Village headman not treated as village accountant under election law, so the disqualification provision does not apply.

Section 123(7)(f) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 was construed as distinguishing revenue officers from village accountants, with village accountants mentioned as an illustrative inclusion and other village officers excluded. The long-recognised administrative distinction between a village headman and a patwari supported this reading: the headman functions as a village representative, while the patwari is an accounts and records officer. Reading the earlier and later statutory formulations together, the text showed that Parliament treated village headmen separately from village accountants. On that construction, a lambardar, being a village headman, was not covered by the provision and did not attract the disqualification under it.

---

---

Issues: Whether a lambardar is covered by section 123(7)(f) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 as a revenue officer or village accountant.

Analysis: The clause was construed as grouping revenue officers as the genus, while village accountants were included by illustration and other village officers were excluded. The distinction between a village headman and a patwari was treated as long established in the revenue administration, with the headman functioning as a village representative and the patwari as an accounts and records officer. The earlier and later statutory formulations were also read as supporting that Parliament distinguished between village headmen and village accountants. On that construction, a lambardar, being a village headman, was not brought within the expression village accountant or the inclusive phrase used in the clause.

Conclusion: A lambardar is not covered by section 123(7)(f) as a revenue officer or village accountant, and therefore does not attract the disqualification under that provision.

---