Election expenditure and corrupt practice: excess spending is attributable only when proved to be by the candidate or authorised agents.

Election expenditure exceeds the prescribed limit amounts to corrupt practice only when the excess is incurred by the candidate, the election agent, or others acting with the candidate's consent or authority. Voluntary spending by friends, supporters, or party workers cannot be attributed to the candidate unless such consent or authority is proved. The burden rests on the petitioner to establish corrupt practice with cogent and reliable evidence, not mere suspicion or general probability. On the evidence discussed, the alleged expenditure heads were not satisfactorily proved to have been incurred by or on behalf of the returned candidate, so the allegation of corrupt practice was not established.

---

---

Issues: Whether the returned candidate was guilty of corrupt practice by incurring or authorising election expenditure in excess of the prescribed limit under the election law.

Analysis: The governing rule was that election expenditure beyond the prescribed limit amounts to a corrupt practice only if the excess expenditure was incurred by the candidate or his election agent, or by others with the candidate's consent or authority. Expenditure voluntarily incurred by friends, supporters, or party workers, without such consent or authority, could not be attributed to the candidate. The burden lay on the petitioner to prove the corrupt practice by cogent and reliable evidence, and not merely by suspicion or general probability. On the evidence, the alleged heads of expenditure were not satisfactorily proved to have been incurred by the returned candidate or with his consent or authority.

Conclusion: The allegation of corrupt practice based on excess election expenditure was not established, and the challenge to the election failed.

---