OM PRAKASH versus LALCHAND AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1970] 1 S.C.R. 886 · Decided: 14-08-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

886 
OM PRAKASH 
V, 
LALCHAND AND ANOTHER 
August 14, 1969 
[K. S. HEGDE A~D A. N. RAY, JJ.] 
Representation of the People Act, 1951, s. 123 ( 4 )--Corrupt practice-
Allegations of snJugg/ing agttinst cc.-ndidate in 
poster-Candidate 
al~o 
called an abnoxious person-Allegations are in relation 
to the personal 
character and conduct of ca11didate within 1necning of section-Evidence 
Act s. 45-Experts seldom agree--Courts must form its own conclusinfls. 
The first respondent was the winniag candidate from an 
assembly 
constitueocy in Hissar District of Haryana State at the mid-term election 
held in May, 1968. The appellant who was one of the losing candidates 
filed an election petition urging the following grounds in its support : (I) 
that the poster Exhibit PWI/ 1 was against the personal character of the 
appellant and therefore constituted a corrupt practice v•ithin the meaning 
of s. 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; (2) '!bat the 
religious head of the Namdhari sect issued an appeal and a farman and 
therefore the provisions contained ins. 123(2) were attracted; (3) Tha; 
the first respondent was guilty of corrupt practice of bribery by having 
given Rs. 20,000 in cash to one of the candidates for contesting the elec· 
tion. 'Ille petition was dismissed by the High Court. In appeal this Court 
found that the allegations in grounds Nos. (2) and (3) aforesaid were 
not proved by the evidence on record. 
Allowing the petition on ground 
No. (I), 
HELD: (i) ·rhe evidence in the present case established-first that 
Exhibit PWl/l wa< published, 
second!)' that respondent No. I got the 
same printCd and published. thirdly that the statement therein-to the 
etfect that the appellant was indulging in smuggling and was an obno:tious 
pen;on-was in relation to the pcr!ional character and conduct df the 
appellant, fourthly that the statement was false, and fifthly that the same 
was calculated to prejudice the prospects of the appellant's election. The 
appeal therefore had to be accepted on the ground that respondent NJ. I 
was guilty of corrupt practice under sl!l:tion 123(4) of the Act. [892 H-
893 BJ 
(ii) 
It is rare for two experts to agree in cases of disputed signature. 
The Court has to arrive at the conclusion in the light of the entire evi-
dence. The signature of respondent No. 1 on the manuscript of Exhibit 
PWl/l wa. sufficiently proved by the evideoce of witnesses. [891 G-H] 
CIVIL APPELLATE ]URISDICTJON : 
Civil Appeal No. 32 of 
1969. 
Appeal under s. 11 ~-A of the Representation of the People 
Act, 1951 from the judgment and order dated November 19, 1968 
of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Election Petition No. 
14 of 1968. 
H. L. Sibal, Ram Sarup, S. C. Mahanta, K. C. Sharma and 
J. C. Ta/war, fot the appellant. 
Naunit Lal, for respondent No. 1. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
' 
E 
F 
.. 
G 
H 
I 
•I 
i 
A 
OM PRAKASH V. LALCHAND (Ray, J.) 
887 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Ray, J. This is an appeal against the judgment and order 
dated 19 November, 1968 of the High Court of Punjab & Har-
yana at Chandigarh dismissing the election petition of the appel-
lant. 
· · 
· 
B 
The appellant contested the Assembly seat from Ellenabad 
Constituency in tbil District of Hissar in the mid-term election 
held in May, 1968. The appellant challenged the election of 
Lalchand, the first respondent. 
The other defeated candidate in 
the election was the. second respondent Prithvi Raj. 
The appel-
lant obtained 15.485 votes. 
The successful candidate Lalchand 
c 
secured 20,816 votl)S and Prithvi Raj obtained 5,726 votes. 
The 
polling was on 14 May, 1968. The results were announced on 
16 May, 1968. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
At the hearing Qf the appeal counsel on behalf of the appel-
lant canvassed thre~ii grounds. 
First, that the poster being Exhi-
bit P.W. 1/1 was against the personal character of the appellant 
and therefore constituted a corrupt practice within the meaning 
of sub-section (4) of section 123 of the Representation of the 
People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Secondly, 
the religious head Sat Guru Jagjit Singh of the Namdhari sect 
i11Sued an ap~ and a farman and thereby the provisions con-
tained in sub-section, (2) of section 123 of the Act are attracted. 
Thirdly, the resp~ndent Lalchand is guilty of corrupt practice of 
bribery by having given Rs. 20,000/- in cash to Prithvi Raj to 
contest the election.·· 
I shall at the llUtset deal with the secbnd and the thi

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