SHEOPAT SINGH versus RAM PRATAP

SHEOPAT SINGH versus RAM PRATAP

The appellant, by publishing the poster, made a false statement reflecting on the personal character of Ramchander Chowdhary, believing it to be false or not believing it to be true, and it was reasonably calculated to prejudice Chowdhary's prospects in the election. Therefore, the appellant was guilty of corrupt practice under s.123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Absence of necessary averment regarding another candidate (Hariram) means no allegation of corrupt practice against him; thus, s.85 is not attracted and dismissal of the petition on this ground is unwarranted.

Parties
Appellant: Sheopat Singh; Respondent: Ram Pratap
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 August 1964
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Corrupt Practice, Personal Character in Election Campaigns, Necessary Parties to Election Petition
Election Law Corrupt Practice Personal Character in Election Campaigns Necessary Parties to Election Petition

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

Parties

Sheopat Singh

Appellant

Ram Pratap

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the publication of the poster constituted corrupt practice under s.123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
  2. 2 Whether the election petition should be dismissed under s.85 for failure to implead another candidate against whom corrupt practice allegations were made

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant, by publishing the poster, made a false statement reflecting on the personal character of Ramchander Chowdhary, believing it to be false or not believing it to be true, and it was reasonably calculated to prejudice Chowdhary's prospects in the election. Therefore, the appellant was guilty of corrupt practice under s.123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Absence of necessary averment regarding another candidate (Hariram) means no allegation of corrupt practice against him; thus, s.85 is not attracted and dismissal of the petition on this ground is unwarranted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appellant found guilty of corrupt practice under s.123(4).
  • Election of appellant set aside and declared void.