{"id":59259,"date":"1959-04-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1959-03-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prabha-jain-vs-gian-chand-another-on-1-april-1959"},"modified":"2016-12-16T23:00:30","modified_gmt":"2016-12-16T17:30:30","slug":"om-prabha-jain-vs-gian-chand-another-on-1-april-1959","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prabha-jain-vs-gian-chand-another-on-1-april-1959","title":{"rendered":"Om Prabha Jain vs Gian Chand & Another on 1 April, 1959"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Om Prabha Jain vs Gian Chand & Another on 1 April, 1959<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1959 AIR 837, \t\t 1959 SCR Supl. (2) 516<\/div>\n
Author: A Sarkar<\/div>\n
Bench: Sarkar, A.K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nOM PRABHA JAIN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nGIAN CHAND & ANOTHER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n01\/04\/1959\n\nBENCH:\nSARKAR, A.K.\nBENCH:\nSARKAR, A.K.\nIMAM, SYED JAFFER\nSUBBARAO, K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1959 AIR  837\t\t  1959 SCR  Supl. (2) 516\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1983 SC 558\t (25)\n\n\nACT:\nElection  Dispute- Deposit for security for  costs-Dismissal\nof   Election\tPetition  for  non-compliance\twith   rules\ntherefor--Appeal  Maintainability-\"  Trial  \",\tmeaning\t of-\nRecitals  in deposit receipt -\" On whose behalf\t \",  meaning\nof-Representation of the People Act, 1951 (51 of 1951),\t ss.\n90(3), 98, 99, 116-A, 117.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nSection\t 117 of the Representation of the People  Act,\t1951\nprovided: \" The petitioner shall enclose with the petition a\nGovernment  Treasury receipt showing that a deposit  of\t one\nthousand rupees has been made by him...... in favour of\t the\nSecretary  to  the Election Commission as security  for\t the\ncosts of the petition.\"\nThe  respondent, who filed an election petition\t challenging\nthe  validity  of the appellant's  election,  deposited\t the\namount as required under s. 117 of the Act.  In the  deposit\nreceipt, the words \" Secretary to the Election Commission  \"\nwere  put  in  as against the name of the  person  on  whose\nbehalf\tmoney  was paid.  The appellant contended  that\t the\nreceipt in this form showed that the money had been paid  by\nthe respondent acting for the\n517\nSecretary  to  the  Election Commission and not\t by  him  in\nfavour\tof  the\t latter,  and  that  as\t the  receipt\twas,\ntherefore,  not\t in terms Of S. 117, the  election  petition\nshould be dismissed.  The Tribunal accepted the\t appellant's\ncontentions  and dismissed the election petition  under\t the\nprovisions of s. 90(3) of the Act.\nHeld,  that  the words \" on whose behalf \"  in\tthe  deposit\nreceipt,  in the context, must mean \" in whose favour \"\t and\nthat  the receipt was in full compliance with s. 117 of\t the\nAct.\nHeld,  further, that the order passed by the Tribunal  under\nthe  powers contained in s. 90(3) Of the Act dismissing\t the\nelection petition is an order under s. 98 and is  appealable\nunder s. 116A.\nThe word \" trial \" in s. 98 of the Act means the entire pro-\nceeding before the Tribunal from the reference to it by\t the\nElection Commission to the conclusion.\nHarihar\t Singh v. Singh Ganga Prasad, A.I.R. 1958 Pat.\t287,\ndisapproved.\nHarish\tChandra Bajpai v. Triloki Singh,<\/a> [1957] S.C.R.\t370,\nrelied on.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
   CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal\t No.  85  of
\n1959.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nAugust\t12, 1958, of the Punjab High Court in  First  Appeal
\nOrder No. 183 of 1957, arising out of the judgment and order
\ndated  November\t 8, 1957, of Shri  Harbaksh  Singh,  Member,
\nElection  Tribunal, Karnal, in Election Petition No. 249  of
\n1957.\n<\/p>\n
Purshottam Tricumdas, J. B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley and  P.
