PRABHU NARAYAN versus A. K. SRIVASTAVA

PRABHU NARAYAN versus A. K. SRIVASTAVA

Respondent is guilty of corrupt practice under section 123(4) by directing and consenting to publication and distribution of pamphlets by close supporters; the intention and direction for printing and distribution came from respondent, not independent action by supporters; petition complied with legal requirements and evidence was admissible.

Parties
Appellant: Prabhu Narayan; Respondent: A. K. Srivastava
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 February 1975
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal From Madhya Pradesh High Court, Election Petition No. 29 of 1972
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Corrupt Practices, Affidavit Requirements, Publication and Distribution of Pamphlets
Election Law Corrupt Practices Affidavit Requirements Publication and Distribution of Pamphlets

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prabhu Narayan

Appellant

A. K. Srivastava

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal From Madhya Pradesh High Court, Election Petition No. 29 of 1972

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the election petition complied with requirements under section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was guilty of corrupt practice under section 123(4) by publication/distribution of pamphlets

Ratio Decidendi

Respondent is guilty of corrupt practice under section 123(4) by directing and consenting to publication and distribution of pamphlets by close supporters; the intention and direction for printing and distribution came from respondent, not independent action by supporters; petition complied with legal requirements and evidence was admissible.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Respondent's election declared void
  • Respondent to pay appellant's costs