http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: KAMAL NARAIN SHARMA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRI PANDIT DWARKA PRASAD MISHRA AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/08/1965

BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ) WANCHOO, K.N. SHAH, J.C. SIKRI, S.M.

CITATION:  1966 AIR  436            1966 SCR  (1) 478

ACT: Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, Rule 94A-Affidavit required under-Affidavit  sworn  before  clerk  of  Court   appointed Commissioner  of Oaths under s. 139(c) of the Code of  Civil Procedure-Affidavit  whether sworn before  proper  authority under r. 94A.

HEADNOTE: An election petition was filed by the appellant against  the first respondent challenging his election on May 4, 1963  to the  Madhya  Pradesh  Legislative  Assembly.   A  number  of allegations  including those of corrupt practice  were  made against the first respondent in the petition.  The affidavit filed  in support of the allegations of corrupt practice  as required by Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, was sworn by the petitioner before the Clerk of Court in the District  Court  of Jabalpur.  The first respondent  in  his objections before the Election Tribunal raised the  question whether  the  affidavit under Rule 94A was  sworn  before  a proper  authority.   The  Election  Tribunal  accepted   the objection  but  allowed  the  appellant  to  file  a  second affidavit  sworn before a proper authority.  The  orders  of the Tribunal were challenged by the first respondent  before the  High  Court  under  Art.  226  and  Art.  227  of   the Constitution  and  the High Court, holding  that  the  fresh affidavit  could not be called and that there was no  proper affidavit,  quashed the orders of the Tribunal and  directed the  Tribunal  to  pass  an order  according  to  law.   The appellant  appealed to this Court on certificate of  fitness granted by the High Court. Although  the appellant had conceded before the  High  Court that  his first affidavit was not proper he was  allowed  to withdraw his concession in this Court.  It was contended  on behalf of the appellant that the clerk of Court before  whom his  first affidavit bad been sworn had been duly  appointed ex-officio Commissioner of Oaths under s. 139(c) of the Code of  Civil  Procedure  and  an  affidavit  sworn  before  him complied with r. 94A.  The respondent however contended that a  Commissioner of Oaths appointed under s. 139(c)  was  for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

the  purpose  of affidavits under the Civil  Procedure  Code only,  just as a Commissioner appointed under s. 539 of  the Criminal  Procedure  Code could swear affidavit  under  that Code only. HELD : There is no analogy between an affidavit sworn  under s.  539  Cr.   P.  C. and  the  affidavit  sworn  here.   An affidavit sworn by a district Clerk of Court may not be good for the purpose of the Code of Criminal Procedure and  vice- versa but that is because the restriction is to be formed in s.  139 of the one Code and s. 539 of the other.   Rule  94A makes  no such condition and makes receivable  an  affidavit before  a Commissioner of Oaths without specifying  of  what kind.  In this view of the matter the affidavit sworn before the   District  Clerk  of  Court  who  undoubtedly   was   a Commissioner  of  Oath could only be excluded by  taking  an extreme and technical view which was not justified. [484  B- D]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 437 of 1965. 479 Appeal  from the judgment and order dated April 15, 1964  of the  Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.  Petition No. 90  of 1964. M.   S. Gupta, for the appellant. G.   S.  Pathak, Y. S. Dharmadhikari and A. G.  Ratnaparkhi, for respondent No. 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah,  J.  This  appeal  arises  from  an   election petition filed after the last General Election to the Madhya Pradesh  Legislative  Assembly, in respect of  the  election from  the Kasdol Legislative Assembly constituency  held  on May 4, 1963.  The first respondent was declared elected  and the appellant challenged his election alleging several  acts of  corrupt  practices,  publication  of  false  statements, filing  of  false accounts etc.  The election  petition  was supported by an affidavit sworn before K. S. Moghe,  Officer for Administering Oaths on Affidavits, Jabalpur.  Moghe  was the  Clerk  of Court in the District Court,  Jabalpur.   The first  respondent objected that the affidavit was not  sworn before the proper authority as required by rule 94-A of  the Conduct  of  Election Rules, 1961, and  it  was,  therefore, prayed that the election petition should be dismissed or the allegations  about corrupt practices should be  struck  out. The  Election Tribunal, by an order dated October  31,  1963 accepted  the objection but allowed the filing of  a  proper affidavit  and  a fresh affidavit was taken on  record.   No action  was taken against that order.  It appears  that  the Election  Tribunal had framed two issues for  determination. They were:               "Issue No. 18 : Whether the affidavit filed by               the  petitioner in support of his petition  is               bad  in  law, as not properly sworn  before  a               competent  Officer duly authorised  to  attest               and  authenticate  an affidavit and  does  not               also comply with the provisions of Section  83               of  the Representation of the People  Act  and               the Rules made thereunder.  If so, whether the               petition  is  liable to be dismissed  on  this               ground."               "Issue  No. 20 : Whether the  various  alleged               acts  of  corrupt practices mentioned  in  the               petition are duly supported by an affidavit as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

