Excess election expenditure beyond the statutory limit constitutes corrupt practice and can invalidate the election.

A candidate incurs corrupt practice under Section 123(6) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 when the evidence shows election expenditure beyond the prescribed limit, even if the return disclosed spending below the ceiling. The Court treated suppressed expenditure, earlier commencement of the campaign, additional meetings, and reliable public record material such as police permissions and reports as sufficient proof of the excess. It also held that the further particulars pleaded did not introduce a new corrupt practice, but only amplified the same statutory offence. On that basis, the election was liable to be set aside under Section 100(1)(b).

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent incurred election expenditure beyond the prescribed limit so as to attract the corrupt practice under Section 123(6) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and render the election liable to be set aside under Section 100(1)(b) of that Act.

Analysis: The respondent's return disclosed expenditure below the prescribed ceiling, but the record showed additional expenditure that had been suppressed. The election campaign was found to have commenced earlier than the respondent admitted, and the evidence established that several election meetings were held in addition to those acknowledged by the respondent. Documentary material in the form of police permissions and reports was accepted as relevant and reliable public record evidence. On that basis, the appellant proved further expenditure sufficient to exceed the statutory limit. The Court also held that the particulars of the alleged expenditure did not amount to a new corrupt practice, but only particulars of the same statutory offence.

Conclusion: The respondent was held guilty of corrupt practice under Section 123(6) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the election was liable to be set aside under Section 100(1)(b) of that Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the evidence establishes that a candidate incurred or authorised election expenditure beyond the prescribed limit, the statutory corrupt practice is made out and the election is voidable under the election-disqualification provision.

---