S.B. ADITYAN versus S. KANDASWAMI AND OTHERS

Citation: [1959] 1 S.C.R. 868 · Decided: 20-05-1958 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A.K. SARKAR, K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

May ao. 
868 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1959] 
S. B. ADITYAN 
v. 
S. KANDASWAMI AND OTHERS 
(GAJENDRAQADKAR, A. K. SARKAR and SUBBA 
RAO JJ.) 
Election Peli tion-C ormpt practice-Bribery-Acceptance of 
gratification, if cori·upt practice of bribery-Representation of the 
People Act, I95I (43 of r95r), ss. 82, 90(3) and I23. 
After the poll the appellant was declared elected to the 
Madras Legislative Assembly. Respondent No. l filed an elec-
tion petition praying that it be declared that the election of the 
appellant was void. In.the petition it was alleged that two of 
the candidates at the election accepted money paid to them by 
the appellant and his election agent to induce them to abandon 
the contest and they actually abandoned the contest. .These 
two candidates were not made parties to the petition. The 
appellant applied to the Election Tribunal to dismiss the petition 
.under s. 90(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, for 
non-compliance with the provisions of s. 82 of the Act on the 
ground that allegations of a corrupt practice were made 
against the two candidates and Respondent No. r had failed to 
make them parties to the petition as required bys. 82: 
Held, that the acceptance of gratification is not a corrupt 
practice within the meaning of s. 123(1) of the Act and conse-
quently it could not be said that allegations of corrupt practice 
had been made against the two candidates. There was thus no 
non-compliance with the provisions of s. 82 and the election peti-
tion was not liable to be dismissed under s. 90(3). 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
130 of 1958. 
Appeal by certificate granted by the Madras High 
Court against its judgment and order dated November 
1, 1957, in W. P. Nos. 623 and 624 of 1957. 
1958. 
April 30. May 1. A. V. Viswanatha. Sastri, 
T. R. Venkatltrama Iyer, K. R. Sharma and K. R. 
Ghoudhri, for the appellant. The petition is liable to 
be dismissed for non-joinder of Muthu and Meganathan 
who were candidates as defined in s. 79(b) of the 
Representation of the People Act, 1951. The allega-
tion is tha.t Meganathan accepted a gift of. Rs. 10,000 
• and in pursuance thereof withdrew his candidature, 
and also that ·Muthu accepted a gratification of 
Rs. 5,000 and in pursuance thereof, he retired from 
• 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
S69 
the contest. On the language of s. 123(1) of the Act, 
such acceptance constitutes a 'corrupt practice'. The 
words 'by a candidate or his agent or by any other 
person ' in the section are to be read with the words 
' offer or promise ' and not with ' gift '. In view of the 
provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, a ' gift ' is 
a bilateral Act and it includes both the giving of the 
gift and the acceptance of that gift. Section 99 of the 
Act shows that a receipt of a bribe is a corrupt prac-
tice. See ss. 82 (b), 98 and 99 of the Representation 
of the People Act, 1951. Under s. 99 the Tribunal has 
to record a finding whether a corrupt· practice has been 
committed with the consent of any candidate. When 
a candidate accepts a gift with the object of inducing 
him to withdraw his candidature, he consents to the 
corrftpt practice of bribery being committed and such 
a candidate is liable to be named under the section. 
·Alternatively, the term gratification in s. 123 is very 
wide and includes the withdrawal of candidature by a 
candidate to induce another candidate to stand at an 
election. Affording of such gratification amounts to a 
corrupt practice within s. 123. 
Section 82(b) talks of 
' allega.tions of any corrupt practice ' and it, therefore, 
contemplates any allegation relating to or concerning, 
a corrupt practice. 
O. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, A. N. 
Sinha and N. H. Hingorani for respondent No. 1. 
A 
candidate who accepts a gift from a returned candidate 
does not commit 'corrupt practice ' within the mean-
ing of s. 123(1) and therefore is not necessary party 
to the election petition under s. 82(b) of the Act. The 
section defines the corrupt practice of bribery and the 
words ' gift, offer or promise by a candidate or his 
agent or by any other person ' clearly contemplates 
the making of a gift. Further, s. 1!?3(1) does not 
include the acceptance of a gift as a. corrupt practice. 
This is also apparent from consideration of s. 124(3) of 
the Act which was deleted by the amending Act 
XXVII of 1956. Section 124(3) 
made receipt of 
gratification by candidate or intending . can
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.