# RANGILAL CHOUDHURY v. DAHU SAO AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1962] 2 S.C.R. 401
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1960-03-25
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1961
- **Bench:** P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. N. Wanchoo, K. C. Das Gupta, T. L. Venkatarama Aiyar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/rangilal-choudhury-v-dahu-sao-and-others-2262
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Election-Defect in the nomination paper-If of a substantial
character-Representation uf the People Act, I95' (No. LKIII of
I95I), s. 33, sub-s. (4).
The appellant was elected as a member of the Bihar Legislative Assembly in a bye-election from the Dhanbad constituency by a majority of votes while the nomination paper of the
respondent was rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground
that the re>'pondent's proposer had nominated him for election
from the Bihar and not Dhanbad assembly constituency inasmuch as in the nomination paper he wrote the ~·ord "Bihar"
before the v.'ords "assembly constitU:ency" instead of the \Vord
"Dhanbad". This defect arose out of a mistake in the Hindi
printed form of the nomination paper which did not exactly
conform to the form prescribed by the Rules. In an election
petition by the respondent the Election Tribunal held that his
nomination paper was rightly rejected but on appeal the High
Court held that it was improperly rejected. On appeal by special leave,
Held, that in view of the mistake that occurred in the
April z6.
Rangilal
Choudhury
v.
Daku Sao
402
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
printing of the form and in view of the fact that the name of
the constituency for which the election was being held was
already in the heading, the defect in the filling up of the form
which resulted from a mistake of the proposer in putting the
word "Bihar" instead of the word "Dhanbad" was not of a substantial character as contemplated under s. 33 of the Representation of the People Act, 195I.
Held, further, that the defect arising out of the fact that
columns nos. 2 and 5 were not properly filled was not of a substantial character as the Returning Officer had no difficulty in
checking that the proposer and the candidate were voters on
the electoral rolls.
Karnail Singh v. Election Tribunal, Hissar, [1954] IO E.L.R.
189, relied on.

## Text

2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
401
had two incised wounds and one punctured wound
'961
and two abrasions. The mere fact that Kartar Singh
Rarta• Singh
was not connected with the dispute about the plot of
v.
land is not sufficient to hold that he could not have state of Punjab
formed a common intention with the others, when he
went with them armed. The conviction under s. 302
Raghuba.
and s. 307 read with s. 149, can be converted into one
Dayal J.
under s. 302 and s. 307 read with s. 34, Indian Penal
Code.
We therefore see no force in this appeal and accordingly dismiss it.
Appeal dismissed.
RANGILAL CHOUDHURY
v.
DAHU SAO AND OTHERS
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO,
K. C. DAS GUPTA and
T. L. VENKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ.)
Election-Defect in the nomination paper-If of a substantial
character-Representation uf the People Act, I95' (No. LKIII of
I95I), s. 33, sub-s. (4).
The appellant was elected as a member of the Bihar Legislative Assembly in a bye-election from the Dhanbad constituency by a majority of votes while the nomination paper of the
respondent was rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground
that the re>'pondent's proposer had nominated him for election
from the Bihar and not Dhanbad assembly constituency inasmuch as in the nomination paper he wrote the ~·ord "Bihar"
before the v.'ords "assembly constitU:ency" instead of the \Vord
"Dhanbad". This defect arose out of a mistake in the Hindi
printed form of the nomination paper which did not exactly
conform to the form prescribed by the Rules. In an election
petition by the respondent the Election Tribunal held that his
nomination paper was rightly rejected but on appeal the High
Court held that it was improperly rejected. On appeal by special leave,
Held, that in view of the mistake that occurred in the
April z6.
Rangilal
Choudhury
v.
Daku Sao
402
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
printing of the form and in view of the fact that the name of
the constituency for which the election was being held was
already in the heading, the defect in the filling up of the form
which resulted from a mistake of the proposer in putting the
word "Bihar" instead of the word "Dhanbad" was not of a substantial character as contemplated under s. 33 of the Representation of the People Act, 195I.
Held, further, that the defect arising out of the fact that
columns nos. 2 and 5 were not properly filled was not of a substantial character as the Returning Officer had no difficulty in
checking that the proposer and the candidate were voters on
the electoral rolls.
Karnail Singh v. Election Tribunal, Hissar, [1954] IO E.L.R.
189, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 20
of 1961.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
order dated March 25, 1960, of the Patna High Court
in Election Appeal No. 4 of 1959.
N. C. Chatterjee, D. P. Singh, M. K. Ramamurthy,
R. K. Garg and S. C. Agarwal, for the appellant.
D. Goburdhan, for respondent No. I.
1961. April 26.
The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
wanchoo J.
WANCHOO, J.-This is an appeal by special leave
against the judgment of the Patna High Court in an
election matter. The brief facts necessary for present
purposes are these. There was a bye-election held on
December 21 and 22, 1958, to fill up a vacancy in the
Bihar Legislative Assembly from the Dhanbad constituency.
Nomination papers for the same were to be
filed on or before November 8, 1958.
A large number
of persons filed their nomination papers on or before
that date and among them were the appellant Rangilal Choudhury and the respondent Dahu Sao.
In the
present appeal we are only concerned with these two.
The nomination paper of the respondent was rejected
by the returning officer after scrutiny on November
11, 1958. The bye.election was duly held and the
appellant was declared elected by a majority of votes.
Thereafter the respondent filed an election petition
challenging the election of the appellant on a large
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
403
number of grounds. In the present appeal we are only
concerned with one of the grounds that the nomination paper of the respondent was improperly rejected.
The appellant's contention in this connection was that
the nomination paper was rightly rejected. The election tribunal held that the nomination paper was
rightly rejected and thereafter dismissed the petition.
The respondent went in appeal to the High Court, and
the main point pressed in appeal was that the election
tribunal was wrong in holding that the nomination paper of the respondent was rightly rejected. The High
Court agreed with the contention of the respondent
that his nomination paper was improperly rejected
and therefore allowed the appeal and set aside the
election of the appellant. The appellant's application
for leave to appeal to this Court having been rejected
by the High Court, he applied for and obtained special
leave from t,his Court; and that is how the matter has
come up before us.
The only ground on which the nomination paper
was rejected by the returning officer was that the proposer had nominated the candidate for election from
Bihar and not Dhanbad assembly constituency.
The
nomination was made on a Hindi form printed for the
purpose by the Government. Unfortpnately, the
printed form did not exactly conform to the Hindi
printed form in the Rules framed under the Representation of the People Act, No. LXIII of 1951, (hereinafter called the Act). The heading in the specimen
printed form in the Rules requires the name of the
State in which the election is held, to be filled in the
blank space there; but in the printed form supplied to
the respondent the name of the State was already
printed in the heading and therefore the blank space
had to be filled in with the name of the constituency.
The candidate therefore filled in the name of the constituency in the blank space in the heading. Thereafter the proposer filled in the next part of the form
which has five columns, after the main part which
says that the proposer nominates so and so for such
and such constituency. In this main .part, the name
of the candidate and the name of the constituency
Rangilal
Choudhury
v.
Daku Srio
1Vanchoo J,
r961
Rangilal
Choudhury
v.
Dahu Sao
Wancho!'I ].
404
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Ll962]
have to be filled in by the proposer. In the particulat
form with which we are concerned now the name of
the candidate was rightly filled in but the proposer
instead of putting down the name of the constituency,
namely Dhanbatl, put down the name Bihar there. So
the proposal read as if the candidate was being 110minated for the Bihar Assembly constituency. The only
objection taken before the returning officer was that
the proposer had not mentioned the constituency for
which he was proposing the candidate for election and
therefore the nomination form was defective and
should be rejected. This found favour with the returning officer, who rejected the nomination paper as
already said, on the ground that the proposer had
nominated the candidate for election for Bihar assembly constituency and not Dhanbad assembly constituency. It may be mentioned that it is no one's case
that there is any constituency like Bihar assembly
constituency. It may also be mentioned that this was
a bye-election and not a General Election; and the
question whether the nomination paper was rightly
rejected will have to be considered in this background.
