T. CHUBA Vs. KARIBA A.O. AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHO is an 'agent' within the meaning of election law is required to be sorted out in connection with Issues No. 3 and 4 which have been taken as preliminary issues. The main submission relating to these two issues is that the allegations of the Petitioner, even if taken as correct do not constitute corrupt practice under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951, for short, the Act. The election Petitioner has cited a good number of instances relating to corrupt practice falling under Sub -section (2) of Section 123 of the Act, on the strength of which Issues 2 (a) to 2 (i) were framed. In most of them the allegation being that the workers of Respondent No. 1 or Congress (1) workers had threatened supporters of the Petitioner, a point has been urged that the workers or supporters cannot be regarded as agents of Respondent No. 1. It may be pointed out that though Sub -section (2) speaks of under influence on the part of the candidate or his agent, or of "any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent", the question is whether the allegations in the issues with which we are concerned (the averments forming part of issues 2 (b) and 2 (i) having involved Respondent No. 1 also, these were rightly left out by Shri Kataki from his address to the Court), can be attributed to something done by the agent of the returned candidate as it is not the case of the Petitioner that any other person with the consent of the returned candidate or his election agent had interfered with the free exercise of any electoral right. We have, therefore, to see whether the person who had allegedly indulged in undue influence can be said to be the agent of the candidate.

(2.) THERE is no denial that because of the Explanation (1) to Section 123, the expression "agent" has a wider meaning than it has under the law of contract inasmuch as this Explanation reads:

(3.) IT cannot, however, be said, agrees Shri Kataki, that a person could be regarded as an agent under the enlarged meaning only if there is something to show that he had been so appointed by the candidate. This would be apparent from Lalsing v. Vollabhdas AIR 1967 Gujarat 62 a decision referred by Shri Kataki himself, where some persons who were members of the propaganda committee of the candidate, or incharge of the printing arrangement of the election literature were held to be agents. of course, this was so held as no doubt was left in the mind of the Court that these persons were acting with the consent of the candidate.