{"id":202895,"date":"1955-09-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1955-09-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tirath-singh-vs-bachittar-singh-and-others-on-15-september-1955"},"modified":"2016-04-22T22:20:07","modified_gmt":"2016-04-22T16:50:07","slug":"tirath-singh-vs-bachittar-singh-and-others-on-15-september-1955","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tirath-singh-vs-bachittar-singh-and-others-on-15-september-1955","title":{"rendered":"Tirath Singh vs Bachittar Singh And Others on 15 September, 1955"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Tirath Singh vs Bachittar Singh And Others on 15 September, 1955<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1955 AIR 830, \t\t 1955 SCR (2) 457<\/div>\n
Author: T V Aiyyar<\/div>\n
Bench: Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTIRATH SINGH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBACHITTAR SINGH AND OTHERS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n15\/09\/1955\n\nBENCH:\nAIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA\nBENCH:\nAIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN\n\nCITATION:\n 1955 AIR  830\t\t  1955 SCR  (2) 457\n\n\nACT:\n  Election  Dispute-Election petition - Contents alleged  to\nbe  vague and wanting in  particulars-Maintainability-Naming\nof persons for disqualification-Recommendationf or exemption\nfrom  disqualification-Notice-Jurisdiction of the  Tribunal-\nThe  Representation of the People Act (XLIII of\t 1951),\t ss.\n83, 99(1)(a) proviso.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n  Where\t the  respondent in an election\t petition  contended\nthat the allegations in the election petition were vague and\nwanting in particulars, but did not call for any particulars\nwhich  it  was open to him to do and was not found  to\thave\nbeen misled or in any way prejudiced in his defence, it\t was\nnot  open to him to contend that the petition was liable  to\nbe dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of s. 83\nof the Act.\nClauses\t (a)  and  (b)\tof  the proviso\t to  s.\t 99  of\t the\nRepresentation\tof  the People Act read\t together  leave  no\nscope for doubt that clause (a) contemplates notice only  to\nsuch  persons as were not parties to the  election  petition\nand  it is, therefore, not obligatory on the Tribunal  under\ncl. (a) to issue notices on such persons as were parties  in\norder that it may name them for disqualification under\tsub-\nclause\t(ii) of S. 99(1)(a) of the Act.\t Clause (b)  to\t the\nproviso\t obviously has the effect of excluding such  persons\nas  have  already  had the  opportunity\t of  cross-examining\nwitnesses,  calling evidence and of being heard,  which\t the\nclause seeks to afford.\nThe   Indian  and  the\tEnglish\t Law  on  the\tmatter\t are\nsubstantially the same.\n Kesho\tRam v. Hazura Singh, [1953] 8 Election\tLaw  Reports\n320, overruled.\n The jurisdiction that sub-clause (ii) of s. 99(1)(a) of the\nAct  confers on the Tribunal for making\t recommendation\t for\nexemption\n458\nfrom disqualifications mentioned in ss. 141 to 143 is purely\nadvisory.   Where it omits to do so, aggrieved parties\thave\naccess to the Election Commission which under s. 144 has the\npower  to  act\tsuo motu.  No person, be he  a\tparty  or  a\nstranger,  has\ta right to be heard by the Tribunal  on\t the\nquestion  of such exemption and, therefore, no\tquestion  of\nany  service of notice under the proviso in this regard\t can\narise.\n Even supposing that the proviso requires notice on a  party\nto the election petition, the notice to him of the  election\npetition  itself  can  be  treated as  a  notice  under\t the\nproviso.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
   CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal\t No.  21  of
\n1955.\n<\/p>\n
 Appeal\t under\t Article 133(1)(c) of  the  Constitution  of
\nIndia against the Judgment and Order dated the 12th  January
\n1954  of  the Pepsu High Court in Civil Misc.\tNo.  182  of
\n1953.\n<\/p>\n
M.   C.\t Setalvad, Attorney-General of India, Veda Vyas\t and
