# Jay Veer Singh v. Hari Om Yadav

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 160
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-11-10
- **Case number:** Election Petition No. 4 of 2017
- **Bench:** Manoj Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jay-veer-singh-v-hari-om-yadav-46564
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

A. Civil Law-The Representation of People Act,
1951-Sections 81, 123(1)- to declare the
election of the respondent as Member of
11 All. Jay Veer Singh Vs. Hari Om Yadav
161
Legislative Assembly as null and void on the
ground of corrupt practice-in absence of any
foundational plea of corrupt practice, the
election petition may be rejected under Order
VII Rule 11 CPC-whether the work projects
promised, completed or executed by way of a
bargain to induce voters to vote for the
returned
candidate
or
an
exercise
to
complete projects already undertaken by the
Zila Panchayat in ordinary course of its
business is a matter of evidence and no
definite opinion can be formed at the stage
while addressing the prayer to reject the
election petition under Order VII Rule 11
CPC-an electoral promise to the voters in
general
to
ameliorate
the
condition
or
improve
the
general
condition
of
their
constituency may not by itself amount to a
corrupt practice-in the instant case the
argument that the returned candidate had
been sitting Member of the Legislative
Assembly and had a duty towards the
constituency;
and
that
his
son
was
a
President of Zila Panchayat having its own
obligations
to
the
public
therefore
the
alleged promise/execution of work per se,
would not amount to corrupt practices is a
matter to be examined on the weight of the
evidence led by the parties-there is nothing
in the election petition to suggest that the
work carried out was sanctioned from before;
and that it was completed as a matter of
course.(Para 1 to 15)

The application is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,817 of 44,286. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39817 for what follows._

160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

28. Let juvenile 'X' through his natural
guardian/father be released on bail in Case
Crime No. 162 of 2020 under Sections 302, 34
of I.P.C. Police Station- Bhojpur District-
Moradabad furnishes a personal bond on his
father (Sipte Hasan) with two sureties of his
relatives each in the like amount to the
satisfaction
of
Juvenile
Justice
Board,
Moradabad, subject to the following conditions:

(i) Natural guardian/father will furnish
an undertaking that upon release on bail juvenile
'X' will not be permitted to go into contact or
association with any known criminal or allowed
to be exposed to any moral, physical, or
psychological danger and further that the father
will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the
offence.

(ii) Natural guardian/father will further
furnish an undertaking to the effect that the
juvenile will pursue his study at the appropriate
level which he would be encouraged to do
besides other constructive activities and not
allowed to waste his time in unproductive and
excessive recreational pursuits.

(iii)
Juvenile
and
natural
guardian/father will report to the Probation
Officer on the first Monday of every calendar
month commencing with the first Monday of
December 2021, and if during any calendar
month the first Monday falls on a holiday, then
on the following working day.

(iv) The Probation Officer will keep a
strict vigil on the activities of the juvenile and
regularly draw up his social investigation report
that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice
Board, Moradabad, on such a periodical basis as
the Juvenile Justice Board may determine.

29. Before parting with the judgment, it is
necessary to point out that the identity of the
juvenile in the present matter has been disclosed
in the impugned judgment and order which
violates the right to privacy and confidentiality
of the juvenile and against the law laid down by
the Supreme Court in Shilpa Mittal v. NCT
Delhi, (2020) 2 SCC 787 wherein, it was held
that the identity of the juvenile shall not be
disclosed.

30. The present revision has been filed by
Juvenile 'X' through his natural guardian/father.
The memo of parties discloses the name of the
juvenile. The Registry is directed to conceal the
names of juvenile from the cause list as well as
the record of this case so that the names and
identities are not disclosed as directed by the
Supreme Court in Shilpa Mittal (supra).

31. Let a copy of the instant judgment shall
be transmitted by the Registry of this Court to all
the District Judges within one week for
circulation to all the Juvenile Justice Boards and
Children's Courts, constituted under the "JJ Act,
2015". The office is further directed to enter the
judgment in compliance register maintained for
the purpose of the Court.
----------
(2021)11ILR A160
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ MISRA, J.

