MOHD. YASIN SHAH versus ALI AKBAR KHAN

Citation: [1976] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 14-04-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

" 
• 
• 
• 
• 
f 
' 
MOHD. YASIN SHAH 
v. 
ALI AKBAR KHAN 
April 14, 1976 
l 
A 
"IP. N. BHAGWATI, A. c. GUPTA AND s. MuRTAZA FAZAL Au, JJ.] 
B 
<Cf. Jammu & Kashmir Representation of the People Act, S. 47(2)(c)-Scooe 
Section 47(2) of the Jam.mu & Kashmir Representation of the People 
Act enacts that the Returning Officer shall examine the nomination papers 
:.and shall decide all objections which may be made to any nomination and 
may, either on such objection or in his own motion, after such summary 
enquiry, if any, reject any nomination on the ground, among others, that 
the signature of the candidate or the proposer on the nomination paper is 
.not genuine. 
For the general election to the State. Assembly the appellant and the 
Tespondent (petitioner) filed nomination papers. 
The nomination paper of 
the respondent was rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that when 
his nomination was called neither he nor anyone on his behalf was present. 
After the words 'Hence rejected' recorded on the nomination paper the 
Returning Officer had also added that the signature of the proposer was not 
genuine. 
In the election that ensued the appellant was declared elected. The 
respondent ili his election petition alleged (i) that though at the time of scru-· 
tiny the Returning Officer was informed by his proposer that the respondent 
had gone out to ease and requested him to wait for a while, the Returning 
Officer rejected the nomination paper and refused to reopen the matter even 
-on the respondent's request immediately thereafter and (ii) that the Return-
ing Officer committed forgery by subsequently adding certain \vords in the 
order of rejection and by over-writing the signature of the proposer on the 
nomination paper. 
The High Court held (i) that .the Returning Officer '\Vas not justified in 
law in rejecting the nomination paper of the respondent on the ground that 
he was not present at the time of scrutiny, and (ii) that the Returning Officer 
having become functus officio any subsequent observations which he ~ight 
have made was irrelevant and since1 the nomination paper was illej?3.lly re1ected 
the election was void and was liable to be set aside under s. 108 ( 1) ( c) of the 
Act. 
Allowing the appeal to this C.Ourt, 
HELD : The judgment otf the High COU!rt is erroneous bpth on fact 
and in law and is agaihst the weight of evidencei on record and ,preponderance of 
probabilities. [27 DJ 
c 
D 
E 
F 
(!) Although the appellate Court should be slow to disturb a pure find-
ing of fact based on appreciation of evidence by the- Trial Court, it is well 
G 
settled that the sanctity and purity of elect0ral processes must be maintained. 
The election of a duly eleCted candidate cannot be set at naught oh the 
basis of interested or partisan evidence not backed by cogent circumstances or 
unimpeachable documents. 
[6 HJ 
Rahim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed & Ors. [1975J 1 S.C.R. 643, 656 and 
D. Venkata Reddy v. R .. Sultan & Ors. [1976J, 3 S.C.R. 445, referred to. 
In the instant case the approach of the High Court was not correct. It 
H 
had overlooked many essential features. Secondly the High Court had observ-
ed that issue No. 1 was wide enough to include the appellant's plea that even 
if the order of the Returning Officer in rejecting the nomination paper on 
the ground of absence of the ca111didate or his proposer was wrong, it could 
3-S33SCI/7 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1976] SUPPLEMENTARY 
A· 
still ~e sµppo~ed on the. groun~ that the SignattJ.re of the proposer was not 
genuine. Yet it had not determined this aspect of the matter. (27 C] 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
(2) The order of the Returning Officer read as a whole clearly shows 
t~at the no-!Ilination pdper. was r~ect~· ,,not only on the ground that the can· 
d1date or his proposer was not present but also on the ground that the signa·· 
tore of the proposer on the nomination paper was not genuine. 
It is true 
that the Retummg Officer had not given any clear finding on this point bul 
s. 47 of the Act did not require, a well reasoned decision. All that was 
necessary was that the Returning Officer should apply his mind and deter. 
mine th~ question. in a summary manner. Even if the ground on which 
the nomination paper had been actually rejected was not a permissible ground·, 
if the successful candidate could make out a case that the nomination paper 
could have been properly rejected on one of the grounds mentioned in s. 4'7 
the rejection would 

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