# H.V.KAMATH v. CH. NITIRAJ SINGH

- **Citation:** [1969] 3 S.C.R. 813
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969-02-24
- **Bench:** S. M. Sikri, R. S. Bachawat, K. S. Hegde
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/h-v-kamath-v-ch-nitiraj-singh-4645
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Representation of People Act
(43 of 1951), s. 123--Government
fa·sued Ordinance henefitinJ? certain agriculturists prior .fo election-Successful candidate's party in power-Allowances granted to Government
employees-Du111111y pa111phlets omitting unJ'uccessful candidate's election
s_rnzbol-Whether an1~)11nt.s to corrupt practice.
The appellant, an unsuccessful candidate filed an election petition tor
setting aside the election of the respondent who got elected as a Congress
candidate to a Parliamentary constituency.
The respondent was chraged
with several corrupt practices, viz.. (i) by an ordinance the Government
of the State in which the Congress Party was in power, granted exemption
to certain agriculturists' holdings from payment of land revenue and the
Chief Minister announced the bonefit though the exemption was claimed
for snmetime past by the opposition parties the ordinance
was passed
prior to the election; the opposition parties started a campaign stating that
the object of the exemption was to forfeit the land; the Chief Minister
refuted the charge and told the voters that the exemption should
be
granted and that the opposition parties should be routed in the election;
a member of the Con~ress Party-D, published a pamphlet refuting the
false propaganda that exemption was temporary and urging the electors
to vote for the Congress; (ii) the Chief Minister on the eve of the election announced inc'reased dearness allowance
to
~rtain Government
employees; (iii) the respondent or bis agent distributed
dummy
ballot
papers with the respondent's name and his election symbol, and also that
of appellant's name but without 'his election symbol printed thereon, thereby conveying an impression th~t the appet1ant had withdrawn his candidature, and further, that the respondent and his agents on the eve of the
election told the voters that the appellant had withdrawn, so the respondent had committed corrupt practice under s. 123(4); and (iv) a member
of the police force in the service of the Government with the consent of
the respondent actively canvassed for the respondent, thereby committing
corrupt practice under s. 12'3(7). The High Court dismissed the petition,
HELD : The appeal must be dismissed.
(i) On the materials, on the record,. it was impossible to hold that the
respondent committed the corrupt practice under s. 123(1)A. The ordinance was passed by the Government of Madhya Pradesh. As a result
of the ordinance a large number of agriculturists got exemption from
land revenue.
Such an exemption did not amount to a gift,
offer or
promise of any gratification within the meaning of s. 123 ( 1 )(A) nor was
it possible to say that the Government was the agent of the respondent.
The Congress Party was then in Power. But the exemption was not given
by the Congress Party. It was given by the Ordinance which was passed
by the Government. Nor does the announcement of the declaration by
the Chief Minister or by the pamphlet carry the matter any ful'ther. It
was not possible to say that either the Chief Minister or D acted as the
agent of the respondent. [815 GJ
814
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1969] 3 S.C.R.
(ii) The grant of the increased dearness allowance could not be reA
garded as a gift, offer or promise of any gratification within the meaning
of s. 123(l)(A) nor it was possible to say that the Government or the
Chief Minister was the agent of the respondent. The employees of the
Government had given notice to go on strike a week before the election
and without their cooperation the entire election would have been at a
standstill. The Government thought that the demand of the employees
was legitimate and therefore announced it on the eve of the election to
B
meet it. !816 D-F]
(iii) The dummy ballot papers were in contravention of the instructions issued by the Election Commission of India. The appellant's name
should not have been printed in them. But it was impossible to say that
the dummy papers conveyed to the voters the impressio

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
H.V.KAMATH
v.
CH. NITIRAJ SINGH
February 24, 1969
[S. M. SIKRI, R. S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.j
Representation of People Act
(43 of 1951), s. 123--Government
fa·sued Ordinance henefitinJ? certain agriculturists prior .fo election-Successful candidate's party in power-Allowances granted to Government
employees-Du111111y pa111phlets omitting unJ'uccessful candidate's election
s_rnzbol-Whether an1~)11nt.s to corrupt practice.
