OM PRAKASH versus LALCHAND AND ANOTHER

OM PRAKASH versus LALCHAND AND ANOTHER

The evidence established that respondent Lalchand was responsible for publication of the poster containing false allegations about appellant's personal character and conduct, which was calculated to prejudice appellant's election prospects. Therefore, respondent committed a corrupt practice under section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Allegations regarding bribery and religious farman were not proven.

Parties
Appellant: Om Prakash; Respondent No. 1: Lalchand; Respondent No. 2: Prithvi Raj
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 August 1969
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Punjab and Haryana High Court Judgment and Order Dated November 19, 1968 in Election Petition No. 14 of 1968
Outcome
Appeal allowed; election of respondent Lalchand declared void; costs awarded throughout.
Legal Topics
Corrupt Practices Under Representation of the People Act, False Allegations Concerning Personal Character, Bribery Allegations, Religious Influence in Elections
Election Law Corrupt Practices Under Representation of the People Act False Allegations Concerning Personal Character Bribery Allegations Religious Influence in Elections

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

Parties

Om Prakash

Appellant

Lalchand

Respondent No. 1

Prithvi Raj

Respondent No. 2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Punjab and Haryana High Court Judgment and Order Dated November 19, 1968 in Election Petition No. 14 of 1968

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether publication of a poster containing false allegations about appellant's personal character constitutes corrupt practice under section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
  2. 2 Whether issuance of farman or appeal by religious leader amounts to corrupt practice under section 123(2)
  3. 3 Whether cash payment to a candidate for election expenses amounts to bribery under section 123(1)

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence established that respondent Lalchand was responsible for publication of the poster containing false allegations about appellant's personal character and conduct, which was calculated to prejudice appellant's election prospects. Therefore, respondent committed a corrupt practice under section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Allegations regarding bribery and religious farman were not proven.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; election of respondent Lalchand declared void; costs awarded throughout.

Orders

  • Election of respondent Lalchand declared void.
  • Appeal allowed with costs throughout.