Election bribery pleadings and section 99 notice: corrupt practice finding can stand on substance, with no fresh notice to a party.

A corrupt practice charge in an election petition may be sustained where the pleadings fairly raise the substance of bribery and the evidence proves the alleged bargain, even if fuller particulars are absent, provided the respondent is not misled or prejudiced. The proviso to section 99 was construed as protecting only persons who have not already had an opportunity to participate in the trial; a candidate who is already a party to the petition need not receive fresh notice before being named as having committed a corrupt practice. The discussion concludes that the tribunal's finding was upheld on both issues.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a finding of bribery in an election petition could be sustained on the basis of evidence proving a bargain not set out in detail in the pleadings, and (ii) whether notice under the proviso to section 99 was necessary before a candidate who was already a party to the election petition could be named as having committed a corrupt practice.

Issue (i): Whether a finding of bribery in an election petition could be sustained on the basis of evidence proving a bargain not set out in detail in the pleadings.

Analysis: The charge in the petition was that the allowance order was made with a view to induce voters to vote for the appellant. That allegation was sufficient to raise the surrounding circumstances in which the order was made, including whether it was an official act or a bargain to influence electors. The issue framed at the trial directly put that question in controversy. The appellant was not misled or prejudiced, and the absence of fuller particulars did not warrant rejection of the charge. The evidence accepted by the Tribunal established that the impugned order was the outcome of an earlier bargain to secure votes.

Conclusion: The finding of bribery was valid and could not be assailed on the ground of vagueness or variance between pleadings and proof.

Issue (ii): Whether notice under the proviso to section 99 was necessary before a candidate who was already a party to the election petition could be named as having committed a corrupt practice.

Analysis: The proviso to section 99, read with its sub-clauses, was construed as protecting persons who had not already had an opportunity of participating in the trial. Its purpose was to secure a hearing to persons who had not been able to cross-examine witnesses or adduce evidence against the charge. A party to the election petition had already been heard fully on the corrupt practice allegation, and a second notice would create an anomalous second trial of the same issue. The provision relating to recommendations about exemption from disqualifications was held to be advisory and distinct from the naming of persons as guilty of corrupt practice.

Conclusion: No fresh notice was required to be given to a party to the election petition before recording the finding under section 99.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on all grounds, and the election tribunal's finding of corrupt practice against the appellant was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: The proviso to section 99 applies only to persons who have not already had an opportunity of being heard in the election petition, and a corrupt practice charge may be sustained where the pleadings fairly raise the substance of the accusation and the evidence proves it.

---