\nJagannath   Kaushal,   (Naunit\tLal,  with   them),for\t the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
 The respondents did not appear.\n<\/p>\n
1955.\tSeptember  15.\t The  Judgment\tof  the\t Court\t was
\ndelivered by
\nVENKATARAMA  AYYAR  J.-The  appellant was  a  candidate\t for
\nelection  to the Legislative Assembly of the State of  PEPSU
\nfrom the Dhuri Constituency, and having secured the  largest
\nnumber\tof  votes  was declared\t duly  elected.\t  The  first
\nrespondent  who is one of the electors in  the\tConstituency
\nfiled  the petition out of which the present appeal  arises,
\nfor  setting aside the election on the grounds, inter  alia,
\n(1)  that the nomination of one Mali Singh had been  wrongly
\nrejected  by  the returning officer, and (2)  that  the\t ap-
\npellant was guilty of the corrupt practice of bribery.\t The
\nTribunal  held\tthat both these grounds were made  out,\t and
\naccordingly  set aside the election.  It further recorded  a
\nfinding in terms of section 99 (1) (a) of the Representation
\nof  the People Act No. XLIII of 1951 that the appellant\t was
\nproved to have committed the corrupt practice of bribery  as
\nmentioned  in  section\t123(1) of the  Act.   The  Appellant
\nthereupon filed in the High Court of Patiala and East Punjab
\nStates
\n450<\/span>
\nUnion an application under Article 227 attacking the finding
\nof the Tribunal that he was guilty of bribery.\tThe order of
\nthe Tribunal in so far as it set aside his election was\t not
\nchallenged.  By order dated 12-1-1954 the High Court  upheld
\nthe findings of the Tribunal, and dismissed the application,
\nand by order dated 7-6-1954 granted a certificate for appeal
\nto  this  Court under Article 133(1)(c).  That\tis  how\t the
\nappeal comes before us.\n<\/p>\n
 On  behalf  of the appellant, the  learned  AttorneyGeneral
\nraised\ttwo contentions: (1) The finding that the  appellant
\nwas  guilty  of\t bribery was reached  in  disregard  of\t the
\nmandatory provisions of section 83, and that it was  besides
\nopen to other legal objections; and (2) the finding recorded
\nunder  section 99 of the Act was bad, because no notice\t was
\ngiven  to the appellant, and no enquiry held as required  by
\nthe proviso to section 99.  This point was not taken in’ the
\napplication  under Article 227, and was sought to be  raised
\nat  the\t time  of the argument in the High  Court;  but\t the
\nlearned Judges declined to entertain it.\n<\/p>\n
(1)  On\t the first question, the complaint of the  appellant
\nis that in the election petition the allegations relating to
\nbribery were vague and wanting in particulars, and that\t the
\npetition  should  accordingly  have  been  dismissed   under
\nsections  83  and 85 of the Act; that the  charge  that\t was
\nsought to be proved at the hearing was at variance with\t the
\ncharge as alleged in the petition, and that the Tribunal had
\nerred in giving a finding of bribery on the basis not of the
\nallegations  in the petition but of the evidence adduced  at
\nthe trial.  The allegations in the petition relating to this
\ncharge are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
 “The  sweepers\t of Small Town Committee,  Dhuri  were\teach
\ngranted\t good work allowance at Rs. 5 p.m. for three  months
\nonly  during Election days, simply because they happened  to
\nbe  voters  in\tthe  said  Constituency,  vide\tletter\t No.
\nST\/1(4)\/52\/20702  dated\t 7th December, 1951.  All  this\t was
\ndone to induce these sweepers to vote for the respondent No.
\n1, The allowance was against the Rules”,
\n460<\/span>
\nThe reply of the appellant to this charge was as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
  “The sweepers of Small Town Committee represented to me in
\nwriting\t that their pays should be increased, and they\talso
\nquoted\tthe  pays  that the employees of  other\t Small\tTown
\nCommittees  and\t Municipal  Committees\twere  getting.\t The
\nrepresentation\twas  forwarded\tto  the\t Secretariat.\t The
\nSecretariat  examined  it on merits,  passed  legal  orders.