\nL. Vohra, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
Ganpat Rai, for respondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n
Naunit Lal, for respondent No. 2.\n<\/p>\n
1959.  April 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nSARKAR,\t J.-ID the 1957 General Elections the appellant\t was
\ndeclared  elected to the Punjab Legislative  Assembly.\t The
\nrespondent,  Gian  Chand, filed an election petition  for  a
\ndeclaration  that  the appellant’s election was\t void.\t The
\nother\trespondent  in\tthis  appeal,\tpresumably   another
\nunsuccessful  candidate\t at the election, had  been  made  a
\nparty  to the petition but he never appeared at\t any  stage.
\nFor  brevity we will refer to the respondent Gian Chand,  as
\nthe respondent,
\n518<\/span>
\nThe  Election Tribunal before whom the petition came up\t for
\ntrial framed a number of issues and recorded evidence.\tWhen
\nthe  case  was\tready for argument, the\t appellant  made  an
\napplication  to\t the Tribunal for an  order  dismissing\t the
\npetition under s. 90(3) of the Representation of the  People
\nAct, 1951, which is later set out, on the ground that s. 117
\nof  that  Act  had  not been  complied\twith.\tSection\t 117
\nrequires  that every election petition shall be\t accompanied
\nby  a Government Treasury receipt showing that a deposit  of
\nRs.  1,000 had been made by the petitioner infavour  of\t the
\nSecretary  to  the Election Commission as security  for\t the
\ncosts of the petition.\tThe appellant’s contention was\tthat
\nthe receipt enclosed with the petition was not, for  reasons
\nwhich will be mentioned later, in terms of the section.\t The
\nrespondent  objected  to the application  being\t entertained
\nbecause\t of  the delay in filing it and also on\t the  ground
\nthat  it could not be decided without taking evidence.\t The
\nTribunal overruled the respondent’s objections and held on a
\nscrutiny of the receipt alone that it was not in terms of s.
\n117, and thereupon dismissed the election petition under the
\npowers\tconferred  by s. 90 (3) without deciding  the  other
\nissues framed.\n<\/p>\n
The  respondent\t went  up in appeal to\tthe  High  Court  of
\nPunjab.\t  It was there contended on behalf of the  appellant
\nthat  no  appeal lay from an order  dismissing\tan  election
\npetition for the reasons mentioned in s. 96 (3) and that the
\norder  of  the Tribunal was in any event  right.   The\tHigh
\nCourt  held  that  an appeal lay to it and  that  the  order
\ndismissing  the petition was wrong because the terms  of  s.
\n117  had been complied with.  The present appeal is  against
\nthis order of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
The first point that arises is whether an appeal lay to\t the
\nHigh  Court.   The Act provides by s. 116A  that  an  appear
\nshall  lie  from every order made by  an  Election  Tribunal
\nunder s. 98 or s. 99 to the High Court of the State in which
\nthe  Tribunal  is situated.  The appellant’s  contention  is
\nthat  the order of the Tribunal dismissing the petition\t had
\nnot  been made under either of these sections.\tIt is  quite
\nclear that the
\n519<\/span>
\nTribunal’s  order had not been made under s. 99.  The  point
\nthat arises is whether the order had been made under s.\t 98.
\nIf it had not been made under s. 98, an appeal would clearly
\nnot lie.  The appellant contends that it was not so made but
\nhad been made under s.\t 90 (3).  These two sections are set
\nout below:\n<\/p>\n
” Section 98.-Decision of the Tribunal.-At the conclusion of
\nthe trial of an election petition the Tribunal shall make an
\norder-\n<\/p>\n
(a)  dismissing the election petition; or\n<\/p>\n
(b)  declaring\tthe election of all or any of  the  returned
\ncandidates to be void ; or\n<\/p>\n
(c)  declaring\tthe election of all or any of  the  returned
\ncandidates  to\tbe  void and the  petitioner  or  any  other
\ncandidate to have been duly elected;”.\n<\/p>\n
” Section-90–Procedure before the Tribunal. –
\n(3)  The Tribunal shall dismiss an election  petition  which
\ndoes  not comply with the provisions of section 81,  section
\n82  or\tsection\t 117 notwithstanding that it  has  not\tbeen
\ndismissed by the Election Commission under section 85.”