Now s. 33(1) of the Act requires that a nomination
paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by
the candidate and by an elector of the constituency as
proposer shall be filed on or before the date appointed
for the nomination. Section 33( 4) lays down that on
the presentation of a nomination paper, tho returning
officer shall satisfy him~elf that the names and electoral roll numbers of the candidate and his proposer
as entered in the nominatfon paper are the same as
those entered in the electoral rolls; provided that the
returning officer shall permit any clerical or technical
error in the nomination paper in regard to the said
names or numbers to be corrected in order to bring
them into conformity with the corresponding entries
in the electoral roll; and where necessary, direct that.
any clerical or printing error in the said entries shall
be overlooked. Section 36 then prescribes for the
scrutiny of nomination papers and sub-s. (2) (b) thereof lays down that the nomination paper shall ho
rejected if there has been a failure to comply with any
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
405
of the provisions of s. 33. But sub-s. (4) lays down that
the returning officer shall not reject any nomination
paper on the ground of any defect which is not of a
substantial character. The_resnlt of these provisions
is that the pro1--oser and the candidate are expect·ed to
file the nomination papers complete in all respects in
accordance with the prescribed form; but even if there
is some defect in the nomination paper in regard to
either the names or the electoral roll numbers, it is the
duty of the returning officer tc satisfy himself at the
time of the presentation of the nomination paper
about them and if necessary to allow them to be
corrected, in order to bring them into conformity with
the corresponding entries in the electoral roll. Thereafter on scrutiny the returning officer has the power
to reject the nomination paper on the ground of failure
to comply with a uy of the provisions of s. 33 subject
however to this that no nomination paper shall be
rejected on the ground of any defect which is not of
a substantial character.
The main dispute in the High Court centred on the
question whether the defect in this case on the ground
of which the returning officer rejected the nomination
paper was of a substantial character or not. Generally
speaking if the nomination paper does not disclose at
all the name of the constituency for which the nomination has been made, the defect would be of a substantial character, for there would then be no way of
knowing the const;ituency for which a candidate is
being nominated.
But there may be cases where the
nomination form shows the constituency for which the .
nomination is being made though there may be some
defect in filling up the form. In such a case it seems
to us that if the nomination form discloses the constituency for which the nomination is being made even
though the form may not have been properly filled in
in that respect, the defect in filling the form would not
be of a substantial character. It is true that in this
case there was a defect in filling up the blank by the
proposer inasmuch as he wrote the word "Bihar"
before the words "assembly constituency" instead of
52
r96r
Rangilal
Choudhury
v.
Dahu Sao
Wanchoo j.
r961
Rangilal
Choudhury
v.
Dahu Sao
Wanchoo ].
406
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
the word "Dhanbad'', which he should have done; and
if there were nothing else in the form to disclose the
constituency for which the nomination was being
made there would have been a substantial defect in
the nomination form which would jnstify the returning officer in rejecting the same. But the circumstances of the present case are rather peculiar. We have
already mentioned that the printed Hindi form which
was used in this case printed the heading wrongly
inasmuch as the heading was not in accordance with
the heading prescribed under the Rules. In the specimen form in the Rules, the blank space is meant for
the State in which the election is being held; but
because of the mistake in printing the heading in this
case, the blank space could only be filled up with the
name of the constituency, and that was what was done.
This name was filled in apparently by the candidate
himself and not by the proposer. But equally clearly
the name of the constituency was there when the proposer in his turn came to fill up that part of the form
which he had to fill. It seems that the proposer was
thus misled, as the name of the constituency was
already there in the heading, to write the word "Bihar"
in the second blank space in his proposal instead of
the word "Dhanbad" to indicate the constituency.
That was undoubtedly a defect in the form as filled in
by the proposer. The question however is whether in
these circumstances it can be called a defect of a substantial character which would justify the rejection of
the nomination paper. It seems to us that the defect
appeared partly because of the mistake in the printing
of the Hindi form which was supplied to the candidates for the purposes of the nomination to this bye.
election. The form however as put in clearly shows
in the heading the particular assembly constituency
for which the election was being held.
Then follows
the part which has to be filled in by the proposer and
there the proposer made a mistake in filling the
word "Bihar" instead of the word "Dhanbad" in
the blank space relating to the constituency. Considering however that the name of the constituency
was already there in the heading, it would in our
,
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
407
opinion be not improper in the circumstances of this
case to say that the proposer was nominating the candidate for the constituency which was already mentioned in the heading.