\nSuch  concessions were also shown to other employees of\t the
\nvarious\t Small Town Committees and Municipal  Committees  in
\nPepsu before and after this case.  This was an official\t act
\ndone  in the routine and not to induce the sweepers to\tvote
\nfor respondent No. 1”.\n<\/p>\n
On these averments, the following issue was framed:
\n “5.  Whether the sweepers of Small Town  Committee,  Dhuri,
\nwere  granted  good work allowance at Rs. 5 p.m.  for  three
\nmonths only during the election days in order to induce them
\nto vote for the Respondent No. 1?”\n<\/p>\n
 At  the trial, the petitioner examined the Darogba  of\t the
\nSmall Town Committee (P.W. 28), and five sweepers, P.Ws. 12,
\n13,  14, 39 and 40, and their evidence was that sometime  in
\nNovember  1951 the appellant came to Dhuri,  enquired  about
\nthe number of sweepers in the service of the Committee,\t and
\noffered to raise their pay if they would vote for him,\tthat
\nthe  sweepers  thereupon held a meeting and  considered\t the
\nsuggestion  of the appellant, and then decided to  vote\t for
\nhim,  if the pay was increased.\t It must be stated that\t the
\nappellant was then Minister for Health, and was in charge of
\nLocal Administration.  On 28-11-1951 he passed an order on a
\nmemorial  sent\tby  the sweepers that  their  pay  would  be
\nincreased  by Rs. 5 per mensem.\t Objection to the order\t was
\ntaken by the Department, and thereupon, the appellant passed
\nthe  modified  order  dated  7-12-1951\tgranting  good\twork
\nallowance for a period of three months from December 1951 to
\nFebruary  1952.\t The Tribunal accepted the evidence  on\t the
\nside  of  the  petitioner  that\t the  appellant\t offered  to
\nincrease  the salary of the sweepers in 1951, and held\tthat
\nthe order dated
\n461<\/span>
\n7-12-1951,  granting  good work allowance for  the  election
\nperiod\twas the outcome of the bargain come to\tin  November
\n1951, and that the charge of bribery had been established.
\nIt is contended for the appellant that in the petition there
\nwas  no\t mention  of the bargain on  which  the\t finding  of
\nbribery\t by the Tribunal was based, that the charge  in\t the
\npetition related only to the order dated 7-12-1951, and that
\naccordingly  it\t was not open to the  petitioner  to  travel
\nbeyond\tthe  petition  and adduce evidence  in\tproof  of  a
\nbargain\t which\thad not been pleaded.  This is\tto  put\t too
\ntechnical  and narrow a construction on the averments.\t The
\ncharge in the petition was not merely that the appellant had
\npassed\tthe order dated 7-12-1951 but that he had passed  it
\nwith  a view to induce the sweepers to vote for\t him.\tThat
\nclearly\t raised the question as to the\tcircumstances  under
\nwhich  the  order came to be passed, whether it was  in\t the
\ncourse\tof  official routine as the  appellant\tpleaded,  or
\nunder  circumstances which were calculated to influence\t the
\nvoters.\t  Issue\t 5  put the matter  beyond  doubt,  when  it
\npointedly  raised  the question whether the grant  was\t“for
\nthree  months  only  during the election days  in  order  to
\ninduce\tthem (the sweepers) to vote for the  respondent\t No.
