KASHI NATH Vs. KUDSIA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judgment of the court was delivered by

(2.) THIS is an appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951, hereinafter called the "Act" from a judgment ofthe Allahabad High court dismissing an election petition filed by the appellant challenging the election of respondent No. 1 to the U. P. LegislativeAssembly from Constituency No. 84 Sandila (District Hardoi) held inFebruary, 1969 on the ground that one of the candidates had not been madea party to the petition.

(3.) IT has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellantthat so far as the allegation contained in Para 20(A) is concerned it has beenfound by the High court that the officer mentioned therein does not fallwithin the category of officers specified in Section 123(7) of the Act. IT has,therefore, to be decided whether the allegations in Para 20{c) read withSchedule VIII relate to the commission of a corrupt practice by respondentNo. l's husband and election agent Aizaz Rasul within the meaningof Section 123(2) of the Act. A great deal of stress has been laid on thecontents of Para 20 (c) and it has been emphasised that the allegation ofcommission of a corrupt practice of undue influence was made against MadanGopal Misra, Sanitary Inspector, although it was stated that the allegedcorrupt practice had been committed with the consent of respondent No. Iand her election agent. Reliance has been placed on S. B. Adityan v. S.Kandaswami and Others where it was observed at Page 876 that a corruptpractice committed with the consent of a candidate was not in itself a newkind of corrupt practice. The consent by a candidate to the commission ofa corrupt practice by someone else) whatever its consequences might be, wasnot itself a corrupt practice. Therefore to say that a candidate consented tocorrupt practice being committed by accepting a gift made to him to inducehim to withdraw his candidature was not to say that he himself committedthe corrupt practice. The decision in that case is clearly distinguishable on facts.