Appeal No 73 of 1954
Appeal by Special Leave against the Judgment and Order dated the 11th day of February 1954 of the Election Tribunal Allahabad
in Election Petition No 252 of 1952
672 NC Chatterjee and G N Kunzru Rameshwar Nath and Rajinder Narain with them for the appellant
Veda Vyasa G C Mathur with him for respondent No 1 1954
September 29
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAB J
Kunwar Rananjaya Singh the appellant before us is the son of Raja Bhagwan Bux Singh of Amethi
He was the successful candidate at an election to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly from Amethi Central constituency the polling in respect of which took place on the 31st January 1952 and the result whereof was announced on the 6th February 1952 and finally published in the Uttar Pradesh State Gazette on the 26th February 1952
The respondent Baijnath Singh who was one of the unsuccessful candidates filed an election petition calling in question the election of the appellant
Three other unsuccessful candidates were also impleaded as respondents
The grounds on which the election was challenged were that the appellant himself together with his own and his father s servants and other dependents and agents committed various corrupt practices of bribery exercise of undue influence publication of false and defamatory statements and concealment of election expenses as per particulars set forth in the petition and the schedules thereto
He prayed that the election of the appellant be set aside and that he the said respondent be declared to have been duly elected
The appellant alone contested the petition
In his written statement he denied each and every one of the charges of corrupt practices levelled against him and he also filed a petition of recrimination challenging the conduct of the said respondent at the election
The said respondent denied the charges imputed to him
Altogether 15 issues were raised namely eight
on the election petition and 7 on the petition of recrimination
All the 7 issues arising out of the petition of recrimination were found by the tribunal constituted for hearing of the election petition against the appellant and the petition of recrimination was dismissed
The appellant has not 673 contested the correctness of those findings before us and nothing further need be said about them
As regards the issues arising on the main election petition the election tribunal found in favour of the appellant on issues Nos 1 2 45 6 and 7 but decided issue No 3 against the appellant
That issue was as follows3 Did respondent No I employ for election more persons than authorised by law Did respondent No I incur the expenditure shown in the list as Heads of other concealed expenditures Did he exceed the prescribed limit of expenditure for election  The above issue related to charges made out in paragraph 6 of the election petition and the list of particulars set out in Part III of the schedule thereto
The particulars in that part were grouped under two main heads each containing several items
The first head referred to persons alleged to have been employed on payment far in excess of the prescribed number and not shown in the return of election expenses
The second bead of particulars contained other alleged concealed expenditures
The election tribunal held in favour of the appellant on all items of charges under both heads in Part III except items ii and iii of the first bead
Item ii charred that all the paid Ziladars of Amethi estate who were about 20 in number assisted by their peons and orderlies worked for the appellant and item No iii complained that the Manager and the Assistant Manager of that estate also worked for him
The tribunal held that the number of all these persons coming within these two categories far exceeded the prescribed number of persons who could be employed in an election and their salary for the period they worked for the appellant in connection with the election if added to the admitted election expenses would exceed the maximum expenditure permissible for contesting a single member constituency
The tribunal therefore held that the appellant was guilty under both these heads of corrupt practice as defined in section 1237 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 and was consequently liable to be dealt with under section 1002 b and section 145 of that Act
674 These findings as to employment of extra persons on payment and the expenditure of money in excess of 7h the permissible maximum election expenses necessarily led to the further finding that inasmuch as these expenses had not been shown in the appellant s return of election expenses the appellant was also guilty of a minor corrupt practice as defined in section 1244 of the Act and was liable to be dealt with under section 1002 a and section 145 of the Act
In the result the tribunal under the general issue No 8 only declared the election of the appellant to be void
Hence this appeal filed by the unseated candidate with the special leave of this Court
Section 77 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 provides that the maximum scales of election expenses at elections and the numbers and descriptions of persons who may be employed for payment in connection with election shall be as may be prescribed
As regards the maximum expense rule 117 lays down that no expense shall be incurred or authorised by a candidate or his election agent on account of or in respect of the conduct and management of an election in any one constituency in a State in excess of the maximum amount specified in respect of that constituency in Schedule V
The maximum amount specified in that schedule in respect of a singl emember constituency in the Uttar Pradesh is only Rs 8000
Rule 118 prescribes that no person other than or in addition to those specified in Schedule VI shall be employed for payment by a candidate or his election agent in connection with an election
Schedule VI allows I election agent 1 counting agent 1 clerk and 1 messenger at all elections
It also allows in addition to these 1 clerk and 1 messenger for every 75000 electors and 1 polling agent and 2 relief agents for each polling booth and I messenger at each polling booth
The contravention of the provisions of section 77 read with rules 117 and
118 and Schedules V and VI is made a corrupt practice by section 1237 Section 1237 clearly shows that in order to amount to a corrupt practice the excess expenditure must be incurred or authorised by a candidate or his agent and 675 the employment of extra persons must likewise be by a candidate or his agent
The charge against the appellant was inter alia that the Manager Assistant Manager 20 Ziladars of Amethi estate and their peons and orderlies had worked for the appellant in connection with the election
