MOHD. YUNUS SALEEM versus SHIV KUMAR SHASTRI AND OTHERS

Citation: [1974] 3 S.C.R. 738 · Decided: 25-03-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

j 
738 
MOHD. YUNUS SALEEM 
v. 
SHIV KUMAR SHAS1RI AND OTHERS. 
March 25, 1974 
(P. N. BHAGWATI AND P. K. ClosWAMI, 11.] 
Rcvr1:sentah_"o11~the,P~ople1-ct (43 of 1951), Ss. 30, 116--A and 123(1) 
(A)(a)-Elect1on ·,_,omm1ss1oner if he can alter .date of Poll-Appreciation of 
evidence by Supre111e 
Court-Bribe for 
witlrdrawal after the date fixed for 
witltdrawal-lf corrupt practice. 
. 
A parliamentary ~nstituency from which election to Lok Sabha took place 
1n March 1971 consisted of five assembly constituencies. 
The polling at two 
of them was scheduled to take place on March 1, and at the other three on 
March 3. 1971. ISth March. 1971 was fixed as the last day for the completion 
of tho election. The Polling at the first two constituencies took place on Marth 
I. 19_71. but. or: ¥arch 2. there was a communal riot as a result of which, the 
Election Comm.ISS1oner pastponed the poll at the other three constituencies from 
March 3 to March 9. 
After the polling took place the first respondent 
was 
ded~ elected. 
The 
appellant filed an election petition 
challenging 
the 
clecti0-!1 of the first respondent alleging several corrupt practices against him, one 
of which was that on 6th March. tho second respondent, who was one of the 
candidates. was induced to withdraw from the contest by the first respondent 
offering to reconunend him to a seat in the legislative council and by a· financier 
offering him a large sum of money; and that tho second respondent, though he 
declined· the offers, did. in fact, withdraw. He also contondcd that the Election 
('ommissioner had no power to alter tho date of Poll at the remaining con-
stituencies. Tho election petition was dismissed by tho High Court. 
Jn appeal to this Court, tho firnt respondent raised the contention that even 
if tho facts relating to tho offers were established,, the first respandent would 
not be guilty of the corrupt practice under s. 123(1)(A)(a), because, the with· 
drawal of the 2nd respondent was after the date fixed for withdrawal from 
being a candidate. 
Dismissing the appeal to this Court. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
HELD .(1) The Election Coi;nmissioner had power to alter the date of the 
poll from 3rd Maren to 9th March in the remaining constituencies. Secs. 57 & 
58 could not be invoked by Election Commissioner for this purpose, because 
they are applicable only in the circumstances 
specifiod and in the 
manner 
provided, in those sections and s. 153. on which the High Court relied, is also 
F 
not applicable, because it in terms provides only for extending the timt ftN 
co1nplcfion of election and not for altering the date of the poH. But s. 30 of 
the _Repre6entation of the People Act. read with s. 21 of the General Clauses 
Act gives the necessary power to the Election Commissioner to a1ter the dalt" 
of the poll. 
1.742H; 743F-H; 744C.E) 
.(2) The amendment of the date of the poll gets en.grafted in the original 
form no. 1 in pursuanc.o of the subsequent notification made in valid exercise 
of the power under s. 30 of the Representation of the People Act read \vilh 
G 
s. 21 of the General Clauses Act. and therefore, a fresh notification of the date 
under r.3 of the Conduct of Election Rules. in the requisite form, 
is 
not 
necessary. 
[744E·G) 
(3) If the facts regarding the offers to the second respondent had been 
established it v:oold amount to corrupt practice within the meaning of s. 123(1) 
(A)(a) of the Representati~n of the ~eople Act. 
(a1 Bribery to induce a 
person to withdraw from being a candidate at an election amoun!S to cor!Ul't 
practice within the meaning of. the sub-section. It cannot ~ said that !lt!lCC 
H 
1he time for withdrawal of candidature fixed for that purpose in the. appropnatc 
notification had .aJready expired in this case there coul~ be no. withdrawal of 
· c:111didature after the date. 
When s. 123(1)(A){a) speaks of wtthdf!'Wal fro'!' 
\\being a candidate it is not limited to a candidate who has been validly nom1-
c 
}' 
G 
H 
MOHD. YUNUS 1'. s. K. SHASTRI (Goswami, ].) 
739 
n~ted and who h~s ·withdraw!\ ea.~lier according to law. 
The expression "to 
withdraw from being a Candidate cnnnot be given a restricted meaning and 
confi!led .to the stage where law permits a cindidate to 
withdraw from 
thi.: 
~lection. For the p~rpose of the section the words are of wide amplitude to 
mclude subsequent \vtthdrawal even at the last stage prior to tho poll 
(746B· 
747C] 
. 
• 
. <? ~ The omiss!on of ~he. words "retire 

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