\nI”.   Under  the  circumstances,  the  complaint  that\t the
\nevidence  and the finding as to the bargain went beyond\t the
\npleadings  and should be ignored appears to be\twithout\t any
\nsubstance.   It may be that the allegations in the  petition
\nare  not  as  full  as they might  have\t been;\tbut  if\t the
\nappellant  was\treally embarrassed by the vagueness  of\t the
\ncharge,\t it was open to him to have called for\tparticulars;
\nbut  he did not do so.\tAt the trial, the  petitioner  first
\nadduced evidence, and his witnesses spoke to the bargain  in
\nNovember,  1951.   It is stated on behalf of  the  appellant
\nthat  he  objected to the reception of the evidence  on\t the
\nquestion  of  bargain, as it was not pleaded.  But  this  is
\ndenied by the petitioner in his affidavit filed in the\tHigh
\nCourt dated 3-12-1953.\tEven apart from this, the  witnesses
\non  behalf of the petitioner gave evidence on this point  on
\nthe 8th and 11th
\n462<\/span>
\nNovember,  15th\t and  16th December, 1952, and\ton  the\t 2nd
\nFebruary, 1953.\t Then the appellant entered on his  defence.
\nOn 26-2-1951 he examined R.W. 4, a member of the Small\tTown
\nCommittee,  to\trebut  the  evidence  on  the  side  of\t the
\npetitioner, and himself went into the box and deposed to the
\ncircumstances  under  which  the order came  to\t be  passed.
\nHaving\tregard\tto the above facts, there is and can  be  no
\ncomplaint  that the appellant was misled, or was  prejudiced
\nby the alleged defect in the pleadings.\t The contention that
\nis  urged  for\thim is that the petition  should  have\tbeen
\ndismissed  under section 83 for want of\t particulars.\tThis
\nwas rightly rejected by the High Court as without force, and
\nwe are in agreement with it.\n<\/p>\n
It  is next contended that there is no evidence\t or  finding
\nthat the sweepers were entitled to vote in the Constituency,
\nor that the appellant was a candidate as defined in  section
\n79(2)  at  the\ttime when the bargain  was  made.   But\t the
\nallegation in the petition is clear that the order dated  7-
\n12-1951 was made with a view “to induce the sweepers to vote
\nfor the appellant”.  The reply of the appellant to this\t was
\nthat  the order was made in the course of  official  routine
\nand “not to induce the sweepers to vote” for him.  Far\tfrom
\nthere  being  any  specific denial that\t the  sweepers\twere
\nelectors,  the reply of the appellant proceeds on the  basis
\nthat  they  were entitle to vote.  This\t objection  was\t not
\nraised before the Tribunal, and, as pointed out by the\tHigh
\nCourt, P.W. 12 does say in his evidence that he is a  voter.
\nThis contention must accordingly be overruled.\tNor is there
\nany substance in the contention that there is no proof\tthat
\nthe  appellant was a candidate at the time of ‘the  bargain.
\nthis  again is an objection which was not taken\t before\t the
\nTribunal,  and on the evidence of the witnesses examined  on
\nthe  side  of  the  petitioner which  was  accepted  by\t the
\nTribunal, the appellant would be a prospective candidate  as
\ndefined\t in section 79(b) of the Act.  The finding that\t the
\nappellant  is  guilty of bribery is therefore  not  open  to
\nattack.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  It is next contended that the order of the
\n463<\/span>
\nTribunal  in  so far as it recorded a finding that  the\t ap-
\npellant\t had  committed the corrupt  practice  specified  in
\nsection\t 123(1)\t is bad, as no notice was given\t to  him  as
\nrequired by the proviso to section 99 and no opportunity  to
\nshow cause against it.\tSection 99 runs as follows:
\n  “99.\t(1) At the time of making an order under section  98
\nthe Tribunal shall also make an order(a) whether any  charge
\nis  made in the petition of any corrupt or illegal  practice
\nhaving been committed at the election, recording-\n<\/p>\n
 (i) a\tfinding whether any corrupt or illegal practice\t has
\nor  has not been proved to have been committed by,  or\twith
