RANANJAYA SINGH versus BAIJNATH SINGH AND OTHERS

S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

RANANJAYA SINGH

BAIJNATH SINGH AND OTHERS. [MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J., MuKHERJEA, S. R. DAs, VIVIAN BosE, and GHULAM HASAN JJ.]

Representation of the People Act, 1951 (XLlll of 1951), ss. 77, 123(7), 124( 4)-Gist of corrupt practice as defined in s. 123(7).

Section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, shows clearly that in order to amount to corrupt practice the excess expenditure must be incurred or authorised by candidate or his agent and the employment of extra persons must likewise be by candidate or his agent.

The charge against the appellant was, inter alia, that the Manag~r, Assistant Manager, 20 Ziladars of Amethi and their peons and orderlies had worked for the appellant in connection with the election. The view taken by the Election Tribunal that though the estate belonged to the father of the appellant, nevertheless as the appellant was the heir appearent and actually looked after the estate on behalf of the old and infirm proprietor, these servants of the estate were "virtually" his "own" servants and could properly be regarded as having been employed for payment by the appellant, was untenable because though s. 77 of the Act uses the words "who may be employed for payment", without indicating by whom employed or paid, the gist of corrupt practice as defined in s. 123 (7) of the Act is that the employment of extra persons and the incurring or authorising of extra expenditure must be by the candi-date or his agent.

The appellant accordingly, could not in the circumstances of the present case, be held to be guilty of any corrupt practice under s. 123(7) as alleged against him and therefore could not be held to have been guilty of any minor practice under s. 124( 4) of the Act.

Joseph Forster Wilson and Another v. Sir Christopher Furness ( 6 O'Mally & Hardcastle's Report of Election Cases, p. 1}, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISDICTroN : Civil Appeal No. 73 of 1954. Appeal by Spe_cial Leave against the Judgment and Order dated the 11th day of February, 1954, of the Election Tribunal, Allahabad, in Election Petition No. 252 of 1952.

5-88 S. C. India/59

Rananjoya Singh , v. Bajjnath Singh and Otlllrs. D01 J.

N. C. Chatterjee and G. N. Kunzru, (Rameshwar Nath and Rajinder Narain, with them) for the appellant.

Veda Vyasa (G. C. Mathur, with him) for respond-ent No. 1. 1954. September 29. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAs J.-Kunwar Rananjaya Singh, the appellant before us, is the son of Raja Bhagwan Bux Singh of Amethi. He was the successful candidate at an election to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly from Amethi (Central) constituencl': the polling in respect of which took place on the 31st January, 1952, and the result whereof was announced on the 6th February, 1952, and finally published in the Uttar Pradesh State Gazette on the 26th February, 1952. The respondent, Baijnath Singh, who was one of the unsuccessful candidates filed an election petition calling in question the election of the appellant. Three other unsuccessful candidates were also impleaded as respondents. The grounds on which the election was challenged were that the appel-lant himself, together with his own and his father's servants and other dependents and agents, committed various corrupt practices of bribery, exercise of undue influence, publication of false and defamatory state-ments and concealment of election expenses as. per particulars set forth in the petition and the schedules thereto. He prayed that the election of the appellant 'be set aside and that he, the said respondent, be .declared to have been duly elected. The appellant .alone contested the petition. In his written statement he denied each and every one of the charges of corrupt practices levelled against him and he also filed peti-tion of recrimination challenging the conduct of the said respondent at the election. The said respondent .denied the charges imputed to him. Altogether 15 issues were raised, namely, eight on the election petition and ·7 on the petition of recrimination. All the 7 issues ·arising out of the petition of recrimination were found by the tribunal constituted for hearing of the election petition against the appellant and the petition of :recrimination was dismissed. The appellant has not

contested the correctness of those findings before us and nothing further need be said about them. As regards the issues arising on the main election petition the election tribunal found in favour of the appellant on issues Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 but decided issue No. 3 against the appellant. That issue was as follows :-"3. Did respondent No. 1 employ for election more persons than authorised by law ? Did respondent No. 1 incur the expenditure shown in the list as "Heads of other concealed expenditures?" Did he exceed the prescribed limit of expenditure for election ?"The above issue related to charges made out in paragraph 6 of the election petition and the list of particulars set out in Part III of the schedule thereto. The particulars in that part were grouped under two main heads, each containing several items. The first head referred to persons alleged to have been employed on payment far in excess of the prescribed number and not shown in the return of election expenses. The second head of particulars contained other alleged concealed expenditures. The election tribunal held in favour of the appellant on all items of charges under both heads in Part III, except items (ii) and (iii) of the first head. Item (ii l charged that ·all the paid Ziladars of Amethi estate who were about 20 in number assisted by their peons and orderlies worked for the appellant and item No. (iii) complained that the Manager and the Assistant Manager of that estate also worked for him. The tribunal held that the number of all these persons coming within these two categories far exceeded the prescribed number of persons who could be employed in an election and their salary for the period they worked for the appellant in connection with the elec-tion, if added to the admitted election expenses, would exceed the maximum expenditure permissible for contesting single-member constituency. The tribunal, therefore, held that the appellant was guilty, under both these heads, of corrupt practice as defined in section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and was consequently liable to be dealt with under section 100(2) (b) and secrion 145 of that Act.