Election Petition No. 4 of 2017

Jay Veer Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Hari Om Yadav ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Jaiveer Singh(In Person), Sri K.R. Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Shivam Yadav, Sri Shaurav Yadav, Sri Aditya
Yadav

A. Civil Law-The Representation of People Act,
1951-Sections 81, 123(1)- to declare the
election of the respondent as Member of
11 All. Jay Veer Singh Vs. Hari Om Yadav
161
Legislative Assembly as null and void on the
ground of corrupt practice-in absence of any
foundational plea of corrupt practice, the
election petition may be rejected under Order
VII Rule 11 CPC-whether the work projects
promised, completed or executed by way of a
bargain to induce voters to vote for the
returned
candidate
or
an
exercise
to
complete projects already undertaken by the
Zila Panchayat in ordinary course of its
business is a matter of evidence and no
definite opinion can be formed at the stage
while addressing the prayer to reject the
election petition under Order VII Rule 11
CPC-an electoral promise to the voters in
general
to
ameliorate
the
condition
or
improve
the
general
condition
of
their
constituency may not by itself amount to a
corrupt practice-in the instant case the
argument that the returned candidate had
been sitting Member of the Legislative
Assembly and had a duty towards the
constituency;
and
that
his
son
was
a
President of Zila Panchayat having its own
obligations
to
the
public
therefore
the
alleged promise/execution of work per se,
would not amount to corrupt practices is a
matter to be examined on the weight of the
evidence led by the parties-there is nothing
in the election petition to suggest that the
work carried out was sanctioned from before;
and that it was completed as a matter of
course.(Para 1 to 15)

The application is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ghasi Ram Vs Dal Singh & ors. (1968) AIR SC 1191

2. Mohan Singh Vs Bhanwar Lal (1964) AIR SC 1366

3. Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal Vs Rajeev Gandhi
(1987) Supp. SCC 93

4. Samant N. Balkrishna Vs George Fernandez (1969)
3 SCC 238

5. Harjit Singh Mann Vs S. Umrao Singh & ors. (1980)
1 SCC 713

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Misra, J.)

In Re:- Civil Misc. Application No.2 of
2019 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC

1. Jay Veer Singh (the election petitioner)
has filed Election Petition No.4 of 2017, under
section 81 of The Representation of the People
Act, 1951 (the 1951 Act) to declare the election
of the respondent Hari Om Yadav as Member of
Legislative
Assembly
from
99
Sirsaganj
Assembly Constituency, District Farrukhabad as
null and void and to set aside the same. The
declaration as prayed for is sought on the ground
that the respondent committed the corrupt
practice of bribery, as defined in sub-section (1)
of Section 123 of the 1951 Act, by offering;
promising and gifting to the electors of the
constituency road, etc on the condition that they
agree to vote for him.

2. The averments made in the election
petition to demonstrate commission of corrupt
practice of bribery are contained in paragraphs
10 to 33 of the petition, which are extracted
below:-

"10. That Sri Vijay Pratap Yadav the
son of the respondent Hari Om Yadav is the
President
(Chairman)
of
Zila
Panchayat
Firozabad. Being the son of the respondent Sri
Vijay Pratap Yadav always accompanied the
respondent
during
the
campaign
in
the
constituency.

11. That as the respondent was having
very bad reputation in the constituency therefore
he adopted a very clever mode of corrupt
practice of bribery to the electors to vote for
him. Where ever the respondent went for
campaign during the election, he offered and
promised the electors that he will get a road
constructed at the doorstep of electors only if
they will vote for him otherwise the road will not
be constructed. He also assured that his son is
the President of Zila Panchayat Firozabad and
he (the respondent) will fullfil their promise if
the electors promise to vote for respondent.
162 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

12. That the election of 99 Sirsaganj
Legislative Assembly Constituency was held in 1st
phase of election. From the said election the
notification was issued on 17.01.2017. The Model
Code of Conduct was already imposed by the
Election Commission of India upon declaration of
the dates of the election.

13. That the respondent filed his
nomination paper on 23.01.2017 and after filing
the nomination paper he became a candidate at
the election as defined under Section 79(b) of
Representation of the People Act, 1951.

14. That after being a candidate in the
election the respondent went to village Karikhera,
Gram Panchayat Karikhera, Block Araon, which
is one of the village in the constituency, on
25.01.2017 at about 2.00 P.M. at the Temple in the
village. The respondent was accompanied by
following persons-

Vijay Pratap alias Chhotu Yadav son of
Harim Om Yadav, President Zila Panchayat
Firozabad (son of the respondent).

Radha Krishna Rajput, President of
Samajwadi Party Vidhan Sabha Sirsaganj,
resident of village Nagla Khandari, Post
Ukhraind, District Firozabad.

Mata Deen Dhangar son of Kali
Charan, Member Zila Panchayat Firozabad,
resident of village Nagla Khushhali, Post Karhara,
District Firozabad.

Pradeep Singh son of Netra Pal Singh
resident of Kaurara Road, Sirsaganj, District
Firozabad.

Jogendra Yadav, Block Pramukh, Block
Madanpur, resident of Village and Post Garhsaan,
District Firozabad.

Durg Pal Yadav (D.P. Yadav), Member
Zila Panchayat Firozabad, resident of Sirsaganj,
District Firozabad.

The respondent along with aforesaid
persons went in four vehicles with registration
numbers UP 83 W 4444, UP 83 AK 4444, UP 83 X
0001 and UP 83 Z 4545.

15. That when the respondent along with
the aforesaid persons reached at the Temple in
village Karikhera at 2.00 P.M. then a number of
villagers get collected at the said place including
Ram Bharose son of Charan Das, Dauji Ram son
of Tulsi Ram, Rahul son of Mulayam Singh and
Chandra Pal son of Raghubar Dayal, all the
resident of village Karikhera. The respondent said
to them that there is no road and he will get a road
constructed for them before the polling of votes
with the condition that they shall vote for
respondent in lieu of the said road. The villagers
agreed to it. After a short deliberation it was
decided that the respondent shall get a Cement
Concrete (CC) road constructed before poll from
the house of Ram Bharose up to the house of Ram
Nath and from the house of Vijai Singh up to the
house of Ram Nath. The respondent immediately
directed his son Vijay Pratap Singh to get the road
constructed before poll and he agreed for the
same.

16. That as per offer and promise
made by the respondent the construction of the
road started from 26.01.2017 and the material
for construction of the road was also collected
at the said place. The construction of the road
was as per promise made by the respondent for
getting the votes of the electors of the village in
lieu of the said road. The road completed before
the date of poll. The aforementioned persons
told the aforesaid fact to the petitioner.

17. That the respondent also went to
village Nagla Khandari, Gram Panchayat
Karikhera, Block Araon, which is one of the
village in the constituency, on 25.01.2017 at
about 4.00 P.M. at the Chabutara of Anar
Singh's house in the village. The respondent was
accompanied by following persons-

Vijay Pratap Yadav alias Chhotu
Yadav son of Hari Om Yadav, President Zila
Panchayat Firozabad (son of the respondent).

Radha Krishna Rajput, President of
Samajwadi Party Vidhan Sabha Sirsaganj,
resident of village Nagla Khandari, Post
Ukhraind, District Firozabad.

Mata Deen Dhangar son of Kali
Charan, Member Zila Panchayat Firozabad,
11 All. Jay Veer Singh Vs. Hari Om Yadav
163
resident of Village Nagla Khushhali, Post
Karhara, District Firozabad.

Pradeep Singh son of Netra Pal Singh
resident of Kaurara Road, Sirsaganj, District
Firozabad.

Jogendra Yadav, Block Pramukh,
Block Madanpur, resident of Village and Post
Garhsaan, District Firozabad.

Durg
Pal
Yadav
(D.P.
Yadav),
Member Zila Panchayat Firozabad, resident of
Sirsaganj, District Firozabad.

The respondent along with aforesaid
persons went in four vehicles with registration
numbers UP 83 W 4444, UP 83 AK 4444, UP 83
X 0001 and UP 83 Z 4545.

18. That when the respondent along
with the aforesaid persons reached at the
Chabutara of Anar Singh's house in village
Nagla Khandari at 4.00 P.M. then a number of
villagers collected at the said place including
Ajeet Rajput son of Tara Singh, Indra Pal
Singh son of Pati Ram, Ajab Singh son of
Kunwar Sen and Dipty Singh son of Mahtab
Singh, all residents of village Nagla Khandari.
The respondent said to them that he will get a
road constructed for them before the polling
of votes with the condition that they shall vote
for respondent in lieu of the said road. The
villagers
agreed
to
it.
After
a
short
deliberation
it
was
decided
that
the
respondent shall get a Cement Concrete (CC)
road constructed before poll from the house of
Diwari Lal up to the house of Ram Prakash.
The respondent immediately directed his son
Vijay
Pratap
Yadav
to
get
the
road
constructed before poll and he agreed for the
same.

19. That as per offer and promise
made by the respondent the construction of the
road started from 27.01.2017 and the material
for construction of the road was also collected
at the said place. The construction of the road
was as per promise made by the respondent
for getting the votes of the electors of the
village in lieu of the said road. The road
completed before the date of poll. The
aforementioned persons told the aforesaid fact
to the petitioner.

20. That the respondent also went to
village
Fakkarpur,
Gram
Panchayat
Fakkarpur, Block Araon, which is one of the
village in the constituency, on 27.01.2017 at
about 11.00 A.M. at the Chabutara of Omkar's
house in the village. The respondent was
accompanied by following persons-

Vijay Pratap Yadav alias Chhotu
Yadav son of Hari Om Yadav, President Zila
Panchayat Firozabad (son of the respondent).

Radha Krishna Rajput, President of
Samajwadi Party Vidhan Sabha Sirsaganj,
resident of village Nagla Khandari, Post
Ukhraind, District Firozabad.

Mata Deen Dhangar son of Kali
Charan, Member Zila Panchayat Firozabad,
resident of Village Nagla Khushhali, Post
Karhara, District Firozabad.

Pradeep Singh son of Netra Pal
Singh resident of Kaurara Road, Sirsaganj,
District Firozabad.

Jogendra Yadav, Block Pramukh,
Block Madanpur, resident of Village and Post
Garhsaan, District Firozabad.

Durg
Pal
Yadav
(D.P.
Yadav),
Member Zila Panchayat Firozabad, resident of
Sirsaganj, District Firozabad.

The respondent along with aforesaid
persons went in four vehicles with registration
numbers UP 83 W 4444, UP 83 AK 4444, UP 83
X 0001 and UP 83 Z 4545.

21. That when the respondent along
with the aforesaid persons reached at the
Chabutara
of
Omkar's
house
in
village
Fakkarpur at 11.00 A.M. then a number of
villagers got collected at the said place
including Ankit Rajput son of Lalta Prasad,
Subodh son of Vidya Ram, Laxman Singh son of
Rohan Singh and Prithvi Raj son of Satya Dev
Singh, all residents of village Fakkarpur. The
respondent said to them that he will get a road
constructed for them before the polling of votes
164 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
with the condition that they shall vote for
respondent in lieu of the said road. The villagers
agreed to it. After a short deliberation it was
decided that the respondent shall get a Cement
Concrete (CC) road constructed before poll
from the house of Mansha Ram up to the house
of Vijai Pal. The respondent immediately
directed his son Vijay Pratap Yadav to get the
road constructed before poll and he agreed for
the same.

22. That as per offer and promise
made by the respondent the construction of the
road started from 29.01.2017 and the material
for construction of the road was also collected
at the said place. The construction of the road
was as per promise made by the respondent for
getting the votes of the electors of the village in
lieu of the said road. The road completed before
the date of poll. The aforementioned persons
told the aforesaid fact to the petitioner.

23. That thereafter the respondent
along with all the aforesaid persons proceeded
to nearby village Naadau, Gram Panchayat
Bahadurpur, Block Araon and reached there at
about 2.00 P.M. in front of the house of Hare
Lal. Within a short while some of the villagers
collected at the said place including Vinod Singh
son of Ujagar Singh, Arun Kumar son of
Jagannath Singh, Sandeep son of Jai Pal Singh,
Ranjeet Singh son of Preetam Singh and
Pramod Singh son of Ujagar Singh. The
villagers made complaint about absence of road
then the respondent made an offer that he will
get the road constructed but the villagers have
to vote for him in lieu of the road. It was decided
that the road will be constructed from the house
of Netra Pal up to the house of Ganga Singh.
The villagers agreed and the respondent
directed his son Vijay Pratap Yadav to get the
Cement Concrete (CC) road constructed before
the poll and he agreed for the same.

24. That as per offer and promise
made by the respondent the construction of the
road started from 29.01.2017 and the material
for construction of the road was also collected
at the said place. The construction of the road
was as per promise made by the respondent for
getting the votes of the electors of the village in
lieu of the said road. The road completed before
the date of poll. The aforementioned persons
told the aforesaid fact to the petitioner.
25. That the respondent also went to village
Rudhaini, Gram Panchayat Rudhanini, Block
Araon, which is one of the village in the
constituency, on 28.01.2017 at about 01.00 P.M.
at the Chabutara of the house of Veerul Kashyap
in the village. The respondent was accompanied
by following persons-

Vijay Pratap Yadav alias Chhotu
Yadav son of Hari Om Yadav, President Zila
Panchayat Firozabad (son of the respondent).

Radha Krishna Rajput, President of
Samajwadi Party Vidhan Sabha Sirsaganj,
resident of village Nagla Khandari, Post
Ukhraind, District Firozabad.

Mata Deen Dhangar son of Kali
Charan, Member Zila Panchayat Firozabad,
resident of Village Nagla Khushhali, Post
Karhara, District Firozabad.

Pradeep Singh son of Netra Pal Singh
resident of Kaurara Road, Sirsaganj, District
Firozabad.

Jogendra Yadav, Block Pramukh,
Block Madanpur, resident of Village and Post
Garhsaan, District Firozabad.

Durg
Pal
Yadav
(D.P.
Yadav),
Member Zila Panchayat Firozabad, resident of
Sirsaganj, District Firozabad.

Awadhesh Baghel alias Papai son of
ex-minister Late Sunder Singh Baghel resident
of village Kathphori, Post Bachhela-Bachheli,
District Firozabad

The respondent along with aforesaid
persons went in four vehicles with registration
numbers UP 83 W 4444, UP 83 AK 4444, UP 83
X 0001 and UP 83 Z 4545.

