BHANU KUMAR SHASTRI versus MOHAN LAL SUKHADIA & ORS.

BHANU KUMAR SHASTRI versus MOHAN LAL SUKHADIA & ORS.

The appeal was dismissed because there was insufficient evidence to show that the benefits conferred on electors were intended as inducements to vote for the respondent or that the acts constituted a corrupt practice under Section 123(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The alleged benefits arose from longstanding administrative policies, not as an election bargain or abuse of ministerial power for electoral advantage.

Parties
Appellant: Bhanu Kumar Shastri; Respondent: Mohan Lal Sukhadia; Respondent: Girdhari Lal Sharma; Respondent: Narendra Singh Lakheri; Respondent: Sobhag Mal Jain
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 January 1971
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Rajasthan High Court Judgment Dismissing Election Petition
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Corrupt Practices, Bribery, Ministerial Power in Elections, Appellate Procedure
Election Law Corrupt Practices Bribery Ministerial Power in Elections Appellate Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bhanu Kumar Shastri

Appellant

Mohan Lal Sukhadia

Respondent

Girdhari Lal Sharma

Respondent

Narendra Singh Lakheri

Respondent

Sobhag Mal Jain

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Rajasthan High Court Judgment Dismissing Election Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether acts of alleged amelioration by a Minister on eve of elections constitute a corrupt practice under Section 123(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
  2. 2 Whether the procedure of Order 41 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code applies to Supreme Court appeals under Section 116C of the Representation of the People Act
  3. 3 Standard of proof in allegations of corrupt practice

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because there was insufficient evidence to show that the benefits conferred on electors were intended as inducements to vote for the respondent or that the acts constituted a corrupt practice under Section 123(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The alleged benefits arose from longstanding administrative policies, not as an election bargain or abuse of ministerial power for electoral advantage.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal fails and is dismissed. Parties will pay and bear their own costs.