It seems to us therefore that
in view of the mistake that occurred in the printing
of the form and in view of the fact that the name of
the constituency for which the election was being held
was already in the heading, the mistake of the proposer in putting in the word "Bihar" instead of the
word "Dhanbad'', which resulted in a defect in
the filling up of the form was not of a substantial
character and that it was quite clear on the form in
this case that the nomination was for the Dhanbad
assembly constituency. The returning officer does not
seem to have attached any importance to the name of
the constituency in the heading in this case and also
seems to have ignored the fact that this was a byeelection to one constituency, when he came to consider
the defect which undoubtedly was there in this respect
in the nomination paper. We therefore agree with
the High Court that in the peculiar circumstances
created by the mistake in printing the Hindi nomination form by the Government, the defect which has
occurred in this case is not of a substantial character
and it was quite clear that the nomination paper was
for the Dhanbad assembly constituency and was in
consequence improperly rejected by the returning
officer.
As we have already said, this was the only ground
on which the nomination paper was challenged as
defective before the returning officer; but before the
election tribunal the appellant also contended that the
nomination paper was defecti,-e as columns 2 and 5 of
the part which has to be filled in by the proposer were
not properly filled in and were defective; and it was
urged that the defect there was substantial and therefore even if the reason for the rejection of the nomination paper as given by the returning officer was not
substantial, these defects were substantial and the
rejection should be upheld on the ground of these
defects. Column 2 requires the electoral roll number
of the proposer and column 5 of the candidate to be
I'}6I
Rangilal
Choudhury
v.
Dahu S1'0
Wanchoo ].
z961
Rangilal
Choudhury
v.
Dahu Sao
Wanchoo f.
408
t:iUl'lt~ME COURT REPORTS
[1962)
filled in there.
Further according to the directions
given in the form columno 2 and 5 should contain the
name of the constituency, the part of the electoral roll
and the serial number in that part. The purpose of
this provision is that the returning officer should be
able readily to check that the proposer and the candidate are voters on the electoral roll. In the present
case only the serial number and the house number are
mentioned in columns 2 and 5 and not the name of the
constituency and the number of the part. Undoubtedly therefore there was a defect in these two columns.
Apparently the constituency WIJ,S the same, viz., Dhanbad, as will appear from the address given in column 4.
No part number could be given as the electoral roll in
this particular case was not numbered by Parts. The
question is whether in these circumstances this defect
can be called a defect of a substantial character. In
this connection we cannot ignore the provisions of
s. 33(4) of the Act, which casts a duty on the returning officer to satisfy himself that the names and electoral roll numbers of the candidate and his proposer
as entered in the nomination paper are the same as
those entered in the electoral roll and gives him the
power to permit the removal of any defect in this
connection. The returning officer d 'CS not seem to
have noted this defect in the form for if he had done
so he would have given an opportunity to the proposer to make the corrections. It is true that the
failure of the returning officer to give this opportunity
for correction does not mean that the defect can be
ignored, if it is of a substantial character. But considering the purpose for which the electoral roll numbers
are given, it seems that the returning officer found no
difficulty in checking that the proposer as well as the
candidate was a voter on the electoral rolls. The High
Court in this connection reforred to the evidence of
the respondent who stated that when his nomination
paper was taken up for scrutiny, the returning officer
compared the names in the nomination paper with
those in the electoral rolls. It seems therefore that in
this case the returning officer found no difficulty in
tracing the names of the proposer and the candidate
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
409
in the electoral rolls and that is why no objection was
raised before him as to the defect in columns 2 and 5.
In the circumstances it must be held that the defect
was of an unsubstantial character and would not
result in the rejection of the nomination paper. We
may in this connection refer to Karnail Singh v. Election Tribunal, Hissar and Others (1), where this Court,
observed that it was quite clear on the evidence that
there was no difficulty in identifying the candidate
and the candidate himself pointed out to the returning officer his own name in the electoral rolls., Therefore the defect in columns 2 and 5 was in the circumstances held to be a technical one and not of a
substantial character. The principle of that case in
our opinion applies to the present case also, for there
is no doubt here that the returning officer found no
difficulty in identifying the proposer as well as the
candidate and as a matter of fact the evidence is that
the candidate himself poiμted out the place in the
electoral rolls where his name was entered. We therefore agree with the High Court that in the circumstances of this case the defects in columns 2 and 5
were of an unsubstantial character and the rejection
of the nomination paper cannot be upheld on this
further ground, which was not even urged before the
returning officer.
We therefore dismiss the appeal. In these circumstances we pass no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.
(r) [IQSt] to E.L.R. 189.
Rangilal
Choudhury
v.
Dahu Sao
Wanchoo