PRABHU NARAYAN versus A. K. SRIVASTAVA

Citation: [1975] 3 S.C.R. 552 · Decided: 14-02-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A. ALAGIRISWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.. " ., 
552 
PRABHU NARAYAN 
v. 
A. K. SRIVASTAVA 
' February 14, 1975 
[A. ALAGIRISWAMI, V. R. KRISHNA lYER AND R. S. SARKARJT, JJ.) 
Representation of the People Act (43. of 1961) Section 83 and 123 011d 
B 
Co11tlucr of Election Rules, 1'. 94A-Proviso to s. 83( 1 )-Scope of. 
In the election to the State Legislative A~sembly the respon~ent wa_s declared 
elected and the appellant, the congress cand1datc. fil~d an electiOn pehtion chat-
Jenging the election on various grounds, one of wh1ch was that the respondent 
was guilty of corru.pt practice under s. 123 ( 4) of the Representation of th 
Pcopb Act. 1951, in that cer_ta-if! pamphlets were published by him or with hi~ 
consent. The petition was dtsmtssed by the High Court, 
Allowing the appeal to this Court, 
C 
HELD : 1 (a) There is no substance in the preliminary objection of the 
respondent that th~ elccti(;>n petition ~hould have been dismissed on -the ground 
that it did not comply w1th the rcqutremcnts of s. 83 of the Act and that the 
evidence of printing the pamphlets, in any event, 
should 
not have been 
admitted. [553D-FJ 
· 
The charge against the respondent in the election petition w~ that the 
respondent was responsible for the publication of the pamphlet5 and not their 
D 
printing. 
Evidence regarding printing was only relied upon to corroborate the 
evidence regarding distribution of the pamphlets. 
When s. 123(4) speah of 
publication it means distribution. Therefore, failure to give particulars of the 
printing in the affidavit in support of the election petition cannot lead to the 
dismissal of the petition: nor could evidence regarding it be shut out. 
The 
proviso to s. 83( 1) lays down that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt 
practice the petition should also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed 
form in support of the allegation ot soch corrupt practice and the particul~ 
E 
thereof. It does not say that the allegation of corrupt practice and particulars 
thereof .should be given in the affidavit. Th: election petition contains the 
allegations of corrupt practice and particulan thereof. The Form 25, which i! 
the one pre~ribed under r. 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules also shoW'! 
that this was the intention of the l.egislature. Jn the present cnse the affidavit 
filed in support of the election petition is in accordance with. that prescribed 
form. 
[.S.HF-H] 
Viumlra Kumar Saklrcha 
v. 
JaRiivan. [19721 1 SCC 826 nnd Krishon 
F 
Clwndu v. Ram Lal. [1973] 2 SCC 789, referred to. 
_· ..$; 
(b) Funhermore, according to s. 86 of the Act only petitions which do 
not com ply with the provisions of srs. 8 t 82 nnd 1 17 are Jiable to be dismissed. 
\~ 
{5SSC] 
' 
(2) The High Court was wrong in rejecting wholesale every bit of evidence 
adduced on behalf of the appelhmt. 
Even taking the evidci'\Ce adduce~ on 
heh~lf of the nppellant of ~nly n-on-congress witnes~~- that evidence est:Jbltsher 
G 
that the people who got pn nted the variou~ pamphlet5 are clase supporterc; 0 
the rec;pondcnt. 
Thoo;e persons hud no ~pedal grievance against the oppell~nt 
but all the pamphleh have been printed with the definite purpose of h3r0ltng 
the chance~ of the 2ppellant in the election and th~rebv aiding tho~e of 
1~ 
re-.pondent. 
Th~ plan and the direction could therefore have come onlv fro:;' 
one \.Ource and that 
i~ the rt"">pondent. 
Hence, it muc;t be held th~ t ~ 
respondent Wll' ~uihy of the corrupt pr:~ctice under \. 123(4) in rc~~-t of th-
ramrhlct\. (561 D-E. G; ~62C] 
il 
CiVIL APPtLL.\Tr. JcRtSDICTIO~: Civil Appeal No. 117~ o( 1973· 
From the judpnent and order dated the 5th April. 1973 of tbe 
~bdhya Pr~de\h High Court in Election Pdition No. 29 of 1972. 
_ ...... 
......-
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
'F 
G 
H 
P. NARAYAN V, A. K. SRIVASTAVA (A/agiriswami, J.) 
55 3 
Y. S. Dharanwdhikari, T. P. Naik and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the 
appell~nt. 
S. K. Gambhir and V. J, Francis, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Conrt was delivered by 
ALAGIRISW AMI, J. In the election held on 11th March, 1972 to 
the Legislative Assembly of Madhya Pradesh from Dar1oh constituency 
the respondent, an independent candidate, Was declared elected. The 
appellant, the Congress candidate filed an election petition for declaring 
the election of the respondent void on various grounds all of which were 
found not proved by the learned Judge of the High Court of Madhya 
Pradesh who tried the petition. The petition was consequently dis-
missed and this appe

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