HARISINGH PRATAPSINGH CHAWDA versus POPATLAL MULSHANKER JOSHI & ORS.

HARISINGH PRATAPSINGH CHAWDA versus POPATLAL MULSHANKER JOSHI & ORS.

Payments and inducements found were made primarily to secure defection from the Organisation Congress to the Ruling Congress and not as a specific bargain for votes. Unless the voters themselves had knowledge of the promise or payment allegedly made to induce votes, such acts do not constitute bribery under Section 123(1) of the Representation of the People Act. Mere defection or expectation that a defector would canvass for or vote for the party does not amount to bribery without proof of a direct or communicated inducement to vote. The High Court's conclusion of no corrupt practice is correct and the allegations are not made out to invalidate the election.

Parties
Appellant: H.P. Chawda; Respondent No. 1: P.M. Joshi
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 September 1975
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Gujarat High Court's Dismissal of Election Petition
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Bribery Under Representation of the People Act, 1951, Corrupt Practices, Burden of Proof, Interpretation of Section 123(1)
Election Law Bribery Under Representation of the People Act, 1951 Corrupt Practices Burden of Proof Interpretation of Section 123(1)

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H.P. Chawda

Appellant

P.M. Joshi

Respondent No. 1

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Gujarat High Court's Dismissal of Election Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether payment of money and promise of gratification to the appellant amounts to bribery under Section 123(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 resulting in a void election
  2. 2 Whether the promise to build a hostel constituted bribery
  3. 3 Whether a specific request for vote in exchange for inducement was made

Ratio Decidendi

Payments and inducements found were made primarily to secure defection from the Organisation Congress to the Ruling Congress and not as a specific bargain for votes. Unless the voters themselves had knowledge of the promise or payment allegedly made to induce votes, such acts do not constitute bribery under Section 123(1) of the Representation of the People Act. Mere defection or expectation that a defector would canvass for or vote for the party does not amount to bribery without proof of a direct or communicated inducement to vote. The High Court's conclusion of no corrupt practice is correct and the allegations are not made out to invalidate the election.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment of the High Court upheld; appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.