RANANJAYA SINGH versus BAIJNATH SINGH AND OTHERS

RANANJAYA SINGH versus BAIJNATH SINGH AND OTHERS

The appellant cannot, in the circumstances of this case, be held to be guilty of any corrupt practice under section 123(7) as alleged against him, as the persons alleged to have worked in the election were employed and paid by the appellant's father, not by the appellant or his agent. Consequently, no minor corrupt practice under section 124(4) is made out.

Parties
Appellant: Rananjaya Singh; Respondent: Baijnath Singh; Respondents: Other unnamed respondents
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 September 1954
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave Against Decision of the Election Tribunal, Allahabad
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Corrupt Practices, Election Expenses, Employment in Election Campaign
Election Law Corrupt Practices Election Expenses Employment in Election Campaign

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

Parties

Rananjaya Singh

Appellant

Baijnath Singh

Respondent

Other unnamed respondents

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave Against Decision of the Election Tribunal, Allahabad

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was guilty of corrupt practices under section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, for employing more persons than authorised by law and incurring excess expenditure in the election campaign.
  2. 2 Whether the non-disclosure of such alleged expenses in the return constituted a minor corrupt practice under section 124(4) of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant cannot, in the circumstances of this case, be held to be guilty of any corrupt practice under section 123(7) as alleged against him, as the persons alleged to have worked in the election were employed and paid by the appellant's father, not by the appellant or his agent. Consequently, no minor corrupt practice under section 124(4) is made out.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Election of the appellant is not void; finding of corrupt practice by the Election Tribunal set aside; costs awarded to appellant.