Apex court digest - Jan.2017 [2],

interpretation  of Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to a  Bench  of
seven judges has its origins in three decisions of this Court .= 
scope and  what  constitutes  a  corrupt  practice  under  sub-sections (3) or (3A) of Section 123 of  the  Representation  of  the  People Act, 1951 (for short, ‘the Act’) needs to  be  clearly  and authoritatively laid down to  avoid  a  miscarriage  of  justice  in  interpreting  ‘corrupt practice’=

The provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 123 of  the  Representation  of
the People Act, 1951 are required to be read and appreciated in the  context
of simultaneous and contemporaneous amendments  inserting  sub-section  (3A)
in Section 123 of the Act and inserting Section 153A  in  the  Indian  Penal
Code.
So read together, and for maintaining the purity of  the  electoral  process
and not vitiating it, sub-section (3) of Section 123 of  the  Representation
of the People Act, 1951 must be given a broad and  purposive  interpretation
thereby bringing within the sweep of a corrupt practice
any appeal  made  to an elector by a candidate or his agent or  by  any  other  person  with  the
consent of a candidate or his election agent to vote or refrain from  voting for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of  that  candidate  or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate on the  ground  of the religion, race, caste, community or language of  (i)  any  candidate  or
(ii) his agent or (iii) any other person making the appeal with the  consent of the candidate or (iv) the elector.
It is a matter of evidence for determining whether  an  appeal  has  at  all
been made to an elector and whether the appeal if made is  in  violation  of
the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 123 of  the  Representation  of
the People Act, 1951.

 The reference is answered as  above  and  the  matter  may  be  placed
before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for necessary orders.

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS