RAM AWADESH SINGH versus SUMITRA DEVI & ORS.

Citation: [1972] 2 S.C.R. 674 · Decided: 03-12-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. HEGDE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

674 
RAM AWADESH SINGH 
v. 
SUMITRA DEVI & ORS. 
[)ecember 3, 1971 
[K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Representation of the People Act, 1951, ss. 33(4) and 36(4)-Nomi-
natlon paper-Mista~en entry as to ct1ndidmes'. name in electoral ro~l-
Mistake not substantial-Acceptance of nonunatwn paper does not vitiate 
election. 
Evidence-if several instances of corrupt practice are not separately 
proved they have no collective effect. 
During the mid term election held in 1969 in Bihar the respondent 
and 11 others contested from the Arrah Assembly Constituency.. 
The 
appellant was declared elected as ha,ing obtained the highest number of 
votes. His nearest rival was the respondent. The respondent filed an 
election petition challenging the election of the appellant on various 
grounds. The principal ground taken was that the result of the ~lection 
bad been materially affected by the improper acceptance of the appellant's 
nomination papers. It was alleged that nomination paper showed that 
the appellant's name was registered as an elector in the Arrah Constituency 
whereas at the relevant time it had been removed therefrom. The return-
ing Officer was therefore wrong in accepting the nomination paper. The 
other allegations against the appellant related to corrupt practice. 
The 
High Court rejected the allegations as regards corrupt practice but it set 
aside the election of the appellant on the ground that the nomination 
paper had been improperly accepted and the election had been materially 
affected thereby.. In appeal to this Court~ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
B 
HELD : (i) The appellant was fully qualified to be nominated at ihe 
election. The only thing said against his nomination was that his nomi-
nation paper was not properly filled in. It was proved from the evidence 
that the Returning Officer did look into the nomination paper but unfortu-
nately he also did not notice that the name of the appellant had been re-
moved from the electoral roll of Arrah constituency. If he had noticed 
F 
that fact he .)Yould have asked the. appellant either to correct the mistake 
or to file a fresh nomination paper. The appellant filed his nomination 
paper on the 6th of January 1969 and the last date for filing the nomina-
tion paper was the 8th of that month. That being so there would have 
been no difficulty for him dthcr to correct the nomination paper filed or 
' 
to file a fresh nomination paper. The appellant had with him a certified 
copy of the electoral roll of Sandesb Constituency where his ni.ln1e was 
enrolled and be bad shown the same to the Returning Officer. Mistakes 
G 
complained of occurred because both the appellant as well as the Return-
ing Officer merely looked into the main voters' list in Arrah con~tituencv 
but overlooked the deletion noted in a seporate list 1,670 A-DJ 
From a combined reading of ss. 33 and 36 of the Representation of 
the People Act 1961 it is clear that a mis-description as to the electoral 
roll number of the candidate or of the proposer in the nomination paper 
is not to be considered as a material defect in the nomination paper. The 
H 
High Court was accordingly not justified in allowin~ the election petition 
o~ the ground that the nomination paper of the appellant wa. improperly 
ll<ceptcd. [681 A: 683 EJ 
B 
c 
D 
' 
H 
R. A. SINGH v. SUMITRA (Hegde, J.) 
675 
ln view of the above fincing the further question whether the result of 
.the election was materially affected did not survive for consid=fation. 
1683 E-F] 
(ii) The appeal of the respondent on the question of corrupt practice 
had no merit. 
The three initances mentioned were in the opinion of tic 
High Court not established ·,y the evidence. 
Each intance of a corrupt 
p<actice pleaded has to he c; tablish-cd separately. If every one of the ins-
tances was not proved all of them put together cannot be accepted as true 
h•ocaus~ of the volume of e'idcnce. [685 B-C] 
The election petition n1ust therefore be dismissed. 
Kam.di Singh v. Election Tribuna, Hissar & Ors., 10 E.L.R. 
189, 
llungifill Choudhury v. Dah,1 Sao & Ors., [i1962] 2 S.C.R. 401, Namdeo 
Chi11w11ji Toprc & Anr. v. C'ovi11<lda< Ratan/a/ Bhatia & Ors .• I.LR. 1964 
Bon1. 114 ;.1nd 
~Vey Kanto Barooa!i v. Kushara111 Nath & Ors., XX.I 
E.LR. 459. applied. 
Narhatl<t Pra.md v. Chh1gal Lal & Ors., [1967] 1 S.C.R. 499, Ram 
Dayal v. Brijl'ai Singh & Ors., r_l970] I S.C.R. 530 and Brijendrala/ Gupta 
and Anr. v. Jawolonrarnd de Ors .. !.1960] 3 S.C.R. 650, distinguishe

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