\nSection 85 provides :-\n<\/p>\n
” Section 85.-If the provisions of section 81 or section  82
\nor  section  117 have not been complied with,  the  Election
\nCommission shall dismiss the petition.”\n<\/p>\n
It  is first contended on behalf of the appellant  that\t the
\nrevisions of s. 85 and s. 90 (3) are substantially the\tsame
\nand  the fact that no appeal has been provided\tagainst\t the
\norder made by the Election Commission under s. 85 should  be
\ntaken  as  indicating that no appeal law  against  an  order
\nunder s. 90 (3).  We are unable to agree with this view.  It
\nseems to us that whether an appeal lies against an order  of
\nthe  Tribunal has to be decided by reference to s. 116A\t and
\nnot  by\t reference to the fact that a similar order  by\t the
\nElection Commission has not been made appealable.
\nIt is next said that an order under s. 8 is by the terms  of
\nthe section, an order made at the conclusion of the trial of
\nan  election petition while an order dismissing\t a  petition
\nfor any of the reasons mentioned in
\n520<\/span>
\ns.   90\t (3) is an order made prior to the  commencement  of
\nsuch trial or at least prior to its conclusion.\t It is\tsaid
\nthat  the  word ” trial ” in s. 98 means that stage  of\t the
\ntrial\twhere  evidence\t is  tendered  and   arguments\t are
\naddressed.  Therefore, it is contended, an order  dismissing
\na  petition under the powers contained in s.90(3) is not  an
\norder under s. 98 and it is consequently not appealable.
\nWe see no justification for this view.\tAn order made  under
\nthe  powers  contained\tin s. 90(3) brings  to\tan  end\t the
\nproceedings  arising out of a petition ; after it  is  made,
\nnothing more remains for the Election Tribunal to try or  do
\nin  respect  of that petition.\tTherefore, it  would  appear
\nthat it is made at the conclusion of the proceedings  before
\nthe Tribunal.  It follows that such an order is made at\t the
\nconclusion  of\tthe trial by the Tribunal for,\tas  will  be
\npresently seen, the sole duty of the Tribunal is to try\t the
\npetition;  the proceeding before it is the trial before\t it.
\nFor  the same reason it would be impossible to say that\t the
\norder  was made before the commencement of the trial of\t the
\npetition  by the Tribunal.  That would be  entirely  against
\nthe  whole  scheme  of\tthe Act\t which\twe  now\t proceed  to
\nconsider.\n<\/p>\n
Chapter\t III  of  Part\tVI is beaded  ”\t Trial\tof  Election
\nPetitions  “.  It consists of ss. 86 to 107 and\t covers\t the
\nentire ground from the moment an election petition comes  to
\nan  Election Tribunal till the final order of  the  Tribunal
\nterminating  the  proceeding  arising out  of  the  petition
\nbefore\tit.  The first section, s. 86, provides that if\t the
\nElection  Commission does not think fit to dismiss under  s.
\n85  the petition which has to be filed with it in the  first
\ninstance,  it shall refer the petition ” for trial ”  to  an
\nElection  Tribunal  constituted\t by  it\t for  the   purpose.
\nTherefore  it would seem that the sole duty of\tan  Election
\nTribunal is to try an election petition referred to it.\t  It
\nis an ad hoc body created under s. 86 for this purpose only.
\nWhen it passes an order which closes the proceedings  before
\nit arising out of an election petition, it must be deemed to
\nhave tried the petition and passed the order at the  conclu-
\nsion of such trial.  It would no less be so when it
\n521<\/span>
\ndecides\t a  matter  before  it\tand  there  by\tbrings\t the
\nproceedings  to a close on one of the several issues  raised
\nand does not decide the other issues.  In such a case it has
\nmade  the  order after trial of that issue  for\t clearly  it
\ncannot\tmake an order on -any issue without trying  it.\t  It
\nhas therefore made the order at the conclusion of the  trial
\nheld  by it.  And for this purpose, it makes  no  difference
\nthat  the  issue tried is of the nature\t usually  called  as
\npreliminary  issue  or that the Tribunal does  or  does\t not
\nconsider it necessary to try the remaining issues.
