1974 (10) TMI 103 - SC - Indian Laws

First respondent found guilty of corrupt practice for exceeding expenditure limit, election set aside.

KANWAR LAL GUPTA Versus. AMAR NATH CHAWLA & ORS.

The court found the first respondent guilty of corrupt practice for exceeding the prescribed expenditure limit under Section 123(6) of the Representation ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the electoral rolls.2. Validity of the amendment in Rule 56 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.3. Alleged fraudulent introduction of chemically treated ballot papers.4. Alleged corrupt practices by the first respondent, including false statements about the petitioner and excessive expenditure.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Electoral Rolls:The petitioner contended that the electoral rolls were imperfect and defective, which vitiated the election. However, the trial judge dismissed this ground, and there was no further discussion on this issue in the appeal.2. Validity of the Amendment in Rule 56:The petitioner alleged the invalidity of the amendment in Rule 56 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. This ground was also dismissed by the trial judge and was not pressed in the appeal.3. Alleged Fraudulent Introduction of Chemically Treated Ballot Papers:The petitioner claimed that about a lakh or more chemically treated ballot papers were fraudulently introduced, materially affecting the election result. This ground was not pressed in the appeal.4. Alleged Corrupt Practices:The main focus of the appeal was on the alleged corrupt practices by the first respondent, including false statements about the petitioner and excessive expenditure.a. False Statements:- The petitioner alleged that the first respondent, his election agent, and others with his consent, printed and published a handbill and a poster containing false statements about the petitioner's personal character, which were calculated to prejudice the petitioner's election prospects.- The trial judge found these allegations to be true but dismissed the charges of corrupt practices due to lack of satisfactory proof.b. Excessive Expenditure:- The petitioner contended that the first respondent incurred or authorized expenditure exceeding the prescribed limit of Rs. 10,000, in contravention of Section 77 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.- The trial judge found that the first respondent's return of expenses showed only Rs. 5,415.62, but the petitioner argued that additional expenditures were not disclosed.Analysis of Expenditure:- The court examined the evidence related to the expenses incurred for public meetings, printing charges, and other election-related activities.- The first respondent admitted to spending Rs. 800 on twenty-three public meetings but the court found that nine additional public meetings were held, which were not accounted for.- The court estimated the expenses for these public meetings and other activities based on documentary and oral evidence, concluding that the first respondent incurred additional expenditures amounting to Rs. 5,229.- Adding this to the admitted expenditure of Rs. 5,415.62, the total expenditure exceeded the prescribed limit, amounting to Rs. 10,644.62.Conclusion:- The court held that the first respondent was guilty of the corrupt practice defined in Section 123(6) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, due to incurring expenditure exceeding the prescribed limit.- Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the election of the first respondent was set aside.- The first respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the petitioner throughout the proceedings.