\nthe  connivance\t of,  any  candidate or\t his  agent  at\t the
\nelection,  and\tthe  nature  of\t that  corrupt\tor   illegal
\npractice; and\n<\/p>\n
(ii) the names of all persons, if any, who have been  proved
\nat  the trial to have been guilty of any corrupt or  illegal
\npractice and the nature of that practice, together with\t any
\nsuch  recommendations  as the Tribunal may think  proper  to
\nmake  for  the\texemption  of  any  persons  from  any\tdisq
\nualifications\twhich  they  may  have\tincurred   in\tthis
\nconnection under sections 141 to 143.\n<\/p>\n
Provided  that no person shall be named in the\torder  under
\nsub-clause  (ii) of clause (a) unless(a) he has\t been  given
\nnotice\tto appear before the Tribunal and to show cause\t why
\nhe should not be so named; and\n<\/p>\n
(b)  if\t he appears in pursuance of the notice, he has\tbeen
\ngiven an opportunity of cross-examining any witness who\t has
\nalready\t been  examined\t by  the  Tribunal,  and  has  given
\nevidence against him, of calling evidence in his defence and
\nof  being  heard The point for decision is  whether  it\t was
\nobligatory on the part of the Tribunal to issue notice under
\nthe above proviso to parties to the election petition before
\nrecording a finding under section 99(1)(a).  The  contention
\nof  the\t appellant  is that under section  99  (1)  (a)\t the
\nTribunal has to record the names of all persons
\n59<\/span>
\n464<\/span>
\nwho  are  proved to have been guilty of corrupt\t or  illegal
\npractice,  that\t that  would include  both  parties  to\t the
\npetition  as well as non-parties, that the proviso  requires
\nthat  notice  should be given to all persons who are  to  be
\nnamed under section 99 (1) (a), subclause (ii), and that the
\nappellant was accordingly entitled to fresh notice under the
\nproviso.  It is argued that if the language of the enactment
\nis  interpreted in its literal and grammatical sense,  there
\ncould  be no escape from the conclusion that parties to\t the
\npetition are also entitled to notice under the proviso.\t But
\nit is a rule of interpretation wellestablished that,  “Where
\nthe  language  of  a statute, in its  ordinary\tmeaning\t and
\ngrammatical construction, leads to a manifest  contradiction
\nof  the\t apparent  purpose  of the  enactment,\tor  to\tsome
\ninconvenience\tor   absurdity,\t  hardship   or\t  injustice,
\npresumably  not intended, a construction may be put upon  it
\nwhich  modifies\t the  meaning of the  words,  and  even\t the
\nstructure  of the sentence”. (Maxwell’s\t -Interpretation  of
\nStatutes,  10th\t Edition, page 229).   Reading\tthe  proviso
\nalong with clause (b) thereto, and construing it in its set-
\nting in the section, we are of opinion that  notwithstanding
\nthe wideness of the language used, the proviso\tcontemplates
\nnotice only to persons who are not parties to the petition.
\n  The object of giving notice to a person under the  proviso
\nis obviously to give him an opportunity to be heard before a
\nfinding\t is given under section 99 (1) (a) (i) that  he\t has
\ncommitted  a  corrupt  or illegal  practice.   This  clearly
\nappears\t from clause (b) of the proviso, which\tenacts\tthat
\nthe  person  to whom notice is to be given  should  have  an
\nopportunity   of  crossexamining  witnesses  who  had\tbeen
\nexamined  before and given evidence against him, of  calling
\nhis own evidence and of being heard.  This is in  accordance
\nwith the rule of natural justice which requires that no\t one
\nshould be condemned without being given an opportunity to be
\nheard.\t The  reason of the rule, therefore,  requires\tthat
\nnotice\tshould be given to persons who had had\tno  previous
\nopportunity  in\t respect of the matters\t mentioned  in\tsub-
\nclause (b) to the pro-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t      465<\/span><\/p>\n
viso.\tSuch  for example would be witnesses,  and  possibly
\nagents of the parties, as observed in Nyalchand Virchand  v.
