Strict proof in election law: unproved polling-agent appointment defeats corrupt-practice claim, while nomination rejection stands for non-compliance.

Election law requires strict compliance with statutory proof requirements. A corrupt-practice allegation under section 123(7)(c) of the Representation of the People Act could not be sustained because there was no legal evidence that the appellant had duly appointed Puran Singh as a polling agent under section 46; the finding against the appellant was reversed. By contrast, where a candidate was an elector of another constituency, non-production of the prescribed electoral-roll copy at scrutiny attracted sections 33(5) and 36(2)(b), and the returning officer was justified in rejecting the nomination paper because the statutory mode of proof was mandatory, not merely technical.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant committed a corrupt practice under section 123(7)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 by securing the assistance of Puran Singh as a polling agent; (ii) Whether the returning officer was justified in rejecting Jai Bhagawan's nomination paper for non-production of the prescribed electoral-roll copy under sections 33(5) and 36(2)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant committed a corrupt practice under section 123(7)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 by securing the assistance of Puran Singh as a polling agent.

Analysis: A person acts as a polling agent within the meaning of the corrupt-practice provision only if he is duly appointed as such under section 46 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The evidence relied upon to prove that the appellant appointed Puran Singh was found insufficient. There was no legal evidence proving the appellant's signature on the appointment form, and the circumstantial materials did not irresistibly establish that the appellant had made the appointment. The alleged corrupt practice therefore could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The allegation of corrupt practice under section 123(7)(c) was not proved and the finding against the appellant was reversed.

Issue (ii): Whether the returning officer was justified in rejecting Jai Bhagawan's nomination paper for non-production of the prescribed electoral-roll copy under sections 33(5) and 36(2)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Analysis: When a candidate is an elector of a different constituency, section 33(5) requires production of the prescribed copy of the relevant electoral roll or certified extract at scrutiny, and section 36(2)(b) authorises rejection for non-compliance. The statutory scheme makes the prescribed mode of proof obligatory, and the defect was not merely technical because the returning officer was left unsatisfied as to the candidate's qualification in the manner required by law. Election requirements of this kind must be strictly observed.

Conclusion: The rejection of Jai Bhagawan's nomination paper was valid.

Final Conclusion: The order declaring the appellant's election void could not stand, and the election petition failed in light of the appellant's success on the corrupt-practice issue and the upholding of the nomination rejection.

Ratio Decidendi: In election law, where a statute prescribes a specific mode of proof and attaches rejection of nomination as the consequence of non-compliance, the requirement is mandatory and must be strictly enforced; a corrupt practice cannot be inferred without legal proof of the candidate's authorised appointment of the alleged agent.

---