\nThe  same conclusion also follows from the other  provisions
\nof  the\t said  Chapter III of the Act,\tsome  of  which\t are
\nhereinafter  mentioned.\t  Section 86(4) gives  the  Election
\nCommission  the\t power to fill a vacancy  occurring  in\t the
\noffice\tof  a member of an Election Tribunal  and  upon\t the
\nvacancy\t being\tso filled up ” the trial ” of  the  petition
\nshall  be  continued  by  the  Tribunal\t as  if\t the  person
\nappointed  in the vacancy had been on the Tribunal from\t the
\nbeginning.  Since it is conceivable that a vacancy may occur
\nin  the\t office of a member of a Tribunal  long\t before\t the
\nfinal hearing, that is to say the taking of the evidence and
\nthe commencement of the arguments, this section by providing
\nthat  upon  the\t vacancy being filled ” the  trial”  of\t the
\npetition  shall be continued must be taken as  contemplating
\nthe  proceeding\t prior to the final hearing also  as  trial.
\nUnder s. 88 an Election Tribunal may in its discretion sit ”
\nfor any part of the trial at any place in the State in which
\nthe  election  had  taken  place.   Here  again\t the  entire
\nproceeding  before the Tribunal from the reference to it  by
\nthe  Election  Commission  till\t the  conclusion  is   being
\nconsidered  as\tthe trial.  Again under s. 89  the  Election
\nCommission  may\t at any stage withdraw\ta  petition  pending
\nbefore\ta  Tribunal and transfer it ” for trial\t to  another
\nTribunal ” and ” that Tribunal shall proceed with the  trial
\nfrom  the stage at which it was withdrawn ” from  the  first
\nTribunal.  So here too the entire proceeding from the  first
\nreference  – to an Election Tribunal is being spoken  of  as
\nthe trial.  Hence the contention of the
\n66<\/span>
\n522<\/span>
\nlearned\t counsel for the appellant that the trial  mentioned
\nin  s. 98 is the stage in the proceedings in which  evidence
\nis  taken and arguments are heard, is unfounded.  That\tword
\nin the other sections in this part of the Act clearly  means
\nthe  entire proceeding before a Tribunal from the  reference
\nto it by the Election Commission to the conclusion.  We find
\nno reason to give it a restricted meaning in s. 98.
\nAgain,\tsuppose in a case no evidence was necessary but\t the
\npetition  was dismissed after hearing arguments only.\tThat
\nwould  clearly be an order under s. 98.\t It would have\tbeen
\npassed\tat  the conclusion of the trial.  How is  that\tcase
\ndifferent from one in which on arguments having been  heard,
\nthe  petition is dismissed under the powers contained in  s.
\n90(3)  ?  Obviously  here also the order was  made  -at\t the
\nconclusion  of the trial.  An order passed by  the  Tribunal
\nunder  the  powers  contained  in  s.  90(3)  bringing\t the
\nproceeding  to a close is, therefore, in our view  an  order
\nmade under s. 98.\n<\/p>\n
The learned counsel for the appellant referred us to  Harish
\nChandra\t Bajpai\t v.  Triloki Singh<\/a> (1)\tin  support  of\t his
\ncontention that the order of the Tribunal with which we\t are
\nconcerned in this case was not made at the conclusion of the
\ntrial.\tWe are unable to find anything. in that case to help
\nhim.  There this Court was dealing with s. 90(2) of the\t Act
\nin which the word trial’ occurred.  This Court observed that
\nthe word trial’ standing by itself may be susceptible of two
\nmeanings, that is, as referring to the final hearing of\t the
\npetition  consisting  of examination  of  witnesses,  filing
\ndocuments and addressing arguments, and also as referring to
\nthe  entire  proceedings before the Tribunal from  the\ttime
\nthat  the petition is transferred to it under s. 86  of\t the
\nAct until the pronouncement of the award.  It held that\t the
\nword  I\t trial’ in the section meant the  entire  proceeding
\nbefore the Tribunal.  This case therefore does not show that
\nthe word I trial’ in s. 98 meant only the final hearing.  On
\nthe  contrary it shows that in s. 90(2) which is one of\t the
\nsections  in  the  Chapter  of the Act\twith  which  we\t are
\nconcerned,
\n(I)  [1957] S.C.R. 370,
\n523<\/span>
\nthe  word  ‘trial’  has been understood\t by  this  Court  as
\nreferring  to the entire Proceeding.  That, as we have\tsaid
\nearlier, is really a good reason for thinking that in s.  98
\nthe  word  ‘trial  has the same wider meaning  and  not\t the
\nnarrow meaning of which, the -word standing by itself may be
\ncapable.\n<\/p>\n
It  also  seems to us that s. 90(3) which purports  to\tdeal
\nwith  the ” procedure before the Tribunal ” only states\t the
\npower  of the Tribunal and s. 98 provides for the orders  to
\nbe made by it in exercise of that power.  This view receives
\nsupport\t from ss. 103, 106 and s. 107 of the Act.  Under  s.