\nElection  Tribunal(1), though it is not necessary to  decide
\nthat  point, but it cannot refer to parties to the  petition
\nwho  have had every opportunity of taking part in the  trial
\nand  presenting their case.  Where an election\tpetition  is
\nfounded\t on a charge of corrupt practice on the part of\t the
\ncandidate, that becomes the subject-matter of enquiry in the
\npetition  itself., If at the trial the Tribunal came to\t the
\nconelusion  that the charge had been proved, then it has  to
\nhold under section 100(2) (b) that the election is void, and
\npass an order to that effect under section 98 (d).   Section
\n99  (1)\t enacts that the finding of corrupt  practice  under
\nsection\t 99 (1) (a) (i) or naming a person under section  99
\n(1) (a) (ii) should be at the time of making an order  under
\nsection\t 98.   If the contention of the appellant is  to  be
\naccepted, then the result will be that even though there was
\na full trial of the charges set out in the petition, if\t the
\nTribunal  is  disposed to bold them proved it has  first  to
\ngive notice of the finding which it proposes to give, to the
\nparties, and hold a fresh trial of the very matters that had
\nbeen  already tried.  That is an extraordinary\tresult,\t for
\nwhich\tit   is\t difficult  to\tdiscover   any\t reason\t  or
\njustification.\t It  was  argued by  the  learned  Attorney-
\n“General that the giving to a party to a proceeding a second
\nopportunity to be heard was not unknown to law, and he cited
\nthe  instance of an accused in a warrant case being given  a
\nfurther opportunity to recall and cross-examine\t prosecution
\nwitnesses  after  charge is framed, and of a  civil  servant
\nbeing  given an opportunity under Article 311 to show  cause
\nagainst\t the action proposed to be taken against him.  In  a
\nwarrant\t case, the accused is not bound to crossexamine\t the
\nprosecution  witnesses before charge is framed, and  in\t the
\ncase of civil servants, the decision that they are  entitled
\nto  a second opportunity was based on the peculiar  language
\nof  sections 240(2) and (3) of the Government of India\tAct,
\n1935, and Article 311 of the Constitution.  They are
\n(1)  [1953] 8 Election Law Reports 417, 421,
\n466<\/span>
\nexceptional  cases,  and do not furnish any safe  or  useful
\nguidance in the interpretation of section 99.
\n The  appellant also sought support for his contention\tthat
\nnotice should be given under the proviso even to persons who
\nare  parties to the election petition, in the  provision  in
\nsection\t 99 (1) (a) (ii) that the Tribunal might  make\tsuch
\nrecommendations\t as  it thinks proper for exemption  of\t any
\npersons\t from  any  disqualifications which  may  have\tbeen
\nincurred  under sections 141 to 143.  The argument  is\tthat
\nthe disqualifications mentioned in section 143 could only be
\nwith  reference to candidates, as they relate to default  in
\nfiling\treturn\tof  election expenses  or  in  filing  false
\nreturns,  that before the Tribunal could take  action  under
\nthis  provision it would have to give notice to the  persons
\naffected  thereby  who must necessarily be  parties  to\t the
\npetition, and that if the proviso applies when action is  to
\nbe taken under section 143, there is no reason why it should
\nnot  apply  when  action  is to be  taken  under  the  other
\nsections of the Act as well.\n<\/p>\n
 The fallacy in this argument is in thinking that notice  to
\na  person  is requisite for making  a  recommendation  under
\nsection\t 99(1) (a) (ii).  Section 99(1) (a) (ii) deals\twith
\ntwo  distinct matters-naming persons who are proved to\thave
\nbeen   guilty\tof  corrupt  and  illegal   practices,\t and
\nrecommending  whether  there  should  be  any  exemption  in
\nrespect\t of the disqualifications mentioned in sections\t 141
\nto 143, and the proviso, properly construed, requires notice
\nonly  in  the former case and not the latter.\tIt  will  be
\nnoticed that while in cases falling within sections 139\t and
\n140  the  disqualification is automatic\t and  immutable,  in
\ncases  falling\twithin\tsections 141  to  143  the  Election
\nCommission has power to grant exemption under section 144 of