Rananjaya Sinth Vil Baij nath Singh and Others. Das J.

1954 -Rananjaya Singh v. /Jaijnath Singh and Othtrs. Das J.

S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

the employment of extra hy candidate or his agent.

persons must likewise be

The charge against the appellant was, inter alia, that the Manager, Assistant Manager, 20 Ziladars of Amethi estate and their peons and orderlies had worked for the appellant in connection with the election. The tribunal took the view-we think quite erroneously-that although the estate belonged to the father of the appel-lant, nevertheless, as the appellant was the heir apparent and actually looked after the estate on behalf of the old and infirm proprietor, these servants of the estate were "virtually'~ his "own" servants and could properly be regarded as having been employed for pay-ment by the appellant. The learned advocate appear-ing for the respondent frankly and properly conceded that he could not support this part of the finding of the tribunal. He, however, contended, relying on the language used in section 77, that if the number of persons who worked for payment in connection with the election exceeded the maximum number specified in Schedule VI, the case fell within the mischief of the relevant sections and the rules, no matter who employed them or who made payments to them. It is true that section 77 uses the words "who may be employed for payment" without indicating by whom employed or paid but it must be borne in mind that the gist of corrupt practice as defined in section 123(7) is that the employment of extra persons and the incurring or authorising of excess expenditure must be by the candi-date or his agent. The provisions of rules 117 and 118 are to be read in the light of this definition of corrupt practice. Indeed, these rules follow the language of section 123(7) in that they prohibit the employment of persons other than . or in addition to those specified in Schedule VI, and the incurring or authorising of expenditure in excess of the amount specified in Schedule V, and in both cases by candi-date or his agent. Section 77 must, therefore, be read in manner consonant with section 123(7) and rules 117 and l18. In this view of the matter the observation made by Phillimore J. in Joseph Forster Wilson and

19$4 ........... Rananjaya Singh •• Baijnath Singh and OtMrs. ......... DaJ J,

~ !'ananjaya S}ngh v, Baijnalh Singh and Othtrs. = pasJ.

page 6. ·

On consideration of the relevant provisions of the Act and the rules and the arguments advanced before us we are of opinion that the appellant cannot in the circumstances of this case be held to be guilty of any corrupt practice under section 123(7) as alleged against him. It follows from this that pot having incurred any expenditure over and above what was shown by him in his return of election expenses he cannot be said to have concealed such expenditure and, therefore, he cannot be held to have been guilty of any minor corrupt practice under section 124(4) of the Act. In the view we have ·taken, namely, that these extra men were not employed or paid by the appellant, it is unnecessary, for the purpose of this appeal, to discuss the question whether, if one's own servants are also utilised or employed in the conduct of the election, their salary for the. period they are so utilised or employed should be regarded as election expenses and shown in the return. On that we prefer not to express any opm1on on this occasion. No other point having been raised we allow this appeal with costs.

Appeal allowed.

In re HIRA LAL DIXIT AND TWO OTHERS

[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C. J., MuKHERJEA, S. R. DAs, VIVIAN BosE and GHULAM HASAN JJ.] Cont-;mpt of Court-Court hearing case-Leaflet distributed by party in Court premises during hearing-Language used-Atfecting the fudges-Time and place of distribution-Hindering or obstructing due administration of justice.

The petitioner was an applicant in one of the writ petitions which had been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the validity of U. P. Road J'ransport Act, 1951. During the hearing of the writ petitions leaflet printed in the Hindi language and intituled "Our Transport Department" purporting to be written by the petitioner was distributed in the Court premises. The leaflet contained graphic account of the harassment and indignity said to have been meted out to the writer by the State officers and the then State Minister of Transport in connection with the cancella-tion and eventual restoration of his license in respect of passenger bus.

RanJJnjaya Singh v. Baijnath Singh and Others. Das].

1954 Octob1r 1.