LexSRI B. RAJGOPALA RAO & ANR. versus SRI APPAYYA DORA HANUMANTHU & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SRI B. RAJGOPALA RAO & ANR. v. SRI APPAYYA DORA HANUMANTHU & ORS. SEPTEMBER 29, 1989 [M.H. KANIA, S. RANGANATHAN AND K.N. SAIKIA, JJ.] The Representation of the People Act, 1951- Section 123(1)- (A)(b)-Corrupt practices-Whether certain statements made and published through the Publicity Department of the Govt. in newspapers offering rice and dhoties on subsidised rates to the economically back- ward classes of people amount to corrupt practice. These two appeals arise out of the judgments in two Election Petitions before the Andhra Pradesh High Court questioning the elec- tion of respondent No. 1 as a Member of Parliament from Srikakulam A B c No. 1 Parliamentary constituency in the 8th General Election to the House of the Peopple on the ground that Shri N .1:. Rama Rao the Chief D Minister of Andhra Pradesh as well as respondent No. 1 gave certain speeches and certain advertisements. were got published by Shri N.T. Rama Rao through the Publicity Department of the Govt. of Andhra Pradesh in the newspapers containing certain statements which are al- leged to amount ·.to a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123(l)(A) of the Representation of the People Act 1951. E Dismissing the appeals, this Court, HELD: That these advertisements and speeches amount to no- thing more than statements extolling the achievements of the Govern: ment of the State f!f Andbra Pradesh under the Telegu Desham party F headed by N. T .. Rama Rao, Chief Minister and contaiR'normal election promises and these advertisements donot amount to corrupt practices falling within the scope of sub-clause (b) of clause (A) of sub-section (I) of Section 123 of the said Act. [337H; 338A] Ghasi Ram v. Dal Singh & Ors., [1968] 3 SCR 102 at pp. 109-110; G Bhanu Kumar Shastri v. Mahal Lal Sukhadia & Ors., [1971] 3 SCR 522 at p. 543 and Harjit Singh Mann v. S. Umrao Singh & Ors., [1980] 2 SCR 501 at p. 510, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 484 & 485'of 1987. 1 H 335 336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R. A From the Judgment and Order dated 2.12.1986 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Election Petition Nos. 3 & 5 of 1985. P.P. Rao, P. Krishna Rao, V.A. Babu and K.R. Nagaraja for the Appellants. B Shanti Bhushan, G. Narasimhulu and T.V.S.N. Chari for th~ Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KANIA, J. These two appeals arise out of the judgments in two C Election Petitions in the Andhra Pradesh High Court questioning the election of respondent No. 1 as a Member of Parliament from Srikakulam No. 1 Parliamentary Constituency in the 8th General Elec- tion to the House of the People. The points raised in these appeals are common and so are the relevant facts; and, hence, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. We propose to take note of I) only the few facts which are necessary for the appreciation of the controversy before us. The polling date for the said election along with other parlia- mentary elections in the State of Andhra Pradesh was December 27, 1984 but in Srikakulam No. 1 Parliamentary Constituency the polling E was countermanded and the date of polling was later fixed ·on January 78, 1985. In both the Election Petitions the election of respondent No. 1 was questioned mainly on the ground that Shri N.T. Rama Rao;the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh as. well as the President of the Telugu Desam Party as well as responaent N. 1 gave certain speeches and certain advertisements were got published by Shri N. T. Rama Rao F through the Publicity Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh in the newspapers containing certain statements which are alleged to amount to a corrupt practice within the meaning of the said term in section 123(1)(A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). The main question canvassed before us is whether the statements contained in these G aforesaid advertisements amount to a corrupt practice under section 123(1)(A)(b) of the said Act. Section 123(1)(A)(b) of the said Act runs as follows: H "123. Corrupt practices The following shall be deemed to-be corrupt practises for the purposes of this Act: B.R. RAO v. A.D. HANUMANTHU [KANIA, J.[ 337 ( 1) 'Bribery', that is to say- (A) any gift, offer or promise by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent of any gratificatio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.