\nthe  Act.  It is to guide the Commission in  exercising\t its
\npowers\tunder section 144, that the Tribunal is directed  in
\nsection\t 99  (1) (a) (ii) to make any  recommendations\twith
\nreference  thereto.   The jurisdiction of  the\tTribunal  in
\nrespect of this matter is purely advisory.  There is nothing
\nto  prevent  the Commission from taking up the\tquestion  of
\nexemption under section 144 suo motu, even though the
\n467<\/span>
\nTribunal  has  made  no recommendation.\t  Indeed,  there  is
\nnothing\t to  prevent  the  person  adversely  affected\tfrom
\napplying  directly to the Commission for exemption.   While,
\ntherefore,  there is compelling reason why a  person  should
\nhave  an  opportunity of showing cause before he  is  named,
\nthere\tis   none  such\t when  the  question   is   one\t  of
\nrecommendation.\t  As we construe the proviso, it confers  no
\nright  on any person, party or stranger, to be heard on\t the
\nquestion whether he should be recommended for exemption from
\nthe  disqualifications\tunder  sections\t 141  to  143.\t The
\nprovision for exemption in section 99 (1) (a) (ii) therefore
\ndoes not lend any support to the contention of the appellant
\nthat notice should be given to parties to the petition under
\nthe proviso before they are named.\n<\/p>\n
 Reliance  was also placed by the appellant on the  decision
\nof  the Election Tribunal in Kesho Ram v.  Hazura  Singh(1),
\nwherein\t it  was held by a majority that  notice  under\t the
\nproviso to section 99 should be given to the parties to\t the
\npetition also.\tFor the reasons given above, we do not agree
\nwith the decision of the majority.\n<\/p>\n
 Our conclusion is that while the persons to be named  under
\nsection\t 99(1)(a)(ii)  would  include both  parties  to\t the
\npetition as well as non-parties, the proviso thereto applies
\nonly to persons who had no opportunity of taking part in the
\ntrial,\tand  that, therefore, whether  notice  should  issue
\nunder  the proviso will depend on whether the person had  an
\nopportunity   to  cross-examine\t witnesses  who\t had   given
\nevidence  against him and to adduce his own evidence.\tThis
\nconclusion  is\tin accord with the law\tin  England.   Under
\nsection\t 140  sub-clause (1) of the  Representation  of\t the
\nPeople\tAct,  1949, an election Court has to  state  in\t its
\nreport\tthe  names of all persons who are  found  guilty  of
\ncorrupt\t and illegal practice but “in the case of  some\t one
\nwho is not a party to the petition nor a candidate on behalf
\nof whom the seat or office is claimed by the petition”,\t the
\ncourt has to issue notice to him, give him an opportunity of
\nbeing
\n(1)  (1953] 8 Election Law Reports 320.\n<\/p>\n
468<\/span><\/p>\n
heard  by himself, and calling evidence in his defence.\t  It
\nwas  sugested for the appellant that the law as\t enacted  in
\nsection\t 99  makes a deliberate departure  from\t that  under
\nsection\t 140(1) of the English Act.  The difference  in\t the
\nwording between the two sections is due to the difference in
\nthe arrangement of the topics of the two statutes, and there
\nis no reason to hold that with reference to the substance of
\nthe  matter,  there  was any intention to  depart  from\t the
\nEnglish\t law  on  the  subject;\t nor  is  there\t any  reason
\ntherefor.\n<\/p>\n
 In  the  present  case, the appellant was a  party  to\t the
\npetition, and it was his election that was being  questioned
\ntherein.  He had ample opportunity of being heard, and\twas,
\nin  fact, heard, and therefore there was no need to issue  a
\nnotice\tto  him\t under\tthe proviso  to\t section  99  before
\nrecording a finding under section 99 (1) (a) (ii).  Further,
\neven  if we agree with the contention of the appellant\tthat
\nnotice\tunder the proviso should be given to a party to\t the
\npetition, seeing that the reliefs which could be claimed  in
\nthe  election petition under section 84 are those  mentioned
\nin  section 98, and that action under section 99 (1) (a)  is
\nto  be taken at the time when the order under section 98  is
\npronounced,  there is no insuperable difficulty in  treating
\nthe  notice to the party in the election petition as  notice
\nfor  purposes of the proviso to section 99(1) (a)  as  well.