             required   under   Section   81(3)   of    the               Representation of People Act ? If not, what is               its effect on this petition?" 480 On   February  14,  1964  the  first  respondent  filed   an application  drawing attention to the latter part  of  issue No.  20  and  asked inter alia for  a  finding  whether  the election  petition was not liable to be dismissed  when  the affidavit was not proper The Tribunal by an order passed  on February  24,  1964 rejected the -last contention  and  held that  as  a  fresh affidavit was filed  the  petition  could proceed to trial. On March 2, 1964 the first respondent filed a petition under Articles  226 and 227 of the Constitution in the High  Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging both the orders and asked that they  be  quashed.  The High Court, by its order  now  under appeal  by  certificate,  quashed the  two  orders  and  the Tribunal  was directed to deal further with the petition  in the light of the order of the High Court. The High Court in an elaborate order has considered  whether the provisions of rule 94-A were mandatory or directory  but it did not address itself to the question whether the  first affidavit was proper or not.  This was, perhaps, due to  the fact  that the appellant seems to have conceded  before  the Tribunal  that  the first affidavit was  not  proper.   This concession was sought to be withdrawn in this appeal by  the appellant  and on looking into the record we were  satisfied that  the concession was wrongly made and should be  allowed to  be  withdrawn.  We accordingly heard arguments  on  -the question whether the original affidavit did not satisfy  the Conduct  of  Election Rules and the  Representation  of  the People  Act.  We are satisfied that the first affidavit  was proper and the second affidavit was not necessary. Before we give our decision on this point we shall first set down   the   relevant  provisions.   Section   83   of   the Representation of People Act provided that-               "83 (1) an election petition-               (a)   Shall contain a concise statement of the               material facts on which the petitioner relies;               (b)   Shall set forth full particulars of  any               corrupt practice that the petitioner  alleges,               including  as full a statement as possible  of               the  names  of  the parties  alleged  to  have               committed  such corrupt practice and the  date               and place of the commission of such  practice;               and               481               (c)   Shall  be signed by the  petitioner  and               verified  in the manner laid down in the  Code               of  Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for  the               verification of pleadings.               "Provided  that where the  petitioner  alleges               any corrupt practice, the petition shall  also               be   accompanied  by  an  affidavit   in   the               prescribed  form in support of the  allegation               of  such corrupt practice and the  particulars               thereof.               (2)   Any schedule or annexure to the petition               shall  also  be signed by the  petitioner  and               verified in the same manner as the petition."               Rule  94-A of the Conduct of  Election  Rules,               1961 next provides:               "94-A.   The  affidavit referred  to  in  the,               proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 83 shall               be  sworn  before a Magistrate  of  the  First

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

             Class  or a Notary or a Commissioner of  Oaths               and shall be in Form 25."               Form  25  need  not  be  reproduced  but   the               endorsement  of  the officer before  whom  the               affidavit is sworn may be reproduced               "Form 25.               Solemnly           affirmed/sworn           by               Shri/Shrimati ............at...thisday...of               196 Before me. .Magistrate.....of...First               Class Notary/Commissioner of Oaths".               The  relevant rules of the High Court and  the               notifications  issued by the  Government  have               been placed in our hands.  ’Me High Court  has               framed  Rules relating to the Civil  Procedure               Code and rule 20 dealing with affidavits reads               :               "20.   All  Courts  dealing  with   affidavits               should  make calls for affidavits at I I  a.m.               and 2 p.m. every day.  If ,the Clerk of  Court               or  other ministerial officer is  appointed  a               Commissioner   for   administering   oath   of               affidavits, he will discharge that function at               such  time  as may be fixed  by  the  District               Judge in this behalf."               482               Rule 34 says :               "34.  The Officer administering the oath shall               make   the  following  endorsement  on   every               affidavit  sworn  before him and  shall  date,               sign and seal the same.               "Sworn before me on the   day of  ............               19    by   son     of  ............   who   is               personally  known  to  me (or)  who  has  been               identified  by whose  signature  is/signatures               are hereto appended.               SEAL                                        Signature                                       Designation". The  affidavit which was sworn before Moghe bore  the  above endorsement  and  Moghe described himself  as  "Officer  for Administering   Oaths   on  Affidavits,   Jabalpur,   Madhya Pradesh". On  February 16, 1959 the Government of Madhya  Pradesh  had issued  a notification under District Judges were  empowered under  s. 139(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure  to  appoint Commissioners  to administer oaths on affidavits made  under the  said Code and the District Judge, Jabalpur in  exercise of  the  powers so conferred appointed,  among  others,  the Clerk  of  Court  attached to his office  to  be  ex-Officio Commissioner  for the purpose of administration of oaths  on affidavits  made under the Code of Civil Procedure.  It  may be  pointed  out  that subsequently in May  1960  the  first notification  was amended and in place of the words  in  the first  notification  "empowers all the  District  Judges  to appoint Commissioners to administer oaths on affidavit  made the  words "generally empowers the Court of District  Judges to  appoint  officers to administer oaths  to  deponents  in cases  of affidavits" where substituted.  This  change  does not  affect  the present matter because the  appointment  of Moghe  was tinder the first notification and not  under  the second.  The contention of the first respondent is that  the affidavit did not comply with the requirements of rule  94-A because  Moghe  was not a Commissioner of Oaths but  was  an officer  for Administration of Oaths for the purpose  of  s. 139(c)  of  the  Code.  We shall  refer  to  that  provision