The appellant, an unsuccessful candidate filed an election petition tor
setting aside the election of the respondent who got elected as a Congress
candidate to a Parliamentary constituency.
The respondent was chraged
with several corrupt practices, viz.. (i) by an ordinance the Government
of the State in which the Congress Party was in power, granted exemption
to certain agriculturists' holdings from payment of land revenue and the
Chief Minister announced the bonefit though the exemption was claimed
for snmetime past by the opposition parties the ordinance
was passed
prior to the election; the opposition parties started a campaign stating that
the object of the exemption was to forfeit the land; the Chief Minister
refuted the charge and told the voters that the exemption should
be
granted and that the opposition parties should be routed in the election;
a member of the Con~ress Party-D, published a pamphlet refuting the
false propaganda that exemption was temporary and urging the electors
to vote for the Congress; (ii) the Chief Minister on the eve of the election announced inc'reased dearness allowance
to
~rtain Government
employees; (iii) the respondent or bis agent distributed
dummy
ballot
papers with the respondent's name and his election symbol, and also that
of appellant's name but without 'his election symbol printed thereon, thereby conveying an impression th~t the appet1ant had withdrawn his candidature, and further, that the respondent and his agents on the eve of the
election told the voters that the appellant had withdrawn, so the respondent had committed corrupt practice under s. 123(4); and (iv) a member
of the police force in the service of the Government with the consent of
the respondent actively canvassed for the respondent, thereby committing
corrupt practice under s. 12'3(7). The High Court dismissed the petition,
HELD : The appeal must be dismissed.
(i) On the materials, on the record,. it was impossible to hold that the
respondent committed the corrupt practice under s. 123(1)A. The ordinance was passed by the Government of Madhya Pradesh. As a result
of the ordinance a large number of agriculturists got exemption from
land revenue.
Such an exemption did not amount to a gift,
offer or
promise of any gratification within the meaning of s. 123 ( 1 )(A) nor was
it possible to say that the Government was the agent of the respondent.
The Congress Party was then in Power. But the exemption was not given
by the Congress Party. It was given by the Ordinance which was passed
by the Government. Nor does the announcement of the declaration by
the Chief Minister or by the pamphlet carry the matter any ful'ther. It
was not possible to say that either the Chief Minister or D acted as the
agent of the respondent. [815 GJ
814
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1969] 3 S.C.R.
(ii) The grant of the increased dearness allowance could not be reA
garded as a gift, offer or promise of any gratification within the meaning
of s. 123(l)(A) nor it was possible to say that the Government or the
Chief Minister was the agent of the respondent. The employees of the
Government had given notice to go on strike a week before the election
and without their cooperation the entire election would have been at a
standstill. The Government thought that the demand of the employees
was legitimate and therefore announced it on the eve of the election to
B
meet it. !816 D-F]
(iii) The dummy ballot papers were in contravention of the instructions issued by the Election Commission of India. The appellant's name
should not have been printed in them. But it was impossible to say that
the dummy papers conveyed to the voters the impression that the appellant
had withdrawn his candidature. The statement of the appellant's witnesses
could not be accepted that on the eve of the election the respondent and
C
his agents informed the voters that the appellant had withdrawn his candidature.
The voters knew that there were two candidates in the field.
Even a few days prior to the election the Chief Minister stated that the
appellant was contestin2 the election. The respondent carried on rigorous
election propaganda till the last day. [816 HJ
(iv) On the evidence the charge that the member of the police force
<anvassed for the respoqdent was not established.
D
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1517 of
1968.
Appeal under s. 116-A of the Representation of the People
Act, 1951 from the judgment apd order dated March 13, 1968 of
the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench in Election PetiI:
tion No. 45 of 1967.
K. A. Chitaley, Y. S. Dharmadhikari, S. S. Khanduja - and
K:. B. Rohatgi, for the appellant.