26. That when the respondent along
with the aforesaid persons reached at the
Chabutara of the house of Veerul Kashyap in
village Rudhaini at 01.00 P.M. then a number of
11 All. Jay Veer Singh Vs. Hari Om Yadav
165
villagers get collected at the said place
including Rohit Tenguria son of Vidya Shankar,
Arjan Singh son of Gulab Singh, Milan son of
Mukut Singh, Mohit son of Yatesh and Chandra
Kumar son of Sobaran Singh, all the resident of
village Rudhaini. The respondent said to them
that he will get a road constructed for them
before the polling of votes with the condition
that they shall vote for respondent in lieu of the
said road. The villagers agreed to it. After a
short deliberation it was decided that the
respondent shall get a Cement Concrete (CC)
road constructed before poll from the house of
Balbir up to the house of Khunni Lal. The
respondent also said that there is no marriage
hall (Barat Ghar) in the village and he will give
Gitti and Sand for the same but the villagers
have to vote for him. The villagers agreed for
the same. The respondent immediately directed
his son Vijay Pratap Yadav to get the road
constructed and to dump the Gitti and Sand for
Barat Ghar before poll and he agreed for the
same.

27. That as per offer and promise
made by the respondent the construction of
the road started from 30.01.2017 and Gitti
and Sand for construction of Barat Ghar
was dumped in the village. The construction
of the road was as per promise made by the
respondent for getting the votes of the
electors of the village in lieu of the said
road. The road completed before the date of
poll. The aforementioned persons told the
aforesaid fact to the petitioner.

28. That the respondent also went
to
village
Chirhuli,
Gram
Panchayat
Chirhuli, Block Araon, which is one of the
village in the constituency, on 29.01.2017 at
about 11.00 A.M. at S.F. Public School in
the
village.
The
respondent
was
accompanied by following persons-

Vijay Pratap Yadav alias Chhotu
Yadav son of Hari Om Yadav, President Zila
Panchayat
Firozabad
(son
of
the
respondent).

Radha Krishna Rajput, President of
Samajwadi Party Vidhan Sabha Sirsaganj,
resident of village Nagla Khandari, Post
Ukhraind, District Firozabad.

Mata Deen Dhangar son of Kali
Charan, Member Zila Panchayat Firozabad,
resident of Village Nagla Khushhali, Post
Karhara, District Firozabad.

Pradeep Singh son of Netra Pal
Singh resident of Kaurara Road, Sirsaganj,
District Firozabad.

Jogendra Yadav, Block Pramukh,
Block Madanpur, resident of Village and
Post Garhsaan, District Firozabad.

Durg Pal Yadav (D.P. Yadav),
Member Zila Panchayat Firozabad, resident
of Sirsaganj, District Firozabad.

The
respondent
along
with
aforesaid persons went in four vehicles with
registration numbers UP 83 W 4444, UP 83
AK 4444, UP 83 X 0001 and UP 83 Z 4545.

29. That when the respondent along
with the aforesaid persons reached at S.F.
Public School in village Chirhuli at 11.00 A.M.
then a number of villagers were collected at the
said place including Sunny Tomar son of
Santosh Singh, Shivraj Baghel son of Ram Singh
and Suresh Tomar son of Kedar Singh all
resident of village Chirhuli. The respondent said
to them that he will get a road constructed for
them before the polling of votes with the
condition that they shall vote for respondent in
lieu of the said road. The villagers agreed to it.
After a short deliberation it was decided that the
respondent shall get a Cement Concrete (CC)
road constructed before poll from big water tank
up to the house Mohabbat Ali, from house of
Babu Mahtar up to the school and from the
house of Shyam Veer Baghel up to the house of
Ram
Chandra
Baghel.
The
respondent
immediately directed his son Vijay Pratap Yadav
to get the road constructed before poll and he
agreed for the same.

30. That as per offer and promise
made by the respondent the construction of the
166 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
road started from 02.02.2017 and the material
for construction of the road was also collected
at the said place. The construction of the road
was as per promise made by the respondent for
getting the votes of the electors of the village in
lieu of the said road. The road completed before
the date of poll. The aforementioned persons
told the aforesaid fact to the petitioner.

31. That the respondent also went to
village Khaurai, Gram Panchayat Khaurai
Ajnaura, Block Madanpur, which is one of the
village in the constituency, on 31.01.2017 at
about 03.00 P.M. in front of the house of Atul
Baghel in the village. The respondent was
accompanied by following persons-

Vijay Pratap Yadav alias Chhotu
Yadav son of Hari Om Yadav, President Zila
Panchayat
 Firozabad (son of the respondent).