\n103, the Tribunal after it has made an order under s. 98 has
\nto  send  a copy of it to the Election\tCommission  and\t the
\nrecords of the case to the District Judge of the place where
\nit  had\t been sitting.\tUnder s. 106, after receipt  of\t the
\norder of the Tribunal the Election Commission shall  forward
\ncopies of the order to the appropriate authority and to\t the
\nSpeaker\t or Chairman of the House the election to which\t was
\nbeing questioned by the petition.  Section 107 provides that
\nevery  order made under s. 98 or s. 99 shall take effect  as
\nsoon  as  it  is pronounced by the  Tribunal.\tNow  if\t the
\ncontention of the appellant is right and an order dismissing
\na petition under the powers contained under s. 90(3) of\t the
\nAct  is not an order under s. 98, such an order need not  be
\nsent either to the Election Commission or to the Speaker  or
\nthe Chairman of the House concerned, neither would there  be
\nany  provision in the Act stating when the order is to\thave
\neffect,\t nor  again  any  provision  enabling  the  Election
\nTribunal, which is an ad hoc body, to dispose of the records
\nof  the\t case  before it.  There is no reason  why  the\t Act
\nshould\tprovide that a dismissal of an election petition  on
\nthe merits as it has been called, shall be dealt with by the
\nAct  in\t one way while a dismissal on  a  preliminary  point
\nshall be dealt with differently when the practical result of
\nboth kinds of dismissal is the same.  We are unable to think
\nthat  the  Act could have intended such\t a  curious  result.
\nTherefore again, it seems to us that an order in exercise of
\nthe powers given by s. 90(3) is made under s. 98.
\nWe were also referred to K. Kamaraja Nadar v. Kunju<\/a>
\n524<\/span>
\nThevar\t(1)  and the connected cases.\tThere  an  objection
\nunder s. 90(3) to an election petition similar to that which
\nthe  appellant\ttook  in  this\tcase,  was  described  as  a
\npreliminary  objection\tand it was said that if it  was\t not
\ndecided\t first the result would be a full-fledged  trial  of
\nthe  election petition involving examination  of  witnesses.
\nIt was therefore directed that the preliminary point  should
\nbe decided first as that might save costs and harassment  to
\nthe parties by making it possible to avoid the trial of\t the
\nother  issues.\t We are unable to hold\tthat  this  judgment
\nsupports the view that an order made under the powers  given
\nby  s. 90(3) is not an order made at the conclusion  of\t the
\ntrial;\tthe  direction to decide what has  been\t called\t the
\npreliminary   objection,  first\t does  not  lead   to\tthat
\nconclusion.   The Court was not concerned with any  question
\nas to when an order under the powers given by s. 90(3) could
\nbe  made.  It was indicating a procedure best suited to\t the
\ninterests  of the parties on the facts of that case and\t not
\nlaying down any rule of law.\n<\/p>\n
The last argument advanced was based on s. 99.\tThat section
\nsays  that  at the time of making an order under s.  98\t the
\nTribunal shall also, where the petition contains a charge of
\na  corrupt  practice having been committed,  make  an  order
\nrecording a finding whether or not such corrupt practice had
\nbeen  committed.   It  is said that if\tall  orders  of\t the
\nTribunal  dismissing  an election petition were held  to  be
\norders\tunder  s. 989 then,, where a  petition\tcontained  a
\ncharge of a corrupt practice and it was dismissed under\t the
\npowers\tcontained  in s. 90(3) the Tribunal had\t further  to
\nmake  a\t finding as to whether the commission of  a  corrupt
\npractice  had or had not been proved.  It is contended\tthat
\nsuch a position would be senseless for it would prevent\t the
\nTribunal  from\tever  disposing\t of  an\t election   petition
\nsummarily  on  a preliminary ground.  Therefore it  is\tsaid
\nthat  all  orders dismissing an election  petition  are\t not
\norders under s. 98 and that supports the view that an  order
\nunder  s.  90(3) is not an order under s. 98.\tWe  are\t not
\nimpressed  by this argument.  If the proper construction  of
