Election expenditure and corrupt practice provisions require candidate's authorisation; father's employees assisting voluntarily were not attributed to the candidate.

Persons employed by a candidate's father and assisting in an election were not treated as persons employed or paid by the candidate for purposes of corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The statutory scheme limits election expenses and paid assistance, but section 123(7) applies only where excess expenditure or additional employment is incurred or authorised by the candidate or his agent. On the facts, the estate employees remained in the father's service and pay, and their help was voluntary as far as the candidate was concerned. Read according to its plain language, the provision was not extended on any broader election-law principle, and the related allegation of concealment under section 124(4) also failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether persons employed by the candidate's father and assisting the candidate in the election could be treated as persons employed or paid by the candidate so as to constitute corrupt practice under section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and consequent concealment of election expenditure under section 124(4).

Analysis: The statutory scheme limits election expenses and the number of paid persons who may be employed, but section 123(7) treats excess expenditure and employment of extra persons as corrupt practice only when incurred or authorised by the candidate or his agent. On the facts found, the estate employees were in the service and pay of the father, not the candidate, and their assistance in the election was voluntary so far as the candidate was concerned. The provisions had to be read according to their plain language and not on any supposed wider spirit of the election law.

Conclusion: The candidate was not guilty of corrupt practice under section 123(7), and the alleged concealment of expenditure under section 124(4) also failed.

---