DWARKA PRASAD MISHRA Vs. KAMAL NARAYAN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At an election held in June 1963 for electing a member from the Kasdol Constituency in the State of Madhya Pradesh, D. P. Mishra who stood as a candidate on "the Congress ticket" was declared elected. The rival candidate Kamal Narayan Sharma filed a petition for setting aside the election of Mishra on the grounds that the latter had committed corrupt practices at the election in that he offered to bribe Sharma, by offering through his agent Dr. Ausaf Hussain to pay Sharma a sum of Rs. 50,000/-as inducement for withdrawing from the contest and thereby committed a corrupt practice defined in Section 123(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; that Mishra published on April 12, 1963, April 26, 1963 and May 4, 1963 in a Hindi newspaper "Mahakoshal" edited, published and printed by Shyamacharan Shukla (who was engaged an authorised agent by Mishra to conduct election campaign on his behalf) statements of facts which were false and which they believed to be false or did not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character arid conduct of Sharma and in relation to Sharma's candidature, such statements being reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of Sharma's election and thereby committed corrupt practice defined in Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; that Mishra through his agents and workers hired or procured on payment or otherwise motor-vehicles and bullock-carts for conveying electors to the polling stations in the constituency and thereby committed a corrupt practice defined in Section 123(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; and that he incurred and authorised, in contravention of Section 77 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, expenditure in excess of the amount prescribed, and thereby committed a corrupt practice as defined in Section 123(6) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Mishra denied the allegations in support of the plea of corrupt practices alleged to be committed by him. The Election Tribunal negatived the allegations of corrupt practices and by order dated December 28, 1966 dismissed the petition.

(2.) In an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, against the order passed by the Tribunal, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh set aside the order and declared that the election of Mishra "was void under Section 100(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951," for, it was proved that Mishra had incurred or authorised expenditure of an amount of Rs. 7,249-72 which was in excess of the permissible limit, and the expenditure being in contravention of Section 77 of the Act, Mishra was guilty of a corrupt practice at the election within the meaning of Section 123(6) of the Act. Against the order passed by the High Court, this appeal has been preferred with special leave.

(3.) Counsel for Mishra contended that--(1) the appeal to the High Court was barred by the law of limitation and accordingly the High Court had no power to entertain and decide the appeal; (2) the High Court was not justified in allowing the particulars of the corrupt practices set up in the petition to be modified and to allow the petition to be amended at the stage of the hearing of the appeal and in recording evidence in support of the fresh corrupt practices so set up; and (3) that the evidence does not justify the finding that any corrupt practice was committed by Mishra as found by the High Court.