Case: Kashi Nath Vs. Kudsia Begum &amp; Others

2. The date for filing the nomination papers of the candidates for them election in the State of U. P. was January 9, 1969. On that date nine candidates filed their nomination papers Aizaz Rasul, who had the title of Nawab and who is the husband of respondent No. 1, had been nominated as a candidate and his nomination papers were held to be in order by the Returning Officer on January 9, 1969. After the nomination papers had been accepted Aizaz Rasul and one other candidate withdrew from the contest and seven candidates were left in the field. The polling took place on February 7, 1969. Respondent No. 1 was declared elected on February 10, 1969. It is unnecessary to mention the votes polled by all the candidates. It would be sufficient to mention that respondent No. 1 secured 32,031 and the appellant 31,955 votes. On March 27, 1969 the appellant filed an election petition in the High Court of Allahabad. Respondent No. 1 and other six candidates who had contested the election were duly impleaded as parties but Aizaz Rasul who had withdrawn from the contest was not made a party. The petition was dismissed in accordance with the terms of S. 86 (1) of the Act on the ground that the allegations of commission of corrupt practices had been made against Aizaz Rasul and therefore it was incumbent on the election petitioner to have impleaded him as a respondent.

Court's reasoning:
4. An attempt was made long after the period of limitation for riling the election petition had expired to amend column I of the heading of Schedule VIII by the insertion of words "in whose company Madan Gopal Misra" between the words persons and committed in column I of that Schedule.That was rightly disallowed by the learned trial judge as a defective petition could not be allowed to be rectified after the period of limitation for filing it had expiredReliance has been placed on S. B. Adityan v S. Kandaswami, 1959 SCR 868   = (AIR 1958 SC 857  )where it was observed at page 876 that a corrupt practice committed with the consent of a candidate was not in itself a new kind of corrupt practice. The consent by a candidate to the commission of a corrupt practice by someone else, whatever its consequences might be, was not itself a corrupt practice. Therefore to say that a candidate consented to corrupt practice being committed by accepting a gift made to him to induce him to withdraw his candidature was not to say that he himself committed the corrupt practice. The decision in that case is clearly distinguishable on facts7. In our judgment the High Court was right in reading the contents of Schedule VIII in the context of the allegations made in paragraphs 20 (b) and 20 (c) of the petition. The election agent of respondent No. 1 Aizaz Rasul is alleged to have availed of the services of Misra the Sanitary Inspector who is stated to be living in his kothi at Sandila to exercise undue influence on the voters with his assistance and he is actually alleged to have exercised the said influence by carrying Misra in his jeep to Malaiya and Kachauna villages where along with him the voters were asked by Misra to vote for respondent No. 1 on pain of their suffering injury at his hands if they did not do so. The fact that corrupt practices were alleged in the aforesaids of Para 20 as having been committed by respondent No. 1 and her election agent is proved from what is stated in the first part of pare 21 as well. We are unable to accept that whatever allegations of corrupt practices were made they were confined only to Misra the Sanitary Inspector. The High Court was, therefore, justified in dismissing the petition under S. 86 (1) of the Act.