G. N. Dikshit, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Bachawat, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of
a Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissing
an election petition for setting aside the election of the respondent
Chaudhury Nitiraj Singh to the Hoshangabad Parliamentary Constituency No. 27. The appellant was the Praja Socialist Party
candidate with the election symbol "hut". The respondent was
the Congress Party Candidate with the election symbol "Two bullocks with voke on".
The voting took place on February 20,
1967. The votes were counted on February 21 and February 20,
1967. The respondent having got a majority of about 20,000 votes
was declared duly elected. The oetition charged the re>pondent
with seve•al corrupt practices. The appellant now presses before
us only the charge unde' parap;raph 5(i), (ii). (iii) and (iv),
oaragraph 5(v), paragraph 6 and paragraph ?(ii),
I!'
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
r
G
B
H. v. KAMATH v. NITIRAJ SINGH (Bachawat, J.)
815
At the time of the election, the Congress Party, was in power
and the Chief Minister Shri D. P. Mishra be1onged to the Congress
Party. In November 1966 the respondent was nominated by the
Coogress Party as its caμdidate for the Hoshangabad Parliamentary
Constituency. The substance of the charge as made in paragraph
5 (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) and as pressed before us is that on December 23, 1966 the Government of Madhya Pradesh headed by
Shri D. P. Mishra promulgated an Ordinamce No. 19 of 1966 exempting agriculturists holdmgs land less than 7 .50 acres or payip.g
land revenue not exceeding Rs. 5 from payment of land revenue,
that Shri D. P. Mishra as the agent of the respondent and with his
consent made speeches at Narsinghpur and Piparia on February 16,
1967 announcing the benefit of such exemption and that the respondent thus committed the corrupt practice under s. 123 (1 )(A)
of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The evidence
shows that the question of exemption of uneconomic holding from
payment of land revenue was being agitated for some time past
Towards the close of 1966 a resolution was moved by the members of the opposition parties in the Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha
urging such exemption.
But no bill to that effect was then passed.
The Government reconsidered the matter aiDd when the Vidhan
Sabha was not in session it passed Ordinance No. 19 of 1966 granting the exemption. The Ordinance was later replaced by Act. No.
6 of 1967 which was published on April 26, 1967. The exemption
was advocated by the P•aja Socialist Party also and was welcomed
by all parties. Nevertheless on the eve of the election the opposition parties started a campaign stating that the object of the exemption was to forfeit the land to the State and raised the slogan
"Lagan Maaf Zamin Saar'.
The propaganda was refuted by the
Con11;ress Party. In an election speech on February 16, 1967 Shri
D. P. Mishra raised the slogan "Lag3ill Miraf Sab party Saaf".
His
objc~t yvas to tell the voters that the exemption should be granted
and that the opposition parties should be routed in the election. It
also appears that one Shri S. K. Dixit a member of the Cong•ess
PartY. published a pamphlet Ex. P-2 on or about February 7, 1967
refuting the false propag:anda that the exemption was temporary
and was granted with a view to forfeit the lands and u·giing the
electors to vote for the congress.
On the materials on the record
it is impossible to hold that the respondent committed the corrupt
practice under s. 123 (1 )(A). The O•dinance was passed by the
Government of Ma'1hya Pradesh. As a result of the Ordinance a
large number of agriculturists got exemption frnm land revenue.
Such an exemption does not amount to a gift. offer or promise of
any l!Tatification within the meaning of s. 123(1 )(A). Nor is it
possible to sav that the eovemment was th~ agent of the respondent. It is true that the Cong•ess Partv was then i;o power.
But
the exemption was not eiven bv the Con~ss Partv.
It was given
by the Ordinance which was passed by the Government. Nor does
816
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1969] 3 S.C.R,
the announcement of the declaration at the meeting held on February 16, 1967 or by the pamphlet Ex. P-2 cax:ry the matter ·any
further. On the materials on the record it is not possible to say
that either Shri D. P. Mishra or Shri S. K. Dixit acted as the agent
of the respondent. The charge under :paragraph 5 ( i), (ii) , (iii)
and (iv) is not established. Some additional embellishments of the
charge were dealt with by the learned Judge <md they were not
pressed before us.