\ns. 99 is that an election petition cannot be dismissed on  a
\npreliminary
\n(1)  [1959] S.C.R. 583.\n<\/p>\n
525<\/span><\/p>\n
point  raised  under s. 90(3) where it contains\t charges  of
\ncorrupt\t practices  having been committed,  as\tthe  learned
\ncounsel\t for the appellant contends, that construction\tmust
\nhave  effect  however senseless it may appear.\t Suppose  an
\nelection  is sought to be avoided on the grounds,  that\t the
\nreturned  candidate  was not qualified or that\tone  of\t the
\nnomination  papers had been improperly rejected and also  on
\nthe ground of corrupt practices having been committed by the
\nreturned  candidate,  all  of which  are  good\tgrounds\t for
\nsetting aside an election under s. 100 of the Act.  In\tsuch
\na  case\t too,  if the construction put upon  s.\t 99  by\t the
\nlearned\t counsel  for the appellant is right,  the  Tribunal
\ncannot\tallow  the  petition on any one\t of  the  first\t two
\ngrounds,  which\t it  could have done after  a  very  summary
\ntrial,\tbut  must proceed to decide the charges\t of  corrupt
\npractice alleged.  This can be said to be equally  senseless
\nas where having dismissed a petition for non-compliance with
\ns.  117\t the  Tribunal is made to record a  finding  on\t the
\ncorrupt practices alleged.  On the other hand, if it is\t not
\nsenseless in the one case it is not senseless in the  other.
\nWe do not therefore find much force in the argument based on
\nan  interpretation  of s. 99 supposed to  produce  senseless
\nresults.\n<\/p>\n
All  this cannot, in any event, supply a reason for  holding
\nthat  an  order\t which terminates  the\tproceedings  arising
\nbefore\tan Election Tribunal is not an order passed  at\t the
\nconclusion  of\tthe trial when it was made for\tthe  reasons
\nmentioned in s. 90(3).\tWe have earlier stated that the only
\nduty  of  the  Tribunal is to try  and\tdecide\tan  election
\npetition and the order on the preliminary point may  dispose
\nof  that petition.  We may also point out that under  s.  99
\n(1)  (b), the Tribunal at the time of making an order  under
\ns.  98 has also to make an order awarding costs\t and  fixing
\nthe  amount thereof.  If an order authorised by s. 90(3)  is
\nnot  an order under s. 98 then, when dismissing\t a  petition
\nunder  s.  90(3)  the  Tribunal\t would\tappear\tto  have  no
\njurisdiction  to make an order for costs.  That\t can  hardly
\nhave been intended.\n<\/p>\n
We  therefore think that an order dismissing a petition\t for
\nthe reasons mentioned in s. 90(3) is an order
\n526<\/span>
\nunder  s.  98  and  is appealable under\t s.  116A.   In\t our
\nopinion, the case of Harihar Singh v. Singh Ganga Prasad (1)
\nwhich took the contrary view, was wrongly decided.
\nAs  to\tthe  merits of the appeal, we  find  no\t difficulty.
\nUnder  s. 117 of the Act the Treasury receipt has to show  a
\ndeposit\t of  Rs.  1,000 in favour of the  Secretary  to\t the
\nElection   Commission.\t There\tis  no\tdispute\t  that\t the
\nrespondent  deposited  the required amount  and\t enclosed  a
\ndeposit\t receipt  with his petition.   The  deposit  receipt
\nfiled  by the respondent contained the following  statements
\non which the appellant’s contention is based;-\n<\/p>\n
    1.\t  By whom tendered-\t   Gian Chand\n    2.\t   Name of the person onSecretary to\n    whose behalf money\t   the Election\n   is paid-\t\t    Commission.\n<\/pre>\n
The contention is that the receipt in this form showed\tthat
\nthe  money  had been paid by the respondent acting  for\t the
\nSecretary  to  the  Election Commission and not\t by  him  in
\nfavour\tof  the latter.\t We are wholly unable  to  read\t the
\ndeposit receipt in that way.  The second of the two  entries
\nreproduced above is intended to indicate the person in whose
\nfavour\tthe  money  has been paid; ‘on\twhose  behalf’\there
\nclearly indicates in whose favour or for whose benefit.\t The
\nform of the receipt contains no other heading for indicating
\nthe person in whose favour the money was paid and of  course
\nit was paid in favour of somebody.  That makes it  perfectly
\nclear that the words ‘on whose behalf’ mean in whose favour.
