RAJA BAHADUR K. C. DEO BHANJ versus RAGHUNATH MISRA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1959] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 952 · Decided: 18-12-1958 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SYED JAFFER IMAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

952 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. 
1958 
it. Merely because a son uses a pistol and causes the 
death of another at the instance of his father is no 
•• :~=~:her mitigating circumstance which the courts would take 
v. 
into consideration. 
The State of u. P. 
In our opinion the courts below have rightly im-
posed the sentence of death on Mizaji. Other appel-
Kapur 1 · 
lants being equally guilty under s. 149, Indian Penal 
Code, have been rightly sentenced to imprisonment 
for life. 
December 18. 
The appeals must therefore be dismissed. 
Appeals dismissed. 
RAJA BAHADUR K. C. DEO BHANJ 
v. 
RAGHUNATH MISRA AND OTHERS 
(SYED JAFER IMAM, S. K. DAs and J. L. KAPUR, J,J.) 
Electio11-Corrupt Practice-Perso11 in service of Government, 
obtaining assistance of-Sarpanch of Grama Panchayat in Orissa-
Whether such a pel'Son-lf Sarpanch is a revenue officer or a village 
accountant-Repreuntatio11 of the People Act, r95r (43 of r95r), 
s. r23(7)(j)-Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, r948 (Orissa XV of 
r948). 
The appellant was declared elected to the Orissa Legislative 
Assembly and the first respondent filed an election petition 
challenging the election, inter alia. on the ground that the appel-
r 
!ant had committed the corrupt practice nnder s. r23(7)(f) Re-
presentation of the People Act, 1951, by obtaining the assistance 
of Sarpanches of certain Grama Panchayats for the furtherance 
of the prospects of his election. The petition was dismissed by 
the Election Tribunal but on appeal, was allowed by the High 
Court and the election was set aside. The High Court held that 
a Sarpanch was a person in the service of the Government with-
in the meaning of s. r23(7)(f) of the Act. 
I 
Held, that a Sarpanch of Grama Panchayat in Orissa was not 
-4il 
one of the persons contemplated bys. r23(7)(f) and consequently 
J 
• 
the appellant was not guiliy of any corrupt practice in obtaining 
assistance of Sarpanches. Two conditions must co-exist before 
s. r23(7)(f) could apply to a Sarpanch: (i) that he was in the 
service of the Government, and (ii) that he fell within the class 
(1) s.o.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
953 
specified in cl. (f). There was a distinction between "serving 
rg58 
under the Government" and "in the service of the Govern-
ment"; while one may serve under a Government one may not 
Raja Bahadur 
necessarily be in the service of the Government; under th~ K. c. Deo Bhan; 
latter expression one not only served under the Government but 
v. 
was in the service of the Government and this imported the Raghunath Misri• 
relationship of master and servant. 
None of the provisions of 
and Others 
the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1948, suggested that as 
between the State Government and the Grama Panchayat and 
its Sarpanch any such relationship existed. The mere power of 
control and supervision of Government over a Grama Panchayat 
exerfi;ising administrative functions or performing duties of 
·governmental nature could not.make the GramaPanchayat or its 
Sarpanch a person in the service of the Government. The 
Sarpanch was the executive head of the Grama Panchayat: he 
was neither appointed nor paid by the Government; he could 
only be removed by Government on grounds of negligence, 
inefficiency or misbehaviour. He was not under the control of 
the Government while discharging his functions and could not 
be said to be in service of the Government. 
The second con-
dition also did not exist as a Sarpauch was neither a revenue 
officer nor a village accountant and as such was not one of the 
class -of officers mentioned in cl. (f) of s. 123(7). 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
480 of 1958. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment a.nd 
order dated April 15, 1958, of the Orissa High Court 
in Misc. Appeal No. 194 of 1957, a.rising out of the 
judgment aud order dated October 26, 1957, ·of the 
Election Tribunal, Puri, in Election Case No. 1/67 of 
1957. 
Veda Vyasa and A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, R. Patnaik 
and Ratnaparkhi, A. G., for the appellant. 
H. Mahapatra and P. K. Chatterjee for G. 0. Mathur, 
for respondent No. 1. 
1958. December 18. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
IMAM, J.-The appellant and the respondent No. 1 
were, amongst others, candidates for election to the 
Orissa Legislative Assembly from the Daspalla .double-
member constituency in which a seat was reserved 
for a scheduled caste candidate. We are not concern-
ed with the election of the scheduled caste candidate. 
120 
(

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