Radha Krishna Rajput, President of
Samajwadi Party Vidhan Sabha Sirsaganj,
resident of village Nagla Khandari, Post
Ukhraind, District Firozabad.

Mata Deen Dhangar son of Kali
Charan, Member Zila Panchayat Firozabad,
resident of Village Nagla Khushhali, Post
Karhara, District Firozabad.

Pradeep Singh son of Netra Pal Singh
resident of Kaurara Road, Sirsaganj, District
Firozabad.

Jogendra Yadav, Block Pramukh,
Block Madanpur, resident of Village and Post
Garhsaan, District Firozabad.

Durg
Pal
Yadav
(D.P.
Yadav),
Member Zila Panchayat Firozabad, resident of
Sirsaganj, District Firozabad.

Awadhesh Baghel alias Papai son of
ex-minister Late Sunder Singh Baghel resident
of village Kathphori, Post Bachhela-Bachheli,
District Firozabad.

The respondent along with aforesaid
persons went in four vehicles with registration
numbers UP 83 W 4444, UP 83 AK 4444, UP 83
X 0001 and UP 83 Z 4545.

32. That when the respondent along
with the aforesaid persons reached in front of
Atul Baghel's house in village Khaurai at 03.00
P.M. then a number of villagers were collected
at the said place including Jaskaran Pandey son
of Siya Ram Pandey and Mahi Pal Singh son of
Ram Gopal both residents of village Khaurai.
The respondent said to them that he will get a
road constructed for them before the polling of
votes with the condition that they shall vote for
respondent in lieu of the said road. The villagers
agreed to it. After a short deliberation it was
decided that the respondent shall get a Cement
Concrete (CC) road constructed before poll
from the house of Mukut Singh Baghel up to the
house of Shiv Raj Singh Kushwah. The
respondent immediately directed his son Vijay
Pratap Yadav to get the road constructed before
poll and he agreed for the same.

33. That as per offer and promise
made by the respondent the construction of the
road started from 01.02.2017 and the material
for construction of the road was also collected
at the said place. The construction of the road
was as per promise made by the respondent for
getting the votes of the electors of the village in
lieu of the said road. The road completed before
the date of poll. The aforementioned persons
told the aforesaid fact to the petitioner."

3. Before the Court proceeds to notice and
address the grounds on which rejection of the
election petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
is sought, it would be appropriate to notice the
notified relevant dates of the election in
question. These are:-

Last date for nomination 24.01.2017

Date for scrutiny of nomination papers
25.01.2017

Date for withdrawal of Candidature
27.01.2017

Date for poll 11.02.2017

Date for counting of votes 11.03.2017
11 All. Jay Veer Singh Vs. Hari Om Yadav
167

Date
of
declaration
of
result
11.03.2017

4. I have heard Sri Shivam Yadav for the
returned candidate (i.e. the respondent) and Sri
K.R. Singh for the election petitioner on the
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

5. On behalf of the returned candidate, Sri
Shivam Yadav urged that assuming the
averments made in the election petition to be
correct, no case of bribery is made out for the
following reasons: (a) that there is no offer or
promise or gift to any person in particular;
rather, the allegation is with regard to carrying
out development work for the benefit of public
at large which cannot be considered bribe more
so when it is done at the instance of a member of
legislative assembly returned in the previous
election as is the returned candidate; (b) that
there is no claim that the returned candidate
offered any bribe to any person in particular for
votes; (c) that carrying out development work in
the constituency per se is not a corrupt practice;
(d) that the work as alleged was carried out by
the returned candidate's son who completed the
work in the capacity of a President of Zila
Panchayat therefore, the work, if any, carried out
by Zila Panchayat, would not amount to a
corrupt practice or bribe by the candidate; (e)
that the allegations are made on the basis of
information received without disclosing as to
who had passed on the information; and (f) that
there is no disclosure by the election petitioner
as to the number of votes secured by him as well
as the returned candidate from the concerned
villages to demonstrate whether the votes from
those villages had a material impact on the
election. To support his contentions, Shri
Shivam Yadav cited following decisions: (i)
AIR 1968 SC 1191 - Ghasi Ram Vs. Dal Singh
& Ors; (ii) AIR 1964 SC 1366 - Mohan Singh
Vs. Bhanwar Lal; and (iii) 1987 (Supp) SCC
93 - Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal Vs.
Rajeev Gandhi.