\nIt would be absurd to think that the respondent had paid the
\nmoney  into  Treasury  as  security for\t the  costs  of\t the
\nelection  petition  acting as the agent\t of  the  Secretary,
\nElection Commission, which would be the position if we\twere
\nto accept the appellants contention.\n<\/p>\n
We  feel  Do doubt that the receipt was in  full  compliance
\nwith s. 117 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
In the result we dismiss this appeal with costs.
\nAppeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
(1)  A.I.R. 1958 Pat. 287.\n<\/p>\n
527<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Om Prabha Jain vs Gian Chand & Another on 1 April, 1959 Equivalent citations: 1959 AIR 837, 1959 SCR Supl. (2) 516 Author: A Sarkar Bench: Sarkar, A.K. PETITIONER: OM PRABHA JAIN Vs. RESPONDENT: GIAN CHAND & ANOTHER DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/04\/1959 BENCH: SARKAR, A.K. BENCH: SARKAR, A.K. IMAM, SYED JAFFER […]<\/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-59259","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nOm Prabha Jain vs Gian Chand & Another on 1 April, 1959 - 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\/om-prabha-jain-vs-gian-chand-another-on-1-april-1959\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Om Prabha Jain vs Gian Chand & Another on 1 April, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prabha-jain-vs-gian-chand-another-on-1-april-1959\" \/>\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=\"1959-03-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-16T17:30:30+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-prabha-jain-vs-gian-chand-another-on-1-april-1959#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-prabha-jain-vs-gian-chand-another-on-1-april-1959\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Om Prabha Jain vs Gian Chand & Another on 1 April, 1959\",\"datePublished\":\"1959-03-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-16T17:30:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-prabha-jain-vs-gian-chand-another-on-1-april-1959\"},\"wordCount\":3560,\"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\\\/om-prabha-jain-vs-gian-chand-another-on-1-april-1959#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-prabha-jain-vs-gian-chand-another-on-1-april-1959\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-prabha-jain-vs-gian-chand-another-on-1-april-1959\",\"name\":\"Om Prabha Jain vs Gian Chand & Another on 1 April, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1959-03-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-16T17:30:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-prabha-jain-vs-gian-chand-another-on-1-april-1959#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-prabha-jain-vs-gian-chand-another-on-1-april-1959\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/om-prabha-jain-vs-gian-chand-another-on-1-april-1959#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Om Prabha Jain vs Gian Chand & Another on 1 April, 1959\"}]},{\"@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":"Om Prabha Jain vs Gian Chand & Another on 1 April, 1959 - 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\/om-prabha-jain-vs-gian-chand-another-on-1-april-1959","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Om Prabha Jain vs Gian Chand & Another on 1 April, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prabha-jain-vs-gian-chand-another-on-1-april-1959","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1959-03-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-16T17:30:30+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prabha-jain-vs-gian-chand-another-on-1-april-1959#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prabha-jain-vs-gian-chand-another-on-1-april-1959"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Om Prabha Jain vs Gian Chand & Another on 1 April, 1959","datePublished":"1959-03-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-16T17:30:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prabha-jain-vs-gian-chand-another-on-1-april-1959"},"wordCount":3560,"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\/om-prabha-jain-vs-gian-chand-another-on-1-april-1959#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prabha-jain-vs-gian-chand-another-on-1-april-1959","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prabha-jain-vs-gian-chand-another-on-1-april-1959","name":"Om Prabha Jain vs Gian Chand & Another on 1 April, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1959-03-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-16T17:30:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prabha-jain-vs-gian-chand-another-on-1-april-1959#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prabha-jain-vs-gian-chand-another-on-1-april-1959"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-prabha-jain-vs-gian-chand-another-on-1-april-1959#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Om Prabha Jain vs Gian Chand & Another on 1 April, 1959"}]},{"@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\/59259","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=59259"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59259\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=59259"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=59259"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=59259"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}