Forfeited security deposit not treated as election expenditure, so no breach of the statutory spending limit or corrupt practice.

A forfeited security deposit paid before election notification was not treated as expenditure incurred in connection with the election, because election expenses under the statutory scheme covered only amounts actually incurred or authorised within the prescribed accounting period. Although the statutory language was broad, the liability to forfeit arose before the relevant period and the payment was not properly part of the candidate's election return. Accordingly, the deposit could not be added to declared election expenses, and no contravention of the expenditure ceiling or corrupt practice was made out.

---

---

Issues: Whether a security deposit forfeited when a candidate chose to contest as an independent after being denied a party ticket constituted expenditure incurred in connection with the election and, if added to the declared election expenses, resulted in contravention of the statutory limit and corrupt practice.

Analysis: The relevant statutory scheme required every candidate to keep a separate and correct account of all expenditure incurred or authorised in connection with the election during the prescribed period, and barred expenditure beyond the prescribed limit. The critical question was whether the forfeited security deposit could be treated as election expenditure. The deposit was paid before the election notification, and it became irretrievably lost only when the candidate decided to remain in the contest as an independent. The words used by the statute were wide enough to cover money laid out in connection with the election, but the concept of expenditure still required that the amount be actually incurred within the statutory period. Since the liability to forfeit the deposit arose before the period for which election expenses had to be accounted, and the payment was not properly part of the election expenses returned by the candidate, it did not attract the charge of excess expenditure or corrupt practice.

Conclusion: The forfeited security deposit was not an election expense to be added to the candidate's return, and the election was not void on the alleged ground of corrupt practice.

---