6. Per Contra, Sri K.R. Singh, for the
election
petitioner,
submitted
that
while
addressing the issue whether the plaint/election
petition is liable to be rejected under Order VII
Rule 11 CPC only the averments made therein
are to be read as a whole to find out whether
they disclose a cause of action to sustain the
relief sought. At this stage, the factual
correctness of the allegations is not to be
examined and, therefore, the allegations have to
be taken on their face value. Whether those
allegations are correct or not would have to be
tested after leading of evidence. He argued that,
according to the averments, the returned
candidate extended promises as a bargain for
votes after submission of nomination and those
promises were allegedly fulfilled before the
polling date. All this clearly amounted to corrupt
practice of bribery for which the election is
liable to be annulled. He submitted that whether
the work projects were part of the scheduled
work of Zila Panchayat or not, is a matter of
evidence. But, as it is not the case in the election
petition that the work alleged was part of the
scheduled work of Zila Panchayat, merely
because the son of the returned candidate is a
Zila Panchayat President, it cannot be made
basis to assume that the Zila Panchayat
performed the work already sanctioned by it. He
also submitted that once the use of corrupt
practices
by
the
returned
candidate
is
substantiated, under section 100 (1) (b) of the
1951 Act, it is immaterial whether the margin of
defeat is large or small because the election
would be rendered void.

7. Having noticed the rival submissions,
before I proceed to weigh the merit of the rival
submissions, it be observed that at the stage of
consideration of a prayer to reject the plaint /
election petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC,
it is well settled, the correctness of the
allegations is not to be tested on the basis of
material produced by the defendant/ respondent.
At this stage, the averments made in the plaint or
168 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the petition, as the case may be, are alone to be
considered as a whole to find out whether they
disclose a cause of action to sustain the prayer
made. In the instant case, therefore, what is to be
seen is whether the averments in the election
petition, as they stand, make out a case of
Bribery as contemplated in Section 123 of the
1951 Act.

8. Section 123 of the 1951 Act defines
corrupt practices and sub-section (1) thereof
deals with the corrupt practice of Bribery. It
provides as follows:-

"123.
Corrupt
practices.--The
following shall be deemed to be corrupt
practices for the purposes of this Act:--

(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 gratification, to any
person whomsoever, with the object, directly
or indirectly of inducing--

(a) a person to stand or not to stand
as, or to withdraw or not to withdraw from
being a candidate at an election, or

(b) an elector to vote or refrain
from voting at an election, or as a reward to-
-

(i) a person for having so stood or
not stood, or for having withdrawn or not
having withdrawn his candidature; or

(ii) an elector for having voted or
refrained from voting;

(B) the receipt of, or agreement to
receive, any gratification, whether as a
motive or a reward--

(a) by a person for standing or not
standing as, or for withdrawing or not
withdrawing from being, a candidate; or

(b) by any person whomsoever for
himself or any other person for voting or
refraining
from
voting,
or
inducing
or
attempting to induce any elector to vote or
refrain from voting, or any candidate to
withdraw or not to withdraw his candidature.

Explanation.--For the purposes of this
clause the term "gratification" is not restricted
to pecuniary gratifications or gratifications
estimable in money and it includes all forms of
entertainment and all forms of employment for
reward but it does not include the payment of
any expenses bona fide incurred at, or for the
purpose of, any election and duly entered in the
account of election expenses referred to in
section 78.

9. Section 100 of the 1951 Act specify the
grounds for declaring an election void. The
relevant portion of sub-section (1) of section 100
of the 1951 Act is extracted below:-

"100. Grounds for declaring election
to be void.- (1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) if the High Court is of opinion--

(a) ......

(b) that any corrupt practice has been
committed by a returned candidate or his
election agent or by any other person with the
consent of a returned candidate or his election
agent; or

(c)......

(d) that the result of the election, in so
far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been
materially affected--

(i) ............., or

(ii) by any corrupt practice committed
in the interests of the returned candidate by an
agent other than his election agent, or

(iii) ............, or

(iv)..............,

the High Court shall declare the
election of the returned candidate to be void"

10. In Samant N. Balkrishna v. George
Fernandez, (1969) 3 SCC 238, interpreting the
inter play between clause (b) and clause (d) (ii)
of sub-section (1) of section 100 of the 1951
Act, it was held that the corrupt practices are
11 All. Jay Veer Singh Vs. Hari Om Yadav
169
viewed separately according as to who commits
them. The first class consists of corrupt practices
committed by the candidate or his election agent
or any other person with the consent of the
candidate or his election agent. These, if
established, avoid the election without any
further condition being fulfilled. Then there is
the corrupt practice committed by an agent other
than election agent. Here an additional fact has
to be proved that the result of the election was
materially affected. In the instant case, as the
allegations in respect of commission of corrupt
practices are direct against the returned
candidate, sub-clause (b) of sub-section (1) of
section 100 of the 1951 Act would get attracted
and, therefore, it is not necessary for the election
petitioner to demonstrate by averments in the
election petition as to how the result has been
materially affected by such corrupt practices.
Thus, the contention of the returned candidate
that because the election petition is bereft of
pleading as to how the result was materially
affected by the alleged corrupt practices, the
election petition is liable to be rejected, under
Order VII rule 11 CPC, is devoid of merit.