The substance of the charge as laid in paragraph 5 ( v) and as
pressed before us is that on the eve of the election the Government
of Madhya Pradesh headed by Shri D. P. Mishra declared that
Class III and Class IV government employees would get increased
dearness allowance from April 1, 1967 according to the rates
sanctioned for Central GovelJillllent employees, that Shri D. P.
Mishra with the consent of the respondent and as his agent announced the grant of these ben~fits at the meetings held on February 16, 1967 at N<!rsinghpur aiid Piparia a:nd that the respondent thus c01nmitted the corrup_t practice under s. 123(1) (A). It
appears that Class III and Class IV employees gave a notice to the
government . stating that they would go on strike with effect from
February 13, 1967. Without their co-operation the entire election
would have been at a standstill.
The Government thought that
the demand of the employees for i,rl.creased dearness allowance
was legitimate and therefore announced on or about February 11,
196,7 its decision to grant the increased dearness allowance with
effect from April l, 1967. The grant of the increased dearness
allowance cannot be regarded as a gift, offer or promise of ~
gratification within the meaning of s. 123(1) (A) nor is it possible
to say that the Government or Shri D. P. Mishra was the agent of
the respondent. The announcement of the grl!J11t of the increased
dearness allowance at the meeting held on February 16, 1967 does
not carry the matter any further.
The charge under paragraph
5 ( v) is not established.
The charge under paragraph 6 is that the respondent or his
ageint distributed dummy ballot papers with the respondent's name
and his election symbol of "Two bullocks with yoke on" and, also
the appellant's rrame without his election symbol printed thereon,
that those papers conveyed to the voters the impression that the
appellant had withdrawn his candidature, that the appellant and
hts agents qn the eve of the election told the voters that the appellant had withdrawn his candidature and that the respondent thereby
committed the corrupt practice under s. 123 ( 4). The evidence
shows that dummy ballot papers as mentioned above were printed
and distributed on behalf of the respondent. Such dummy ballot
papers were in contravention of the ilnstructions issued by the Election Commission of India. The appellant's name should not have
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
H. v. KAMATH v. NITIRAJ SINGH (Bachawat, I.)
817
been printed in them. But it is impossible to say that the dummy
ballot papers conveyed to the voters. the impression that the appellant had withdrawn his candidature. On this issue the appellant
exam'1ed P.W. 6, PW 7, PW 10, PW 23, PW 25, PW 27, PW 29,
PW 30, PW 31 and PW 32 and the respondent examined RW 2,
RW 3, RW 11 and RW 13. In agreement with the learned Judge
we do not accept the statement of the appellant's witnesses that on
the eve of the election the respondent apd his agents informed
the voters that the appellant had withdrawn his candidature. The
voters knew that there were two candidates in the field, viz., the
appellant and the respondent. Even on February 16, 1967 Shri
D. P. Mishra stated that the appellant was contesting the election.
The respondent carried on a vigorous election propaganda until
February 18, 1967. If the respondent or his agent had informed
the voters that the appellant had with.drawn his candidature it was
not likely that such inteinsive propaganda would be carried on
onti! that date. The charge under paragraph 6 is therefore not
established.
The charge under paragraph 7 (ii) was that Chaudhary Diwan
Singh, the Station House Officer at Sohagpur, and a member of.
the police force in the service of the government, with the consent
of the respondent actively cain'Vassed for the respondent and that
the respondent thereby committed corrupt practice under s. 123 (7).
To prove this charge the appellant examined PW 3, PW 4 and PW
9.
Chaudhary Diwan Singh and the respondent denied the
charge. For the reasons given by the learned Judge, it is impossible to accept the testimquy of PW 3, PW 4 and PW 9. Their
evidence does not ring true: P.W. 3 never spoke to anybody that
he was asked by Chaudlrary Diwan ~gh to vote for the respondent.
~t is not likely that. Diwan 'Singh would approach P. W. 4.
It is impossible to believe that P.W. 9 could overhear a conversation between Diwan Singh aind,the respondent when the respondent
is said to have asked Diwan Singh to canvass for him. the charge
under paragraph 7 (ii) is also not established.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs.
Y.P.
Appeal dismissed.