NARBADA PRASAD versus CHHAGAN LAL AND ORS.

NARBADA PRASAD versus CHHAGAN LAL AND ORS.

The requirements of s.33(5) were not complied with as the candidate did not produce the necessary documents; the rejection of his nomination paper by the Returning Officer was justified. Additionally, the appellant and his election agent, by stating voters would commit the sin of cow slaughter if they voted for Congress, attempted to induce voters to believe they would be objects of divine displeasure or spiritual censure, constituting a corrupt practice under s.123(2)(ii).

Parties
Appellant: Narbada Prasad; Respondents: Chhagan Lal and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
30 July 1968
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated November 30, 1967, Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, in Election Petition No. 5 of 1967
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Nomination Paper Rejection, Corrupt Practices, Undue Influence, Representation of the People Act
Election Law Nomination Paper Rejection Corrupt Practices Undue Influence Representation of the People Act

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Narbada Prasad

Appellant

Chhagan Lal and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated November 30, 1967, Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, in Election Petition No. 5 of 1967

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the rejection of Ram Kishen's nomination paper was justified under s.33(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
  2. 2 Whether statements made by the appellant and his election agent constituted corrupt practices under s.123(2)(ii) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Ratio Decidendi

The requirements of s.33(5) were not complied with as the candidate did not produce the necessary documents; the rejection of his nomination paper by the Returning Officer was justified. Additionally, the appellant and his election agent, by stating voters would commit the sin of cow slaughter if they voted for Congress, attempted to induce voters to believe they would be objects of divine displeasure or spiritual censure, constituting a corrupt practice under s.123(2)(ii).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Election of returned candidate set aside.