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

presently. The rule does not state before which Commissioner the  affi- davit  must  be  sworn.   It must,  therefore,  be  read  as including  all Commissioners of Oaths duly  appointed.   The election petition is verified as a plaint but the  affidavit is needed additionally 483 when  allegations of a particular type are made.   The  rule really requires an affidavit so that action for perjury  may be  based on it if the allegation is found to be false.   We enquired whether, in the State of Madhya Pradesh, there  was any other provision under which Commissioners of Oaths could be  appointed but none was shown.  The Indian Oaths Act,  no doubt,  consolidates the law relating to judicial oaths  and for  other purposes.  Section 4 of that Act gives  authority to  "all  courts  and persons having by law  or  consent  of parties  authority to receive evidence", "to administer,  by themselves  or  by  an officer empowered  by  them  in  this behalf, oaths and affirmations in discharge of the duties or in  exercise  of the powers imposed or conferred  upon  them respectively  by  law." This is a general provision  and  it mentions  generally  persons  having  by  law  authority  to receive evidence.  It is difficult to say that the Clerk  of Court  answers  this  description.   But  there  are   other provisions of law under which oaths may be administered  for purposes  of affidavits.  Section 139 of the Code  of  Civil Procedure,  under  which the Clerk of Court was  given  this jurisdiction, provides :               "139.   Oath  on  affidavit  by  whom  to   be               administered.               In the case of any affidavit under this Code-               (a)   any Court or Magistrate, or               (b)   any officer or other person whom a  High               Court may appoint in this behalf, or               (c)   any officer appointed by any other Court               which the Provincial Government has  generally               or specially empowered in this behalf,               may administer the oath to the deponent".               Similarly, section 539 of the Code of Criminal               Procedure provides.               "539.    Courts   and  persons   before   whom               affidavits may be sworn.-               Affidavits and affirmations to be used  before               any  High Court or any officer of  such  Court               may be sworn and affirmed before such Court or               the Clerk of the State, or any Commissioner or               other person appointed by such Court for  that               purpose, or any Judge, or any Commissioner for               taking  affidavits in any Court of  Record  in               India, or any Commissioner to administer oaths               in  England  or  Ireland,  or  any  Magistrate               authorized to take affidavits or  affirmations               in Scotland." 484 It  is  therefore  not necessary that  an  appointment  with reference to the Oaths Act had to be made. The  Clerk  of Court was appointed a Commissioner  of  Oaths under  s.  139(c) quoted above.  It is  contended  that  the powers  of such a Commissioner were to administer oaths  for purposes of affidavits under the Code of Civil Procedure and this meant Or. XIX of the Code.  It is pointed out that none of  the  conditions under which the  affidavit  is  required under   that  Order  applies  here.   It  is   argued   that Commissioners  appointed  under  one  statute  cannot  swear affidavits  prescribed under another statute, and s. 539  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

the Code of Criminal Procedure is also cited as an instance. This  may  be so.  It may be that an affidavit  sworn  by  a District Clerk of Court may not be good for the purposes  of the  Code of Criminal Procedure and vice-versa but  that  is because the restriction is to be found in S. 139 of the  one ,Code  and  s. 539 of the other.  Rule 94-A  makes  no  such condition  and makes receivable an affidavit sworn before  a Commissioner  of Oaths without specifying of what kind.   In this  view  of  the matter the affidavit  sworn  before  the District Clerk of Court, -who undoubtedly is a  Commissioner of  Oaths  can  only be excluded by taking  an  extreme  and technical view which, in our ,opinion, is not justified. The  appeal must therefore succeed on this short ground  and it is not necessary to discuss whether the rule is mandatory or  directory for, in any event, its requirements have  been met.  The appeal is allowed but as the appellant had earlier conceded the point on which the appeal succeeds, there shall be  no  order  about costs.  The case will now  go  back  to Tribunal for decision on merits. Appeal allowed. 485