LexSHRI VIRINDAR KUMAR SATYAWADI versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1013 SHRI VIRINDAR KUMAR SATYAWADI v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB. f B. K. MnT<:HERJEA, C.J., VENKATARAMA AYYAR and JAFER IMAM JJ.] Representation of the People Act, (XLlll of 1951), ss. 33, 36- Ci·iminai Procedu1·e Code (V of 1898), ss. 195(1)(b), 476, 476B- Retuming Officer--Deciding on the validity or otherwise of nomina- tion paper tmde1· ss. 33, 36 of the Act-Whether a court within the meaning of ss. 195(1)(b), 476 and 476-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Held that a Returning Officer acting under ss. 33 and 36 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and deciding on the validity or otherwise of a nomination paper is not a court within the mean- ing of ss. 195(1)(b), 476 and 476-B of the Code of Criminal Pro- cedure. Shell Co. of Australia v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation ((1931] A.C. 275 at 296), R. v. London County Council ([1931] 2 K.B. 215), Cooper v. Wilson (rl937J 2 K.B. 309), Huddart Parker and Co. v. Moorehead ((1908] 8 C.L.R. 330), Rola Co. v. The Commonwealth ((19Hj 69 C.L.R. 185), Bliarat Bank Ltd. v. Employees of Bharat Bank Ltd. ( [1950] S.C.R. 459), Mehar Singh v. Emperor, (A.I.R. 1933 Lah. 884), Empernr v. Nanak Chand (A.I.R. 1943 Lah. 208), Har Prasad v. Empero1·, (A.I.R. 1947 All. 139) and Channu Lal v. Rex ([1950] 51 Cr. l f. JQ9), reforred to. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ; Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 1954. Appeal by special leave from thr. Judgment and Order dated the 10th June 1953 of the Punjab High Court at Simla in Criminal Revision No. 86 of 1953 ari,ing out of the Judgment and Order dated the 7th January 1953 of the Court of Sessions Judge, Kamal in Criminal Appeal No. 355 of 1952. N. C. Chatterjee, (Vir Sen Sawhney and Rajinder Narain, with him) for the appellant. Copa! Singh and P. G. Gokhale, for the respon- dent. 1955 N•v mher 24 195~ . Shri Virindar Kt4mar Salyawadi v. The Staid of Puniab !OH SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19551 1955. November 24. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AYYAR J.-Thc appellant was a candidate for election to the House of the People from the Kamal Reserved Constituency during the Ja,t General Electio;is. The proviso to section 33(3) of the Representation of the People Act (XL!II of 1951), omitting what is not material, enacts "that in a constituencv where anv seat is reserved for the Scheduled C~stes, no c~ndiate shall be deemed to be qualified to be chosen to fill that seat unless his nomi- nation paper is accompanied by a declaration veri- fied in the prescribed manner that the candidate is a member of the Scheduled Castes for which the seat has been so reserved and the declaration specifies the particular caste of which the candidate is a member and aiso the area in relation to which such caste is one of the Schedule Castes"_ Rule 6 of the Election Rules provides that t:1e declaration referred to in the above proviso shall be verified by the candidate on oath or solemn affirmation before a Magistrate. Sche- dule II co;itains t11c frmn of nomination paper to he usd, with the terms in which the declaration is to he made by the candidate and verified by the Magistrate: On 5-11-1951 the appelhnt signed two nomination papers, each containing the following declaration: "I hereby declare that I am a member of tbc Balmiki Caste which has been declared to be a Sche- duled Caste in the State of Punjab". The Balmiki Caste is one of the castes declared to he .1 Scheduled Caste under the "Constitution (Sche- duled Castes) Order, 1950". The above declaration was made on solemn affirmation before the First Class Magistrate, Kamal, and the nomination papers with the above declaration were filed before the District Magistrate, Kamal, who was the returning officer. One Jai Ram Sarup, a member of the Chamar caste, which is one of the Scheduled Castes, was also a candid•tc for the seat, and he raised the objection that the ap- pellant was not a Balmiki by caste, and that he was therefore not oualified to stand for election to the re- sen·ed Constitu,ency. Acting on the declaration afore- 2S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1015 said, the returning officer overruled the objection, and accepted the nomination paper of the appellant as valid. At the polling, the appellant got the majo- rity of votes, and on 6-3-1952 he was declared duly elected. On 27-8-1952 Jai R
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.