under s. 123(4)

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