LexRAM DAYAL versus BRIJRAJ SINGH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
530
RAM DAYAL
A
v.
BRURAJ SINGH AND ORS.
April 30, 1969
[J. C. SHAH AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.)
Representatio11 of the People Act, 1951, ss. 31(1), 77(1) 81(1)-/f
8
111attrial an1tndml!nl of tltction petition can ht allowed after .txptry oj
ptrlod In S. 81(1) within which pttitlon Itself must be filed-Signature
end authentication of ptlition urrdtr S. 31(1)-J/ authentication can bt
done .tubsequtnt to prt.ftntation of petition-Voluntary expenses to help
canclidate's election-If liablt to bt included H:ithin limits ur1tr S. 77( 1).
C
The ftm responoent was elected to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative
Assembly in February 1967. The appellant, o voter in the constituency.
challenged his election by an election petition claiming that the nomination
paper of one D was ill<gally rejected by the Returning Officer and that
1hc respondent had committed several corrupt practices; it was aha allege.ct
that the Mahasaja and Rajmata of Gwalior had helped the first mpondent's
election in a number of ways and had in effect acted as his agents and had
D
incurred considerable expenditure which exceeded the limils prescribed
hy the statute. The High Court dismissed the pe1i1ion and also dismissed
an application ri1adc by the petilioner for an1enJment of 1he petition to
include a new allegation on the ground that it \\"'15 made after the expiry
of the period prescribed for filing an eltction petition.
On appeal to this Cl)Urt,
HELD : Dismissing the appeal : (i) The High Court bad rightly held
that it coul<l nol exercise ii' power to p.!rmil amendment of a pelition so
as 10 allow ncy.· grounds or charges to he raio;~d or the charact~r of the
petilion to he so alrcre<l a.;, to make it in suhstancc a new petition, if a
fresh petition on those allegations '"·ould be barred on the d;1tc of the
proposed amendment.
llarish Clumrf,.a Bajpai v. Trilok; Sin<I• [ 1957[ S.C.R. 370; followed.
(ii) The mark made by the proposer on IYs nomination paper was
not authenricatcd er attestcJ by one of the dco;ignaled officers as requir~<l
under"'· 31(1) read "'ith tn~ definition of the C"'(prcssion "sign·· ins. !(il
of the Representation of the People Act. 1951. and the provisions of r. 2(~)
oi the Conduct of EJection Rule". 1961.
It \\·:ts rhcrcforc ri~htly rejected
by the Returning Officer.
The requirement or s. 33(1) of the Act th:-.t thr nomination shall be
siancd by the candidate and by the prop~r is
mandatory.
Signing,
\Vbencver signature is necessary, must be in strict accordance v.·irh lhe
requirements of the Act and where the signature cunn0t be made ii "n1ust
be authorised in the manner prescribed by the Rl!lcs."
Attestation is not
a mere technical or umuhstantial requtrement wi1hin the meaning o{
s. 36(4) of the Act and cannot be dispensed with. The attestation and
the satisfaction must exist at the stage of prcsenlation and nmis.sion ot
such an essential feature may not be subsequently va1idatcd ~t !he !ltagc
of scrutiny any more lhan the omission of a candidate to sign at alt could
have heen. [532 F. 533 D-F]
E
F
G
H
-
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
ff
RAM DAYAL v. BRIJRAJ SINGH (Shah, J.)
531
Rattan Anmol Singh and Another v. Atma Ram & Others [1955]
I S.C.R. 481; referred 10.
(iii) The High Court had rigHtly held on the evidence that none of
the corrupt practices alleged was proved.
Unless it is established that expenditure was incurred in. connection
with the election by the candidate or by his election agent or was autho·
rised by him it is not liable to be included under s. 77 of the Representation
of the People Act.
Expenses incurred by any other agent or person
without anything more need not be included in t.he account or return,
as such incurring of expenditure would be purely voluntary.
Assuming
in the present case . that expenditure· was incurred by the Maharaj a an.d the
Rajmata of Gwalior for the purpose of canvassing votes against the principal
candidate opposina the first respondent, in the absence of any evidence
to show that 1.be Mabaraja and the Rajmata of Gwalior acted as election
agents of the first respondent or the ~xpenditure was authorised by him
ii was not liable to be included in the account of the election expenses.
[541 D-Fl
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1526 of
1968,
Appeitl under s. 116-A of the Representation of the People
Act, 1951 from the judgment and order dated May 4, 1968 of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court in Election PetitioExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.