THAKUR VIRENDRA SINGH versus VIMAL KUMAR

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 525 · Decided: 08-09-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

THAKUR VIRENDRA SINGH 
v. 
VIMAL KUMAR 
September 8, 1976 
[H. R. KHANNA, N. L. UNTWALIA AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] 
5Z.5 
Representation of the People Act, 1950-Election Petition-Not accompanied 
by impugned pamphlet-If liable to be rejected-Printer-If could be called an 
accomplice-Failure to send pamphlet to District Magistrate as required by S. 
127-A (2)-If makes the Printer an accomplice. 
The respondent, who was an unsuccessful candidate in the general election 
to the State Assembly, impugned the appellant's election on the ground that be 
had committed a corrupt practice within the me:ming of s. lOO(l)(b) of the 
Representation of the People Act, 1950, in that he had printed and circ,ulated 
a pamphlet maligning the respondent. 
Allowing the petition, the High Court 
set aside the election. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant as a. 
preliminary objection (i) that since the election petition served on the appellant 
was not accompanied by a copy of the impugned pamphlet, the petition_ was 
liable to be dismissed and (ii) tha.t the evidence of the Manager (P.W. 24) 
of the Press in which the pamphlet had been printed, being that of an accom-
plice could not be relied upon. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : (1) (a) The petition could not have been dismissed in view of 
s. 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure which clearly says that a defect which does 
not affect the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the Court cannot invalidMe 
the decision. 
[529 Dl 
(b) It is well settled that failure to give particnlars of printing of the pampll-
let is not detrimental and cannot lead to the dismissal of the petition. 
[529 D] 
Prabhu Narayan v. A.K. Srivastava, [1975) 3 S.C.C. 788 referred to. 
lrb the instant case, the allegations of corrupt practice and particulars there-
of given in the election petition were sufficiently clear and precise. 
The affidavit 
conforms to the form prescribed for the purpose. 
Moreover, the appellant 
had an easy access to the Court record and could have no difficulty in gathering 
the necessary material to meet the case set up by the respondent by a reference 
to the leafet. 
[529 CJ 
(2) (a) The mere fact that P.W. 24 printed the offending leaflet could not 
clothe him with the character of a guilty associate or partner in the crime of 
corrupt practice within the meaning of s. 123 ( 4) of the Act. 
[530 DJ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
(b) Moreover, the omission on the part of P.W. 24 to send to the concerned 
District Magistrate a copy each of the declaration and the printed material as 
required by s. 127-A(2) of the Act may lax him open to prosecution for an 
G 
offence under sub-s. ( 4) of that section but would not make him an accomplice 
or render his statement untrustworthy. [530 F] 
In the instant case, P.W. 24 was neither an election agent of the appellant 
nor was there any allegation tha•t he published the offending leaflet. 
Despite 
the searching cross-examination to which he was subjected, his credit had re-
mained unshaken. 
[530 El 
Crv1L APPELLATE JuRisDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1212 of 1974. 
H 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26-4-74 of the Madhya Pra-
desh High Court in Election Petition No. 4/72. 
526 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1977] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Hardayal Hardy and S. K. Gambhir, for the Appellant. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
D. V. Patel, B. Jindal, M.M.L. Srivastava and E. C. Agaiwala, 
f~r the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
JAsWANT SINGH, J.-This appeal under section 116-A of the Re-
presentation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 
Act') is cli'rected against the judgment and order dated April 26, 1974. 
of Indore Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh whereby the 
election of the appellant to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly 
from Khachrod Assembly Constituency No. 
247 at the general 
elections of 1972 has been set aside under section lOO(l)(b) 
of the Act on the election petition filed by Vimal Kumar Choudhury, 
respondent herein, who was an elector in the said constituency. 
Pursuant to the notifications issued under section 30 of the Act 
cajling upon the aforesaid constituency to elect a member to the M.P. 
Legislative Assembly, nomination papers by the appellant and some 
others were filed on February 8, 1972. On scrutiny of the nomina-
ti'On papers held by the Returning Officer on February 9, 1972, nomi-
nation of 8 candidates was found valid. Out of the said 8 candidates, 
3 withdrew thei

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