SRI BARU RAM versus SHRIMATI PRASANNI & OTHERS

SRI BARU RAM versus SHRIMATI PRASANNI & OTHERS

Corrupt practice under s. 123(7)(c) was not established because legal evidence was lacking to prove appellant had appointed a government servant as polling agent. Rejection of nomination was proper as candidate failed to produce prescribed evidence to show he was an elector in another constituency, a statutory requirement; non-compliance resulted in valid rejection under s. 36(2)(b).

Parties
Appellant: Sri Baru Ram; Respondent: Shrimati Prasanni; Respondent: Harkesh; Non Party Candidate: Jai Bhagawan
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
30 September 1958
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated May 13, 1958 of the Punjab High Court at Chandigarh in First Appeal From Order No. 24 of 1958
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Corrupt Practices, Nomination Paper Rejection, Limitation for Appeal, Statutory Requirements
Election Law Corrupt Practices Nomination Paper Rejection Limitation for Appeal Statutory Requirements

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sri Baru Ram

Appellant

Shrimati Prasanni

Respondent

Harkesh

Respondent

Jai Bhagawan

Non Party Candidate

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated May 13, 1958 of the Punjab High Court at Chandigarh in First Appeal From Order No. 24 of 1958

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant committed corrupt practice under s. 123(7)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 by appointing a government servant (armed forces member) as polling agent
  2. 2 Whether nomination of Jai Bhagawan was improperly rejected for failure to produce copy of electoral roll

Ratio Decidendi

Corrupt practice under s. 123(7)(c) was not established because legal evidence was lacking to prove appellant had appointed a government servant as polling agent. Rejection of nomination was proper as candidate failed to produce prescribed evidence to show he was an elector in another constituency, a statutory requirement; non-compliance resulted in valid rejection under s. 36(2)(b).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order passed by High Court set aside
  • Election petition filed by respondent is dismissed with costs throughout