Case: Kalya Singh Vs. Genda Lal &amp; Others

1. There were three candidates to contest the election to the Legislative Assembly of Madhya Pradesh from the Bhainsdeshi Assembly (Reserved) Constituency in the last general elections. The appellant in this appeal under Sec. 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 - hereinafter referred to as the Act, was declared elected to the seat defeating the other two candidates who are respondents 2 and 3. Respondent no. I filed an Election Petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the election of the appellant on several grounds. A learned single Judge of the High Court has declared the election of the appellant void on one ground only. It has been held that he indulged in a corrupt practice within the meaning of section 123 (1) (A) (b) of the Act. We shall confine the statement of facts in this case to the only ground on which the appellants election has been set aside.2. Respondent no. 1 stated in paragraph 6 of his election Petition:"(iv) That after the date of withdrawal the respondent no.1 himself end through his aforesaid agents and workers with his consent was vehemently trying to induce the respondent no. 3 to support the candidature of the respondent no. 1, and declare that the electors, should not vote for the respondent no. 3, but should vote for the respondent no. 1.(v)That the respondent no. 1, and his aforesaid agents and workers having failed in their attempt in inducing the respondent no. 3 from either standing, withdrawing or declaring to support the candidature of the respondent no. 1, and the respondent no. 3. having started his election campaign in full swing, the respondent no. 1 apprehended that if respondent no. 3, remains in contest then, he had no chance of success. Therefore he made determined efforts, to see that the respondent no. 3 makes an appeal to the electors of the constituency to the effect that the electors should vote for the respondent no. 1 and should refrain from voting in favour of the respondent no. 3, and withdraws from the contest.........(vii) That on 22-2-1972 at Paratwada respondent no. I himself in the company of his agents and workers Shri N. K. P. Salve, Shiv Bux Singh and Baboolal Pathak induced the respondent no. 3 to support the Candidature of the respondent no, 1 and offered to pay compensation to respondent no. 3. The respondent no. 3 agreed to support the candidature of the respondent no. 1, and to publish a pamphlet to the effect that the electors should vote for the respondent no. 1 and should refrain from voting the respondent no. 3. The respondent no. 1 offered a sum of Rs. 8000/- to the respondent no. 3 as compensation, which he had incurred in his election campaign."3. On appreciation of evidence adduced before the High Court, on the relevant issues it recorded the following findings:"ISSUE NO. 1 (a)The respondent no. 1 (Kalya Singh) asked respondent no. 3 (Patiram) on the night intervening 22nd and 23-2-1972 at Paratwada to withdraw from the contest and to support respondent no. 1. Respondent no. 1 also offered to pay Rs. 8,000/- as compensation to respondent no. 3 for the election expenses till then incurred by him .ISSUE No. 1. (b)The respondent, no. 3 agreed to support respondent no. 1 and to issue a pamphlet requesting the voters to vote for respondent no. 1.ISSUE No, 1 (c) ,A sum of Rs. 4,000/- was void in cash on 23rd February, 1972 by respondent no. 1 to respondent no. 3. A pronote for Rs. 4,000/- (Ex. P-3) executed by respondent no. 1 in favour of Shiv Darshan Singh was also handed over by respondent no. l to respondent no. 3. It was also agreed that in case the balance amount of Rupees 4,000/- was not paid by respondent no. 1 respondent no. 3 will hand over the pronote to Shiv Darshan Singh who will recover the amount from Respondent no. 1 and pay to respondent no. 3.ISSUE No, 1 (d)In the meeting held at Bhainsdeshi on 23rd February, 1972 it was announced by respondent no. 3 that he now supports the Congress. The said meeting was also addressed by respondent no. 1, Shivbux Singh and Kawadkar. They also announced the withdrawal from the contest of respondent no. 3, and asked the electors to vote for respondent no. 1.ISSUE No. 1 (e) .The pamphlet (Ex. P-11) was distributed in the meeting of 23rd February, 1972."

Court's reasoning:
It is significant to note from sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (A) that post-facto payment of any gratification as a reward will be bribery only if it is paid to the person or the elector mentioned in thesemoney is paid to an elector to vote for a particular candidate undoubtedly it is a direct inducement to him to vote at an election. If money is paid to a third person in which payment of money an elector has got any direct or indirect interest and which induces him to vote at an election in favour of a particular candidate then also the inducement is brought about as a result of the payment of the gratification. But the point of difficulty may arise where any gratification is void by or on behalf of a candidate to a third person for procuring some votes of some electors who may be under his (third persons)are inclined to think that mere payment of any gratification to a third person for securing or procuring some votes in favour of a particular candidate without the establishment of any nexus between the money and the inducement to the voter will not be sufficient to prove that the voter is indirectly induced on account of the payment of gratification to the third person. The dictionary meaning of the word "induce" is to "prevail on, persuade". The gratification must have some connection or reflection, direct or indirect, in persuading the voter to vote or refrain from voting at an election. If the inducement to the voter is not caused by the payment of the gratification to a third person but by the persuasion or influence (not undue influence) of such third person it will not be possible to say that the gratification had any indirect inducement to the voter. Payment of any gratification to any person to work or canvass at an election is outside the ambit of the definition. It will make little difference if the worker or the canvassor on payment of gratification promises or indulges in fall-talk of securing or procuring some votes for a particular candidate. If the inducement to the voter is free from the shade or colour of the gratification paid to the third person, it will not be bribery. If, however, the inducement in a given case is coloured or shaded by the payment of the gratification to a third person then it would be an indirect inducement to the voter himself within the frame of the definition. In other words it is the fact of payment to the third person that must induce the voter. It is not enough that the third person induces the voter. The frame of any definition, more often than not, is capable of being made flexible. But the precision and certainty in law requires that it should not be made loose and kept tight as far as possible.7. On the facts found in this case, respondent No. 3 after having retired from the contest merely canvassed to the voters some of whom may be his so called voters, to vote for the appellant. Distribution of the pamphlet and announcement in the meeting held on the 23rd February, 72 to that end did not transgress the limit and make the act an indirect inducement to the voters to cast vote for the appellant on account of payment of the gratification by him to the thirdwas not a case where money was paid to respondent no. 3 as consideration for votes promised or as a bargain for getting votes. It was a money paid to him to retire from the contest and to do propaganda and persuade the voters to vote for the appellant. In spite of the propaganda and the appeal of respondent no. 3 the voters were left free not to respond to his persuasion. In no view of the matter, therefore, it is possible to sustain the judgment of the High Court holding the appellant guilty of corrupt practice within the meaning of S. 123 (1) (A) (b) of the Act. That being so, it is plain that respondent no. 3 also must be exonerated of the charge levelled and found against him of bribery within the meaning of Section 123 (1) (B) (b).