\nThis reasoning will not apply to persons who are not parties
\nto  the\t petition, and a notice to them will,  be  necessary
\nunder the proviso, before they axe named.\n<\/p>\n
 In the result, all the contentions urged in support of\t the
\nappeal\tfail,  which must accordingly be rejected.   As\t the
\nrespondent  has\t not appeared to contest the  appeal,  there
\nwill be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
469<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Tirath Singh vs Bachittar Singh And Others on 15 September, 1955 Equivalent citations: 1955 AIR 830, 1955 SCR (2) 457 Author: T V Aiyyar Bench: Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama PETITIONER: TIRATH SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: BACHITTAR SINGH AND OTHERS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/09\/1955 BENCH: AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA BENCH: AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA DAS, SUDHI […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-202895","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nTirath Singh vs Bachittar Singh And Others on 15 September, 1955 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tirath-singh-vs-bachittar-singh-and-others-on-15-september-1955\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tirath Singh vs Bachittar Singh And Others on 15 September, 1955 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tirath-singh-vs-bachittar-singh-and-others-on-15-september-1955\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1955-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-22T16:50:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tirath-singh-vs-bachittar-singh-and-others-on-15-september-1955#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tirath-singh-vs-bachittar-singh-and-others-on-15-september-1955\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tirath Singh vs Bachittar Singh And Others on 15 September, 1955\",\"datePublished\":\"1955-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-22T16:50:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tirath-singh-vs-bachittar-singh-and-others-on-15-september-1955\"},\"wordCount\":3806,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tirath-singh-vs-bachittar-singh-and-others-on-15-september-1955#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tirath-singh-vs-bachittar-singh-and-others-on-15-september-1955\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tirath-singh-vs-bachittar-singh-and-others-on-15-september-1955\",\"name\":\"Tirath Singh vs Bachittar Singh And Others on 15 September, 1955 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1955-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-22T16:50:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tirath-singh-vs-bachittar-singh-and-others-on-15-september-1955#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tirath-singh-vs-bachittar-singh-and-others-on-15-september-1955\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tirath-singh-vs-bachittar-singh-and-others-on-15-september-1955#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tirath Singh vs Bachittar Singh And Others on 15 September, 1955\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Tirath Singh vs Bachittar Singh And Others on 15 September, 1955 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tirath-singh-vs-bachittar-singh-and-others-on-15-september-1955","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tirath Singh vs Bachittar Singh And Others on 15 September, 1955 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tirath-singh-vs-bachittar-singh-and-others-on-15-september-1955","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1955-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-22T16:50:07+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tirath-singh-vs-bachittar-singh-and-others-on-15-september-1955#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tirath-singh-vs-bachittar-singh-and-others-on-15-september-1955"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tirath Singh vs Bachittar Singh And Others on 15 September, 1955","datePublished":"1955-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-22T16:50:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tirath-singh-vs-bachittar-singh-and-others-on-15-september-1955"},"wordCount":3806,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tirath-singh-vs-bachittar-singh-and-others-on-15-september-1955#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tirath-singh-vs-bachittar-singh-and-others-on-15-september-1955","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tirath-singh-vs-bachittar-singh-and-others-on-15-september-1955","name":"Tirath Singh vs Bachittar Singh And Others on 15 September, 1955 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1955-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-22T16:50:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tirath-singh-vs-bachittar-singh-and-others-on-15-september-1955#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tirath-singh-vs-bachittar-singh-and-others-on-15-september-1955"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tirath-singh-vs-bachittar-singh-and-others-on-15-september-1955#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tirath Singh vs Bachittar Singh And Others on 15 September, 1955"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202895","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=202895"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202895\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=202895"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=202895"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=202895"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}