11. Now, what is to be seen is whether the
alleged conduct of the returned candidate in
promising / executing /carrying out work
projects/ roads, etc in return of promise by
voters to vote for him amounts to bribery as per
the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 123
of the 1951 Act. In Ghasi Ram's case (supra)
cited by the learned counsel for the returned
candidate it was held that a corrupt practice
involving bribery must be fully established. The
evidence must show clearly that the promise or
gift directly or indirectly was made to an elector
to vote or refrain from voting at an election. In
the context of a Minister, it was observed, the
position is different because he cannot cease to
function when his election is due. He must of
necessity attend to the grievances, otherwise he
must fail. If everyone of his official acts done
bona fide is to be construed against him and an
ulterior motive is spelled out of them, the
administration would come to a stand still. In
that
background
it
was
observed
that
discretionary grants part of the general scheme
to better community development projects and
to remove the immediate grievances of the
public would not amount to corrupt practices.
While holding as above, a caveat was added, by
observing, that "if there was good evidence that
the Minister bargained directly or indirectly for
votes, the result might have been different...."
After observing as above, the Supreme Court in
Ghasi Ram's case (supra), went on to observe
that "election is something which must be
conducted fairly. To arrange to spend money on
the eve of elections in different constituencies
although for general public good is, when all is
said and done, an evil practice, even if it may
not be corrupt practice. The dividing line
between an evil practice and a corrupt practice
is a very thin one. It should be understood that
energy to do public good should be used not on
the eve of elections but much earlier and that
even slight evidence might change this evil
practices into corrupt practice. Payments from
discretionary grants on the eve of elections
should be avoided."

12. In Harjit Singh Mann Vs. S. Umrao
Singh and Ors., (1980) 1 SCC 713 while
noticing the decision in Ghasi Ram's case
(supra) it was observed "that the trial court
rightly took the view that it was necessary for
the purpose of proving corrupt practice of
bribery to establish that there was an element of
bargaining in what the respondent was alleged
to have done... Reference in this connection may
be made to the decision of this Court in Ghasi
Ram v. Dal Singh and others where it was held
with reference to the decision in Amirchand v.
Surendra Lal Jha and Ors. that if a Minister
redress the grievances of a class of the public or
people of a locality or renders them any help, on
the eve of an election, it is not a corrupt practice
unless he obtains promises from the voters in
170 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
return, as a condition for his help. It was also
held that the evidence must show clearly that the
promise or gift directly or indirectly was made
to an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an
election, and that if there was good evidence
that the Minister bargained directly or indirectly
for votes, the result might have been different.
...........It was therefore necessary for the
appellant to plead and prove that there was
bargaining between the respondent and the
voters."

13. From the decisions noticed above the
legal position that emerges is that if grants etc, or
projects etc, are doled out on the eve of the
election, after the filing of nomination, by way of a
bargain for votes then it may amount to a corrupt
practice. Otherwise also, it is not considered
appropriate and has been termed an evil practice.
But, whether it dons the character of a corrupt
practice is to be determined on the weight of
evidence brought on record. Ordinarily, though,
completion of pending work projects does not, in
absence of anything else, amount to any gift or
promise to voters as has been held in Dhartipakar
Madan Lal Agarwal v. Rajeev Gandhi's case
(supra) and, in absence of foundational plea of a
corrupt practice, the election petition may be
rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Further, as
held in Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal v.
Rajeev Gandhi's case (supra), an electoral
promise to the voters in general to ameliorate their
condition or to improve the general condition of
their constituency may not by itself amount to a
corrupt practice.

14. The judgment of the Supreme Court in
Mohan Singh V. Bhanwarlal & Ors (supra)
cited by Sri Shivam Yadav does not apply at all to
the facts of the case as there the promise was for a
job. Hence, I do not propose to discuss the said
judgment.

15. Having noticed the legal position, what
is to be determined, now, is whether the
averments made in the election petition refer to a
bargain for votes or they are just with regard to
completion of pending projects. On a perusal of
the averments made in the election petition, the
relevant portion of which has already been
extracted above, it transpires that the works were
promised after filing of nomination and, after
taking promise from the voters that if they vote
for him (i.e. the returned candidate) the work
would be done, the works were completed
before the polling date. Thus, according to the
allegations, a bargain for votes was struck
which, if proved, would amount to a corrupt
practice as contemplated in sub-section (1) of
section 123 of the 1951 Act.