RANANJAYA SINGH versus BAIJNATH SINGH AND OTHERS

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 671 · Decided: 29-09-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, BIJAN KUMAR MUKHERJEA, SUDHI RANJAN DAS, VIVIAN BOSE, GHULAM HASAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
.. 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
671 
RANANJAYA SINGH 
ti. 
BAIJNATH SINGH AND OTHERS. 
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J., MuKHERJEA, S. R. DAs, 
VIVIAN BosE, and GHULAM HASAN JJ.] 
Representation of the People Act, 1951 (XLlll of 1951), ss. 77, 
123(7), 124( 4)-Gist of corrupt practice as defined in s. 123(7). 
Section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, 
shows clearly that in order to amount to a corrupt practice the 
excess expenditure must be incurred or authorised by a candidate 
or his agent and the employment of extra persons must likewise be 
by a candidate or his agent. 
The charge 
against the appellant was, 
inter alia, that the 
Manag~r, Assistant Manager, 20 Ziladars of Amethi and their peons 
and orderlies had worked for the appellant in connection with the 
election. The view taken by the 
Election Tribunal that though 
the estate belonged to the father of the appellant, nevertheless as 
the appellant was the heir appearent and actually looked after the 
estate on behalf of the old and infirm proprietor, these servants of 
the estate were "virtually" his "own" servants and could properly 
be regarded as having been employed for payment by the appellant, 
was untenable because though s. 77 of the Act uses the words "who 
may be employed 
for payment", 
without indicating by whom 
employed or paid, the gist of a corrupt practice as defined in s. 123 
(7) of the Act is that the employment of extra persons and the 
incurring or authorising of extra expenditure must be by the candi-
date or his agent. 
The appellant accordingly, could not in 
the 
circumstances 
of the present case, be held to be guilty of any corrupt 
practice 
under s. 123(7) as alleged against him and therefore could not be 
held to have been guilty of any minor practice under s. 124( 4) of 
the Act. 
Joseph Forster Wilson and Another v. 
( 6 O'Mally 
& 
Hardcastle's Report of 
referred to. 
Sir Christopher Furness 
Election Cases, p. 
1}, 
CIVIL APPELLATE 
JuRISDICTroN : Civil Appeal No. 73 
of 1954. 
Appeal by Spe_cial Leave against the Judgment and 
Order 
dated 
the 11th day of February, 1954, of the 
Election 
Tribunal, 
Allahabad, in Election 
Petition 
No. 252 of 1952. 
5-88 S. C. India/59 
1954 
Rananjoya Singh 
, v. 
Bajjnath Singh 
and Otlllrs. 
D01 J. 
672 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
N. C. Chatterjee and G. N. Kunzru, (Rameshwar Nath 
and Rajinder Narain, with them) for the appellant. 
Veda Vyasa (G. C. Mathur, with him) for respond-
ent No. 1. 
1954. September 29. 
The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
DAs J.-Kunwar Rananjaya 
Singh, 
the 
appellant 
before us, is the son of Raja Bhagwan Bux Singh of 
Amethi. He was the successful candidate at an election 
to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly from Amethi 
(Central) constituencl': the polling in respect of which 
took place on the 31st January, 1952, and the result 
whereof was announced on the 6th February, 1952, and 
finally published in the Uttar Pradesh State Gazette on 
the 26th 
February, 1952. 
The 
respondent, 
Baijnath 
Singh, who was one of the unsuccessful candidates filed 
an election petition calling in question the election of 
the 
appellant. 
Three other unsuccessful 
candidates 
were also impleaded as respondents. The grounds on 
which the election was challenged were that the appel-
lant himself, together with his own and his father's 
servants and other dependents and agents, committed 
various corrupt practices of bribery, exercise of 
undue 
influence, publication 
of false 
and defamatory 
state-
ments and concealment of 
election 
expenses as. per 
particulars set forth in the petition and the schedules 
thereto. He prayed that the election of the appellant 
'be set aside 
and 
that he, 
the said respondent, be 
.declared to have 
been duly 
elected. 
The 
appellant 
.alone 
contested the petition. In his written statement 
he denied each and every one of the charges of corrupt 
practices levelled 
against him and he also filed a peti-
tion of recrimination challenging the 
conduct of the 
said respondent at the election. The said 
respondent 
.denied the charges imputed to him. Altogether 15 issues 
were raised, namely, eight on the election petition and 
·7 on the petition of recrimination. 
All the 7 issues 
·arising out of the petition of recrimination were found 
by the tribunal constituted for hearing of the election 
petition 
against the 
appellant 
and the petition of 
:recrimination was dismissed. 
The appellant has

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