Corrupt practice in election disputes must be proved by clear evidence; unsupported speeches, pamphlets and consent allegations failed.

A charge of corrupt practice in an election petition must be proved by clear, reliable evidence, and credibility findings by the trial court will not be lightly disturbed. The alleged false statements at election meetings, the pamphlet, and the weekly publication were not proved to have been made, published, or circulated by the returned candidate or with his consent, so those allegations failed. The partial recount ordered by the Returning Officer was upheld because the evidence did not justify a wider recount or displace the counting findings. On costs, counsel's fees were disallowed because election-law costs are confined to expenses actually incurred.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the recount ordered by the Returning Officer and the counting process warranted interference under the election law; (ii) whether the alleged speeches and statements at the election meetings amounted to the corrupt practice of making false statements in relation to a candidate, and whether such statements were made with the returned candidate's consent; (iii) whether the alleged pamphlet and weekly publication were proved to have been published or distributed by the returned candidate or with his consent; and (iv) whether the award of counsel's fees as costs was sustainable.

Issue (i): whether the recount ordered by the Returning Officer and the counting process warranted interference under the election law

Analysis: The pleadings and evidence did not justify a wider recount of all votes. The partial recount directed by the Returning Officer, confined to the votes of the principal contesting candidates and rejected votes, was held to be in accordance with the election rules. The evidence adduced did not displace the High Court's findings on counting irregularities, and the alleged discrepancy of missing votes was satisfactorily explained.

Conclusion: The finding upholding the recount and rejecting the challenge to the counting process was affirmed, and the issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (ii): whether the alleged speeches and statements at the election meetings amounted to the corrupt practice of making false statements in relation to a candidate, and whether such statements were made with the returned candidate's consent

Analysis: The Court scrutinised the oral evidence and the shorthand notes recorded by police witnesses, applying the settled limits on appellate review of findings of fact and the rule that credibility findings by the trial forum deserve great weight. It held that the alleged offending statements at the meetings were not proved with the certainty required for a corrupt practice charge. In particular, consent of the returned candidate to the speeches of the other speakers was not established, and several of the attributed utterances were either unsupported, ambiguous in context, or not safely proved by the record. The Court also held that the shorthand material was not dependable in one instance and that the evidence as a whole did not justify upsetting the High Court's appreciation of credibility.

Conclusion: The charge of corrupt practice based on the election speeches failed, and the issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (iii): whether the alleged pamphlet and weekly publication were proved to have been published or distributed by the returned candidate or with his consent

Analysis: The evidence did not establish that the impugned pamphlet was published by the returned candidate or that the offending weekly publication was issued or circulated by him or his followers with his consent. The Court found the defence evidence more probable, rejected the interested and inconsistent testimony relied upon by the appellants, and held that the alleged distribution of the weekly at the meeting was not proved. The material did not justify an inference of consent merely from association or canvassing activity.

Conclusion: The allegations relating to the pamphlet and the weekly publication were not proved, and the issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (iv): whether the award of counsel's fees as costs was sustainable

Analysis: Costs under the election law are confined to expenses actually incurred. Although the High Court was right in awarding costs to the returned candidate after dismissal of the election petition, there was no proof that counsel's fees had in fact been paid. The award therefore exceeded the permissible amount to that extent.

Conclusion: The award of counsel's fees was set aside, while the entitlement to other incurred costs was upheld, in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The election challenge failed on the substantive allegations of corrupt practice and irregularity, and only the costs order was modified to the limited extent of disallowing counsel's fees not shown to have been incurred.

Ratio Decidendi: In an election appeal, a charge of corrupt practice must be proved by clear and reliable evidence, and findings on witness credibility by the court of first instance will not be disturbed unless shown to be vitiated by a material error or perversity; costs recoverable under the election law are limited to expenses actually incurred.

---