ivil Appeals Nos 484  485 of 1987
336 From the Judgment and Order dated 2121986 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Election Petition Nos 3  5 of 1985
PP Rao P Krishna Rao VA Babu and KR Nagaraja for the Appellants
Shanti Bhushan G Narasimhulu and TVSN Chari for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KANIA J
These two appeals arise out of the judgments in two Election Petitions in the Andhra Pradesh High Court questioning the election of respondent No 1 as a Member of Parliament from Srikakulam No 1 Parliamentary Constituency in the 8th General Election to the House of the People
The points raised in these appeals are common and so are the relevant facts and hence they are being disposed of by this common judgment
We propose to take note of only the few facts which are necessary for the appreciation of the controversy before us
The polling date for the said election along with other parliamentary elections in the State of Andhra Pradesh was December 27 1984 but in Srikakulam No 1 Parliamentary Constituency the polling was countermanded and the date of polling was later fixed on January 28 1985
In both the Election Petitions the election of respondent No 1 was questioned mainly on the ground that Shri NT Rama Rao the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh as well as the President of the Telugu Desam Party as well as respondent N 1 gave certain speeches and certain advertisements were got pub lished by Shri NT Rama Rao through the Publicity Depart ment of the Government of Andhra Pradesh in the newspapers containing certain statements which are alleged to amount to a corrupt practice within the meaning of the said term in section 1231A of the Representation of the People Act 1951 hereinafter referred to as the said Act
The main question canvassed before us is whether the statements contained in these aforesaid advertisements amount to a corrupt practice under section 1231Ab of the said Act
Section 1231Ab of the said Act runs as follows 123
Corrupt practices The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act 337 1 Bribery  that is to say A any gift offer or promise by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent of any gratification to any person whomsoev er with the object directly or indirectly of inducing a x x b an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an election or as a reward to i a person for having so stood or not stood or for having withdrawn or not having with drawn his candidature or ii an elector for having voted or refrained from voting
 The advertisements very shortly stated refer to the auspicious gifts made by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to the poor people on the eve of New Year and Sankranti
In the said advertisements it is stated that the said Government which was formed by the Telugu Desam Party was giving to the poor people whose income was below Rs6000 per year a kilo of rice at Rs2 per Kg
and the said advertisements referred to a new scheme of selling sarees and dhoties at half prices to the poor people in the State of Andhra Pradesh having Green cards
Green cards were directed to be issued to all the persons whose annual income was below Rs6000
The supply of the rice at subsidised rates as aforesaid was also to be made to the Green card holders only
The scheme to sell sarees and dhoties at subsidised rates was to be opera tive from January 26 1985 to March 31 1985
In considering the question whether the said advertise ment and the said speeches amount to a corrupt practice we are of the view that the provisions of section 123 of the said Act which deal with corrupt practices have to be inter preted keeping in mind that dictates of commonsense require that they never could have been intended to treat normal election promises made in election manifestoes or usual election speeches by members of various political parties aspiring to power and by different candidates aspiring to get elected to legislative bodies concerned as corrupt practices
We are of the view that these advertisements and speeches amount to nothing more than statements extolling the achievements of the Government of the State of Andhra 338 Pradesh under the Telugu Desam Party headed By NT Rama Rao the Chief Minister and contain normal election promises and these statements do not amount to corrupt practices falling within the scope of sub clause b of clause A of sub section 1 of section 123 of the said Act
It was urged by Mr Rao learned counsel for the appel lants that in the impugned judgments the High Court has incorrectly taken the view that in order to amount to brib ery within the meaning of the said term in section 1231A the transaction must amount to a bargain by the candidate with a view to get votes
It was pointed out by him that the said view has been taken in the impugned judg ments relying upon the decision of a Bench comprising two learned Judges of this Court in Ghasi Ram vs Dal Singh and Others  at pp 109 110
We have gone through to the relevant portion of that judgment at page 109 and 110 of the said report
A careful perusal of the said judgment shows that what has been really held in that case is that if the promises given or made amount to a bargain entered into by a candidate for a vote or votes that would amount to a corrupt practice but it has not been held there that unless the act alleged amounts to such a bargain it could not amount to a corrupt practice
In our view that judgment does not lay down that in order to amount to a corrupt practice the transaction must amount to a bargain for getting a vote
