KALYA SINGH versus GENDA LAL AND OTHERS

KALYA SINGH versus GENDA LAL AND OTHERS

Payment to respondent no. 3 was for his retirement from the contest and canvassing, not as consideration for votes as a bargain. The voters were free not to respond to his appeal; hence, there was no sufficient nexus between the gratification and inducement to the voters. Therefore, the appellant did not commit corrupt practice under s.123(1)(A)(b).

Parties
Appellant: Kalya Singh; Respondent No. 1: Genda Lal; Respondent No. 2: Respondent No. 2; Respondent No. 3: Respondent No. 3 (Patiram)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 February 1975
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Madhya Pradesh High Court Judgment in Election Petition No. 22 of 1972
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment and order of the High Court set aside.
Legal Topics
Bribery, Corrupt Practices, Representation of the People Act, 1951
Election Law Bribery Corrupt Practices Representation of the People Act, 1951

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kalya Singh

Appellant

Genda Lal

Respondent No. 1

Respondent No. 2

Respondent No. 2

Respondent No. 3 (Patiram)

Respondent No. 3

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Madhya Pradesh High Court Judgment in Election Petition No. 22 of 1972

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether payment of money to a candidate to retire from contest and canvass for another amounts to corrupt practice/bribery under s.123(1)(A)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Ratio Decidendi

Payment to respondent no. 3 was for his retirement from the contest and canvassing, not as consideration for votes as a bargain. The voters were free not to respond to his appeal; hence, there was no sufficient nexus between the gratification and inducement to the voters. Therefore, the appellant did not commit corrupt practice under s.123(1)(A)(b).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment and order of the High Court set aside.

Orders

  • Appellant's election is restored.
  • Respondent no. 1 to pay costs.