Election expenditure disclosure rules: unaccounted vehicle use can establish corrupt practice and void an election.

Section 77 of the Representation of the People Act requires a candidate to maintain a separate, correct account of election expenditure, and Section 123(6) treats expenditure incurred or authorised in contravention of that duty as a corrupt practice. On the proved facts, the election return disclosed one vehicle, while the record and admissions showed use of another vehicle that was not accounted for. The opposing party pleaded and supported that omission, and the returned candidate offered no rebuttal, no witness evidence, and no expenditure account. The Court held that the unaccounted expenditure was established, adverse inference was justified, and proof in an election petition may rest on direct or circumstantial evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the returned candidate committed corrupt practice under Section 123(6) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 by incurring or authorising election expenditure in contravention of Section 77 of the Act.

Analysis: Section 77 requires a candidate to maintain a separate and correct account of election expenditure, and Section 123(6) treats incurring or authorising expenditure in contravention of Section 77 as a corrupt practice. The material on record showed that the election return disclosed one vehicle and its expenditure, while the written statement admitted use of another vehicle that was not accounted for in the return. The opposing party specifically pleaded use of the second vehicle and examined evidence to support that case. The returned candidate did not enter the witness box, did not produce the expenditure account, and offered no rebuttal to explain the omission. On those proved facts, the Court held that the use of the second vehicle and the related expenditure stood established and that the suppression justified an adverse inference. The Court further held that, in an election petition, proof may rest on direct or circumstantial evidence and the standard is not a rigid formula, though the burden remains on the election petitioner.

Conclusion: The finding of corrupt practice under Section 123(6) was upheld, and the election was held void.

---