Corrupt practice by hiring a vehicle for voters was upheld where material facts were sufficient and evidence proved conveyance

An election petition alleging corrupt practice under Section 123(5) was not defeated by omission of the precise contract of hiring where it set out sufficient material facts about use of a vehicle to convey voters and showed no material prejudice; the defect was treated as procedural and capable of being cured by particulars or amendment. On the evidence accepted by the High Court, a tractor bearing symbols and flags associated with the appellant was used to transport voters, and the court upheld the finding that it had been hired for that purpose. The declaration voiding the election was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an election petition alleging the corrupt practice of hiring a vehicle for conveying voters was liable to fail for want of particulars of the date, place and parties to the contract of hiring. (ii) Whether the corrupt practice alleged under Section 123(5) was proved and the election was rightly declared void.

Issue (i): Whether an election petition alleging the corrupt practice of hiring a vehicle for conveying voters was liable to fail for want of particulars of the date, place and parties to the contract of hiring.

Analysis: Section 83(1)(b) requires full particulars of a corrupt practice, including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed it and the date and place of its commission. But Section 123(5) treats the hiring or procuring of a vehicle for conveying electors as the corrupt practice, and a petition that gives sufficient particulars of the use of the vehicle to convey voters, together with material facts supporting the allegation, substantially complies with the statute even if the precise contract of hiring is not set out. The omission is procedural and does not justify dismissal in limine. The opposing party must ordinarily seek particulars, and absence of objection or failure to show embarrassment in defence negatives material prejudice. The provisions governing trial of election petitions also permit amendment or amplification of particulars.

Conclusion: The petition was not liable to be rejected merely for want of the detailed particulars complained of, and no material prejudice was shown.

Issue (ii): Whether the corrupt practice alleged under Section 123(5) was proved and the election was rightly declared void.

Analysis: The evidence accepted by the High Court established that a tractor was brought to the polling station, that it carried symbols and flags associated with the appellant, and that voters were conveyed in it. The testimony supporting hiring of the tractor for that purpose was found reliable, while the Tribunal's contrary view was rejected. On the record, the High Court was justified in holding that the vehicle had been hired for conveying voters within the meaning of Section 123(5).

Conclusion: The corrupt practice was proved and the declaration voiding the election was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in its challenge both to the sufficiency of the election petition and to the finding of corrupt practice, so the setting aside of the appellant's election stood confirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: A corrupt-practice petition under Section 123(5) is not defeated by omission of the detailed contract of hiring if the material facts of conveyance are sufficiently stated and no material prejudice is shown; procedural defects in particulars do not warrant dismissal where the issue was tried on evidence.

---