The tribunal took the view we think quite erroneously that although the estate belonged to the father of the appellant nevertheless as the appellant was the heir apparent and actually looked after the estate on behalf of the old and infirm proprietor these servants of the estate were virtually his own servants and could properly be regarded as having been employed for payment by the appellant
The Learned advocate appear ing for the respondent frankly and properly conceded that he could not support this part of the finding of the tribunal
He however contended relying on the language used in section 77 that if the number of persons who worked for payment in connection with the election exceeded the maximum number specified in Schedule VI the case fell within the mischief of the relevant sections and the rules no matter who employed them or who made payments to them
It is true that section 77 uses the words who may be employed for payment without indicating by whom employed or paid but it must be borne in mind that the gist of a corrupt practice as defined in section 1237 is that the employment of extra persons and the incurring or authorising of excess expenditure must be by the candidate or his agent
The provisions of rules 117 and 118 are to be read in the light of this definition of a corrupt practice
Indeed these rules follow the language of section 1237 in that they prohibit the employment of persons other than or in addition to those specified in Schedule VI and the incurring or authorising of expenditure in excess of the amount
specified in Schedule V and in both cases by a candidate or his agent
Section 77 must therefore be read in a manner consonant with section 1237 and rule 117 and and 11 8
In this view of the matter the observation made by Phillimore J in Joseph Porster Wilson and 676 Another vs Sir Christopher Furness1 relied on by the appellant and referred to in the judgment of the tribunal are quite apposite
There can be no doubt that in the eye of the law these extra persons were in the employment of the father of the appellant and paid by the father and they were neither employed nor paid by the appellant
The case therefore does not fall within section 1237 at all and if that be so it cannot come within section 1244
It obviously was a case where a father assisted the son in the matter of the election
These persons were the employees of the father and paid by him for working in the estate
At the request of the father they assisted the son in connection with the election which strictly speaking they were not obliged to do
Was the position in law at all different from the position that the father had given these employees a holiday on full pay and they voluntarily rendered assistance to the appellant in connection with his election We think not
It is clear to us that qua the appellant these persons were neither employed nor paid by him
So far as the appellant was concerned they were mere volunteers and the learned advocate for the respondent admits that employment of volunteers does not bring the candidate within the mischief of the definition of corrupt practice as given in in section 1237
The learned advocate however contended that such a construction would be against the spirit of the election laws in that candidates who have rich friends or relations would have an unfair advantage over a poor rival
The spirit of the law may well be an elusive and unsafe guide and the supposed spirit
can certainly not be given effect to in opposition to the plain language of the sections of the Act and the rules made there under
If all that can be said of these statutory provisions is that construed according to the ordinary grammatical and natural meaning of their language they work injustice by placing the poorer candidates at a disadvantage the appeal must be to Parliament and not to this Court
1 6 O Mally and Hardcastle s Report of Election Cases page I at page 6 677 On a consideration of the relevant provisions of the Act and the rules and the arguments advanced before us we are of opinion that the appellant cannot in the circumstances of this case be held to be guilty of any corrupt practice under section 1237 as alleged against him
It follows from this that not having incurred any expenditure over and above what was shown by him in his return of election expenses he cannot be said to have concealed such expenditure and therefore he cannot be held to have been guilty of any minor corrupt practice under section 1244 of the Act
In the view we have taken namely that these extra men were not employed or paid by the appellant it is unnecessary for the purpose of this appeal to discuss the question whether if one s own servants are also utilised or employed in the conduct of the election their salary for the period they are so utilised or employed should be regarded as election expenses and shown in the return
On that we prefer not to express any opinion on this occasion
No other point having been raised we allow this appeal with costs
Appeal allowed


Summary:
Section 1237 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 shows clearly that in order to amount to a corrupt practice the excess expenditure must be incurred or authorised by a candidate or his agent and the employment
of extra persons must likewise be by a candidate or his agent
The charge against the appellant was inter alia that the Manager Assistant Manager 20 Ziladars of Amethi and their peons and orderlies had worked for the appellant in connection with the election
The view taken by the Election Tribunal that though the estate belonged to the father of the appellant nevertheless as the appellant was the heir apparent and actually looked after the estate on behalf of the old and infirm proprietor these servants of the estate were virtually his own servants and could properly be regarded as having been employed for payment by the appellant was untenable because though section 77 of the Act uses the words SC who may be employed for payment without indicating by whom employed or paid the gist of a corrupt practice as defined in B 123 7 of the Act is that the employment of extra persons and the incurring or authorising of extra expenditure must be by the candidate or his agent
The appellant accordingly could not in the circumstances of the present case be held to be guilty of any corrupt practice under section 1237 as alleged against him and therefore could not be held to have been guilty of any minor practice under section 1244 of the Act
 Joseph Forster Wilson and Another vs Sir Christopher Furness 6 O Mally  Hardocastle s Report of Election Cases p 1 referred to