D. P. MISHRA versus KAMAL NARAYAN SHARMA AND ANR.

D. P. MISHRA versus KAMAL NARAYAN SHARMA AND ANR.

The period for filing appeal to the High Court was not barred by limitation as s.4 and s.12 of the Limitation Act applied and the petition was filed on the reopening day after summer recess. Amendment to amplify particulars of already alleged corrupt practice was permissible. The High Court rightly held that the appellant incurred/authorised expenses in excess of the permissible limit under s.77, attracting s.123(6) (corrupt practice), rendering his election void under s.100(1)(b). However, the High Court erred in not issuing notice and dealing with Shyamacharan Shukla under s.99 for corrupt practice under s.123(4); the matter was remanded for further proceedings against Shukla.

Parties
Appellant: D. P. Mishra; Respondent: Kamal Narayan Sharma; Agent/third Party/respondent in Remanded Proceedings: Shyamacharan Shukla
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 March 1970
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment; Remand Under S.99, Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; proceedings remanded to High Court under s.99 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Legal Topics
Corrupt Practices at Elections, Limitation for Election Appeals, Amendment of Election Petition
Election Law Corrupt Practices at Elections Limitation for Election Appeals Amendment of Election Petition

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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D. P. Mishra

Appellant

Kamal Narayan Sharma

Respondent

Shyamacharan Shukla

Agent/third Party/respondent in Remanded Proceedings

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment; Remand Under S.99, Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court appeal was within limitation under s.116A, Representation of the People Act, 1951, and Limitation Act, 1963.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court could permit amplification of particulars of corrupt practice by amendment at appellate stage.
  3. 3 Whether the evidence justified the High Court's finding of corrupt practices (exceeding expenditure limit) under s.123(6) and (false statements) s.123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Ratio Decidendi

The period for filing appeal to the High Court was not barred by limitation as s.4 and s.12 of the Limitation Act applied and the petition was filed on the reopening day after summer recess. Amendment to amplify particulars of already alleged corrupt practice was permissible. The High Court rightly held that the appellant incurred/authorised expenses in excess of the permissible limit under s.77, attracting s.123(6) (corrupt practice), rendering his election void under s.100(1)(b). However, the High Court erred in not issuing notice and dealing with Shyamacharan Shukla under s.99 for corrupt practice under s.123(4); the matter was remanded for further proceedings against Shukla.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; proceedings remanded to High Court under s.99 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Orders

  • Declaration that the election of D. P. Mishra is void under s.100(1)(b), Representation of the People Act, 1951, because of corrupt practice under s.123(6).
  • Proceedings remanded to High Court to give notice to Shyamacharan Shukla under s.99, Representation of the People Act, 1951, for considering if he should be named as guilty of corrupt practice.