Government contract disqualification and corrupt practice charges fail where company dealings and alleged campaign statements lack the required proof.

Section 9A disqualification applies only where the candidate himself has entered into a government contract in the course of his trade or business, and a company's contract cannot be treated as the personal contract of its Chairman merely because of office; the alleged company contract was therefore not attributable to the candidate. For corrupt practice under Section 123(4), a statement must be a false factual assertion about a candidate's personal character or conduct made knowingly false or without belief in its truth; the impugned speeches and publication had an objective basis and the charge failed. For Section 123(6), the alleged election expenditure had to be proved as election expense exceeding the statutory limit, but mixed use of the vehicles and purchases was not established as election expenditure; that charge also failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the returned candidate was disqualified under Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 on the footing that he had a subsisting government contract through a company of which he was Chairman; (ii) whether the oral speeches and newspaper publication amounted to corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; and (iii) whether the alleged excess election expenditure constituted corrupt practice under Section 123(6) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Issue (i): whether the returned candidate was disqualified under Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 on the footing that he had a subsisting government contract through a company of which he was Chairman

Analysis: Section 9A applies only where a person himself has entered into a contract in the course of his trade or business with the appropriate Government for supply of goods or execution of works. A company is a separate legal entity from its shareholders and directors, and the Chairman of the Board cannot be treated as personally carrying on the company's trade or business merely by virtue of office. The alleged contract of the company for supply of electricity could not, on that basis, be attributed to the respondent as his own government contract.

Conclusion: The respondent was not disqualified under Section 9A.

Issue (ii): whether the oral speeches and newspaper publication amounted to corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951

Analysis: A statement falls within Section 123(4) only if it is a false statement of fact relating to a candidate's personal character or conduct and is made either knowing it to be false or not believing it to be true. The material showed a prior criminal complaint alleging misappropriation of workers' funds, the pendency of that complaint during the election, and admissions by the appellant that such proceedings existed. In that setting, the impugned statements had an objective basis and were not shown to have been made with the requisite falsity or lack of belief in truth.

Conclusion: The charge under Section 123(4) was not proved.

Issue (iii): whether the alleged excess election expenditure constituted corrupt practice under Section 123(6) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951

Analysis: To establish this charge, it had to be shown that the disputed petrol and oil expenses were in fact election expenses and that they pushed the total beyond the statutory limit under Section 77. The evidence did not connect the entire claimed amount with election purposes. The respondent had multiple vehicles and agricultural operations, and the purchases covered mixed domestic, agricultural, and election use. The appellant failed to prove any additional expenditure of the kind alleged.

Conclusion: The charge under Section 123(6) was not proved.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in its entirety, and the election petition remained dismissed with the returned candidate's election undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: For a corrupt practice under Section 123(4), falsity alone is insufficient; it must also be shown that the impugned statement was made knowingly false or without belief in its truth, and a company's contractual obligation does not become the personal government contract of its Chairman for the purpose of Section 9A.

---