RAVINDRA NATH versus RAGHBIR SINGH & ANR.

Citation: [1968] 1 S.C.R. 104 · Decided: 04-08-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

104 
RA VINDRA NATH 
v. 
RAGHBIR SINGH & ANR. 
August 4, 1967 
(K. N. WANCHOO, C. J., R. S. BACHAWAT, V. RAMASWAMI, 
B 
G. K. MITTER AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.J 
Representation of the People Act, 1951 ss. 97(1), 117, 118,-Secu-
rity required to be deposited on giving notice of recri!lllination under 
proviso to s. 97 (1 ), 
tq lead evidence-Whether treasury receipt evi-
dencing full deposit to be produced at time of giving notice-Effect 
of non-compliance. 
0 
By an election petition filed on May 10, 1966, the appellant chal-
lenged the election of the first respondent held on March 28. 1966 to 
the Rajya Sabha by members of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha and 
sought a declaration that he be declared duly elected as a member 
of the Rajya Sabha instead. On July 1, 1966 the date fixed for the 
respondents to appear before the Tribunal and answer the claims 
made in the petition, the respondent filed a written statement in 
reply to the election petition and gave a notl<:e under the proviso to D 
s. 97(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, of hlis intention 
Ito give evidence to prove that the election of the appellant' would 
have been void if he had been the resurned candidate and if a petition 
challenging his electtion had been presented. The- notice under s. 97(1) 
was accompanied by the prescribed statement and particulars and a 
treasury reoeipt evidencing the deposit Qf Rs. 1,000 .as security under 
s. 117 of the Act. An objecti<111 was taken on behalf of the appellant 
that the amount of security deposited by the respondent was insuffi- I 
cient in that he should have deposited Rs. 2.000 and consequently the 
notice under. the proviso to s. 97(1) w•as invalid. On October 7, 1966, 
the date fixed for argument on the preliminary issues, the respondent 
deposited a further sum of Rs. 1,000 as securi11y and produced the 
relevant treasury receipt before the Tr-ibunal, but the Tribunat up.. 
held the appellant's objection on the view that as the production of 
a receipt showing the deposit of Rs. 2,000 as security along _with the' F 
notice was the condition precedent to the right of the ·respondent 
under s. 97(1) to lead evidence iln view of his fallllre to comply with 
this requirement, this right was lost to him and the subsequent depo. 
Sit of Rs. 1,000 by him did not entitle him to lead in evidence under 
s. 97(1). The respondent thereupon filed a petition in the High Court 
under Art. 227 of the Constitution chaltenging the decision of the 
Tribunal and the High Court allowed the petition holding that it is 
only in cases lin which the provis!bns of ss. 117 and 118 with regard G 
to deposit of security were not complied with before the date fixed 
for recording evidence under s. 97(1) that the Tribunal could refuse 
to admit the evidence, and where, as in the present case, the entire 
amount of the security had been deposited before such date, the Tri• 
bunal must admit the evidence. 
On appeal to th1is Court. 
HELD: Allowing the appeal: the Tuibunal had rightly held that B 
the respondent was required to produce with the notice under tile 
proviso to s. 97(1) a Government Treasury Receipt showing a deposit 
of Rs. 2,000 as security for costs of the recrimination and the High 
Court was in error in quashing this order. ruo F-Gj. 
RAVINDllA NA.TR ti, RA.GRBIR SINGR (Bachawai, J.) 
IOii 
A 
The nodice of recrimination under s. 97 is in substance a coun-
ter petition calling in question the claim that the other candidate 
has been duly elected. Looking at the object and scheme of s. 97 it 
is manifest that the provisions of ss. 117 and 118 be applied mutatis 
muta11dis to a proceeding under s. 97. The 1.1ecriminator must_produce 
a Government Treasury Receipt showing that a deposit of Rs. 2,000 
has been made by him dn favour of the Election Commissioner as 
cost of the recrimination. As the notice of rect'iminat:On .cannot be 
B sent by post, it must be filed before the Tribunal, and reading s.117 
with consequential adaptau:cms for the· purposes of the proviso to 
s. 97(1), it will appear that the 'l'reasury Receipt showing the deposit 
of the security must be produced before the Tribunal along_ with the 
notice of recrimination. If the recriminator fails to give the requi-
site security under s. 117 at the time of giving the n.otice Qf recrimi-
nation, he, loses the right to lead evidence under s.97 and the notice 
of recrimination stands virtually .rejected. [108E-H: 109A-Bl. 
C 
N. R. Shiksh.ak v. R. P. Dik

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