S. KHADER SHERIFF versus MUNNUSWAMI GOUNDER AND OTHERS.

Citation: [1955] 2 S.C.R. 469 · Decided: 15-09-1955 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

2S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
469 
S. KHADER SHERIFF 
v. 
MUNNUSWAMI GOUNDER AND OTHERS. 
[S. R. DAs, ACTING C. J. and VENKATARAMA 
AYYAR J.] 
Election Dispute-Non-disclosure by returned candidate of sums 
paid to party funtis in his return of elet;_tion expenses-Such sums, if' 
spent for 
purposes of election-Commencement 
of candidature-
Expense in excess of the prescribed limit-Election declared void by 
Tribunal-Resulting 
disqualification-Finding, if must be after 
notice-Representation of the 
People Act (No. XLIII of 1951), ss. 
79(b), 99 proviso, 123(7), 140. 
The appellant, who fought and won the election as a Congress 
candidate, had applied to the 
Tamil Nad Congress Committee on 
12-9-51 for party nomination stating his desire "to contest 
as a 
Congress candidate in the forthcoming election" and paid a sum 
of Rs. 500 of which Rs. 100 was subscription for membership and 
Rs. 400 a deposit, liable to be r.efunded in case the application was 
refused. On 23-9-51 he paid another sum of Rs. 500 as donation to 
the District Congress Committee. On 13-11-51 he was adopted by 
the Congress as its candidate. 
His nomination paper for the election 
was filed on 16-11-51. 
The charge against him in the election peti-
tion was that he had failed to include these two sums in his return of 
election expenses and with the addition of these sums the maximum 
limit of election expenses prescribed for the constituency would be 
exceeded. The Tribunal found that both these sums were paid for 
election purposes and the maximum prescribed had been exceeded 
and, therefore, s. 123(7) had been contravened and declared the 
election void under s. 100(2)(b) of the Act. 
The Tribunal also re-
corded a finding that the appellant was liable to the disqualifications 
specified in s. 140, clauses (l)(a) and (2). 
Held, affirming the decision of the Tribunal, that the exact point 
of time from which a person must be deemed to be a candidate with-
in the meaning of s. 79(b) of the Representation of the People Act is 
the time when, with the ·election in prospect, he himself decides to 
stand as a candidate and communicates such decision to others leav-
ing no manner of doubt as to his intention. 
This must be an act of 
his own volition and no.t that of other persons or bodies adopting 
him as their candidate. 
The Lichfield case, [1895] 5 O'M. & H. 1, referred to. 
That the applicant was a candidate from the date of his appli-
cation to the Tamil Nad Congress Committee and the two sums 
were election expenses incurred by him and should have been shown 
in his return. 
1955 
S. Khadar Sheri.ff 
v. 
Munnuswami 
Coundn and othlrs 
470 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
That the con1mencement of candidature in a particular case is a 
question of fact to be determined by the Tribunal and its decision in 
this regard is not liable to be reviewed by the Supreme Court in an 
appeal by special leave. 
That whether a particular sum paid at the time or on the eve 
of the election was a donation, an act of charity or an election ex~ 
pense must depend on whether or not such payment was open to the 
charge of having been made in order to induce the voters to vote in 
favour of the donor. This again is a question of fact to be decided by 
the Tribunal. 
The Wigan case, 
[1881] 4 O"M. & H. 1, and 
The Kingston 
case [1911] 6 O' M. & H. 274, relied on. 
The Kennington case, (1886] 4 O'M. & H. 93, held inapplicable. 
1"hat it was not necessary for the 
Tribunal to serve a notice 
under the proviso to s. 99 of the 
Act on the appellant, a party to the 
election 
petition, to enable the Tribunal to 
record his liability to 
disqualification under s. 140 of the 
Act in respect of the charge 
levelled against him. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
J URISDIC1'ION : 
Civil 
Appeal 
No. 26 of 1955. 
Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of 
.India from 
the Judgment and Order dated the 28th 
February, 1953, 
of the Election Tribunal, Vellore, in 
Election Petition No. 84 of 1954. 
N. C. Chatterjee, (R. Ganapathy Iyer, with him), 
for the appellant. 
N aunit Lal, for respondent No. 1. 
1955. 
September, 
15. 
The 
Judgment of the 
Court was delivered by 
VENKATARAMA 
AYYAR 
J.-This 
is 
an appeal by 
~pecial leave against the order of the Election Tribu-
nal, 
Vellore, declaring - the 
election 
of 
appellant 
to 
the Legislative Assembly 
void on the ground that 
there 
had 
been a violation of section 123(7) of the 
Representation of 
the People Act No. XLIII of 195

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