RAHIM KHAN versus KHURSHID AHMED & ORS.

RAHIM KHAN versus KHURSHID AHMED & ORS.

The appellant's election was voided for distributing handbills appealing to religion and containing allegations amounting to character assassination, which constitute corrupt practices under sections 123(3) and (4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; however, bribery and undue influence alleged under sections 123(1) and (2) were not proved. The appellate court found credible evidence of handbill distribution but no proof of speeches or bribery. The court clarified the trial court's duty to name persons proved guilty, but in this appeal, only the appellant was found so.

Parties
Appellant: Rahim Khan; Respondent: Khurshid Ahmed; Respondent: Respondent No. 2; Respondent: Respondent No. 3; Respondent: Respondent No. 4
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 August 1974
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Punjab and Haryana High Court Judgment in Election Petition No. 7 of 1972
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; election of appellant set aside.
Legal Topics
Corrupt Practices, Bribery, Undue Influence, Religious Appeals, Distribution of Handbills, Duty to Name Persons Found Guilty, Procedure Under Representation of the People Act
Election Law Corrupt Practices Bribery Undue Influence Religious Appeals Distribution of Handbills Duty to Name Persons Found Guilty Procedure Under 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rahim Khan

Appellant

Khurshid Ahmed

Respondent

Respondent No. 2

Respondent

Respondent No. 3

Respondent

Respondent No. 4

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Punjab and Haryana High Court Judgment in Election Petition No. 7 of 1972

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Scope of appellate court's power to upset findings of trial court
  2. 2 Proof and ingredients of corrupt practices including bribery, undue influence, appeal to religion, and distribution of false statements
  3. 3 Duty of trial court under s. 99(a)(ii) to name persons guilty of corrupt practices

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's election was voided for distributing handbills appealing to religion and containing allegations amounting to character assassination, which constitute corrupt practices under sections 123(3) and (4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; however, bribery and undue influence alleged under sections 123(1) and (2) were not proved. The appellate court found credible evidence of handbill distribution but no proof of speeches or bribery. The court clarified the trial court's duty to name persons proved guilty, but in this appeal, only the appellant was found so.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; election of appellant set aside.

Orders

  • Appellant's election is set aside for corrupt practices under s. 123(3) and (4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
  • Parties to bear their own costs.