It was pointed out by Mr Rao however that such a view seems to have been taken in two other decisions rendered by two Benches each comprising two learned Judges of this Court in Bhanu Kumar Shastri vs Mohan Lal Sukhadia and Others  at p 543 and Harjit Singh Mann vs section Umrao Singh and Others  at p 5 10 and these judgments need to be overruled
We do not propose to go into the correctness or otherwise of this view because even on the footing that in order to amount to a corrupt practice under the aforesaid provision the alleged acts need not constitute a bargain the acts established in the present case in our opinion do not amount to a corrupt practice
Our attention was drawn by Mr Rao to the fact that in this case the said advertisements and the speeches had to be viewed in the context of the fact that the advertisements were issued and the speeches were made after respondent No 1 filed his nomination papers on January 4 1985 for the election and before the election was held in the aforesaid constituency
It was further pointed out that the offer made for the sale of sarees and dhoties at subsidised rates was limited to the period from January 26 1985 to March 31 1985
It 339 cannot be denied that these factors are relevant factors
We cannot however lose sight of the fact that this offer was made not only in this constituency but throughout the State where the elections to the House of the People were sched uled to be held and were in fact held on December 27 1984
It was only in case of this constituency that the election to be held on the scheduled date was countermanded and later held on January 28 1985
We cannot lose sight of the fact that as far as the said speeches and the said advertisements which were issued by the Publicity Depart ment of the State are concerned they deal in the main with the achievements of the Government of Andhra Pradesh which of course was being run by Ministers belonging to Telugu Desam Party to which respondent No 1 also belonged
More over the offer in the advertisements for the sale of dhoties and sarees at discount rates was in the nature of a benefit offered to poor persons in that State
When a Gov ernment announces the measures which are intended for the benefit of any of the classes for whose the Government can normally be expected to work like the poor or the economical backward classes it is only in rare circumstances that such a promise can be said to amount to a corrupt practice within the meaning of section 1231A even though such a promise might be made on the eve of elections
Keeping this in mind in our opinion although the offer to sell dhoties and sarees at discount rates was of a limited duration as afore stated it cannot be regarded as a corrupt practice
Such an offer was bound to have financial repercussions and it is quite possible the duration of the offer was limited to enable the Government to study the financial repercussions rather than from any improper motive
We find support for this view from the decision of this Court in HV Kamath vs Ch
Nitiraj Singh that case an Ordi nance was passed by the Government of Madhya Pradesh as a result of which a large number of agriculturists namely those holdings of plots of land of less than 75 acres area of paying land revenue not exceeding Rs5 were exempted from the payment of the land revenue
It was held that such a concession does not amount to a gift offer or promise of any gratification within the meaning of section 1231A of the said Act nor does the announcement of the declaration made at a meeting shortly before the election or the issue of a pamphlet containing that declaration at that time carry the matter any further
It was held that neither Shri DP Misra who was the Chief Minister nor Shri SK Dixit who acted as his agent were guilty of any corrupt practice within the meaning of the aforesaid provision
It was next contended by Mr Rao although very faintly that the High Court was in error as it had not decided all other issues which 340 were raised in the election petition
In this regard we cannot lose sight of the fact that the term of the present Lok Sabha is likely to be over within a few months and fresh elections are likely to be held and it would therefore be an exercise in futility to remand the matter to the High Court for deciding the remaining issues
In the result the appeals fail and are dismissed
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs
RN J
Appeals dis missed


Summary:
A preliminary notification under Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was made on 2671963
The decla ration under Section 6 was duly notified on 161811969
A Writ Petition was filed in the High Court challenging the declaration
The High Court took notice of the Land Acquisi tion Amendment  Validation Act 1967 but held that the delay of 5 12 years from the date of the preliminary noti fication was unreasonable and quashed the said declaration relying on its own decision in Valji Mulji vs State These appeals by special leave are against the High Court s judgment
Allowing the appeals HELD 1
The validation provision came into force on 20th January 1967
The position is now concluded and the reliance placed by the High Court on its decision cannot be sustained
248E Gujarat State Transport Corporation vs Valji Mulji Soneji  Ors  and State of Gujarat  Anr
vs Punjabhai Mathubai  Ors  followed
The decision of the High Court is set aside and the declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act is sus tained
248F