OM PRABHA JAIN versus ABNASH CHAND & ANR.

Citation: [1968] 3 S.C.R. 111 · Decided: 07-02-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
• 
F 
G 
H 
01\t: PRABHA JAIN 
v. 
ABNASH CHAND & ANR. 
February 1, 1968 
[M. HIDAYATULLAH AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JI.) 
Election-Minister makiv discretionary grant-When 
amounts to 
corrupt practice. 
The State of Haryaoa came nto existence on 1st November 1966. 
The Cabinet placed certain sums of money at the disposal of the minis-
teis, one of whom was the appellant to be used at their discretion for 
purposes of public utility, for the benefit Of the general public and for 
the uplift of backward communities. The money had to be disbursed 
before 31st March 1967 through Pancbayat, Municipal or Government 
agencies. The appellant sanctioned cetlain 
payments for building twO 
dharnwshakls in two wards of a Municipality. Long after the sanction, 
her candidature for election to the Vidban Sabha of the State was re-
cognised by her party and she stood for election from a constituency 
which included these two wards. She was elected, and some time later, 
the money was made available to the wards though the recipients were 
writing that the money should be made available at once. The first res-
pondent challenged the election alleging corrupt practices and later amend,. 
ed the petition giving better particulars. 
The pleas- in the petition COD· 
tradicted each. other, the evidence tendered at the trial of the petition 
contradicted the pleas, and the witnesses were found to be thoroughly un-
reliable. In spite of this the petition was allowed on the ground that the 
circumstances showed that the sums were in 
fact paid to bargain for 
votes and to influence the voters in favour of the appellant. 
In ··appeal to this Court, 
HELD : The action Of the appellant could not be construed against 
her. 
It was done in the ordinah' course of her duties as Minister and 
there was no evidence that it was, directly or indirectly, part of a bargain 
with the voters. No hurry to make the money available to the re-
cipients emanated from the appellant. It was only the persons who were 
to benefit by the discretionary grant that were anxious t.o lay hands on 
the money, as soon as possible, so that the grant might not be. cancelJed 
later by a change of attitude caused by the election going against tb.e 
particular party, [117 H; 118 A-C] . 
· 
Ghasi Ram v. Dal Singh & Ors. f1968] 3 S.C.R. 102 followed. 
Bhagwan Dutta Shastri v. Ram Ratanji Gupta, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 
200 and Kandaswami v. Adiryan, 19 E.L.R. 260, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1862 of 
1967. 
Appeal under s. 116-A of the Representation of the People Act 
1951 from the judgment and order dated November 16, 1967 of 
the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Election Petition No. 19 
of 1967. 
112 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1968] 3 s.c.R. 
A. K. Sen, B. Dutta, P. C. Bhartari, M. L. Aggarwal and 
A 
J. B. Dadachanji, for the appellant. 
S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, for respondent No. 1. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hidayatullah, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment 
of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, Novem-
ber 16, 1967 by which the election of tb.e appellant to the Vidhan 
Sabha of Haryana State from the Kai~al constitu~!lCY has been 
~Jared to be void. The election was held on February 19, 1967 
and the result of the pool was declared on February 22, 1967. 
The appellant had a margin of nearly 2000 votes over the fust 
r~pondent who was the closest rival. One other candidate had 
also stood but we are not concerned with him in the present appeal 
since he has not shown any interest in it. He secured less than 
1000 votes and forfeited his security. 
The election petition was based upon allegations of corrupt 
practice against the successful candidate. The gravamen of 
the· charge was that she as a minister in the Government of 
Mr. Bhagwat Dayal Sharma used certain discretionary grants to 
bribe the voters of her constituency and in particular by paying 
two sums of Rs. 2,000 for the construction of two dharamsa/as 
for the Kumhar and the Sweeper Colonies at Kaithal. There were 
other allegations also against her but as they have been found 
against the election petitioner and have not been brought to oilr 
notice we need not say anything about them.. The learned Judge 
who tried the election petition did not accept the evidence tendered 
by the election petitioner to prove the corrupt practice outlined 
above but held on a general appraisal of the circumstances of the 
case that these sum

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