SHEOPAT SINGH versus RAM PRATAP

Citation: [1965] 1 S.C.R. 175 · Decided: 28-08-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SHEOPAT SINGH 
v. 
RAM PRATAP 
August 28, 1964 
(K'.. SUBBA RAo AND M. HIDAYATUl,,LAH JJ.) 
The Representation of the People Act (43 of lfl51), ss. 82(b), 85 arrd 
123(4)-Who are necessary parties to election petition-Allegations on 
person.al character-What are-"Calculated", meaning of. 
The election of the appellant to a seat in the Legislative Assembly of 
the State was challenged by the respondent, an elector, on the ground 
inter a/ia, that by publishing a poster which contained a statement of fact 
about the personal character and conduct of one of the rival candidates, 
the appellant was guilty of a corrupt practice under s. 123(4) of the Repre-
sentation of the People Act (43 of 1951). The Tribunal dismissed the 
petition, but the High Court reversed the decision of the Tribunal. In th< 
appeal to the Supreme Court, it was contended that : (i) the poster, publish-
ed and circulated by the appellant was not bit by the provisions of s. 123(4) 
of the Act and (ii) the election petition should have been dismissed under 
•· 85 of the Act on the ground that another candidate against whom 
allegation of corrupt practices were made was not impleaded. 
HELD : ( i) Section 123 ( 4) is designed to achieve the dual purpose 
of protecting freedom of speech and prevention of malicious attack on the 
personal character and conduct of rivals. A statement which reflects on 
the mental or moral character of a person is a reflection on his personal 
character, whereas any criticism of a person's political or public activities 
and policies is outside it. 
The sub-section also requires that the candidate 
making the statement believes it to be false or does not believe· it to be true, 
and it shall be a statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects 
of the election of the candidate against whom it is made. The word 
"calculated" means designed : it denotes more than mere likelihood and 
imports a design to affect voters. 
Applying these tests and on a considera~ 
tion of the entire evidence, the appellant by publishing the poster was guilty 
of a corrupt practice within the meaning of the sub-section. 
[I 78A-E; 
J80C-E; 183H]. 
T. K. Gangi Reddy v. M. C. Anjaneya Reddy, (1960) 22 E.L.R. 261 
and lnder Lal v. Lal Singh, [1963] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 114, referred to. 
(ii) As regards the candidate who was not impleaded the only allega-
tion made in the election petition was that the appellant· got the poster 
published through him and others, but there was no allegation that the 
candidate believed the statement to be false or did not believe it to be 
tnae. 
In the absence of any such averment it cannot be said that there was 
any allegation of any corrupt practice within the meaning of s. 82(b) of 
the Act against such candidate. Al<o, under s. 123(4) mens rea is a 
necessary Ingredient of the corrupt practice and the person who publishes 
a statement, v.'hether he is the author of it or not, does not commit a 
corrupt practice, unless he has the requisite knowledge. 
As there was no 
allegation of corn,pt practice against the candidate who was not impleaded, 
the penal provision of ~· 85 are not attracted and the petition was not liable 
to be dismissed. [184E-H; 185A]. 
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 558 of 
1964. 
176 
SUPREME COIJR'f REPORTS 
[ 1965] I S.C.lt. 
Appeal by special leave.from the judgment and order dated A 
December 16, 1963 of the Rajasthan High Court in D. B. Election 
Appc~l No. 74 of 1963. 
R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwal, D. P. Singh and M. K. Rama-
murthi, for the appellant. 
G. S. Pathak and Naunit Lal, for the respondent. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Subba Rao J. 
The appellant, Sheopat Singh, and two 
others, namely Ramchander Chowdhary and Sutja Ram, contest-
ed the election for a seat in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly 
from Hanumangarh constituency. 
The appellant polled 31,50 I, C 
Ramchander Chowdhary, 18,217 and Surja Ram, 1,285 votes. 
The appellant was declared elected. The respondent, one of the 
electors, filed an election petition under s. 81 of the Represent.a· 
tion of the People Act, 1951, hereinafter called the Act, for set· 
ting aside the election of the appellant on various grounds. The 
Election Tribunal, by its order dated June 18, 1963, held that the D 
respondent had failed to substantiate the allegations made against 
the appellant and, on that finding, dismissed the petition. Against 
the said order, the respondent prefe

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