Election bribery and excess expenditure must be proved by reliable evidence beyond reasonable doubt; vague or uncorroborated claims fail.

Election bribery allegations in an election petition are quasi-criminal and must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by clear, cogent and reliable evidence. The alleged payment to a Sarpanch was rejected because the accusation was vague, the affidavit was defective, oral testimony lacked independent support, and the documents relied on were unreliable or suspicious. The alleged excess election expenditure on taxi hire also failed for want of credible proof, as there was no receipt or independent corroboration of the higher amount. On both grounds, the election petition failed and the election was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the alleged payment of Rs. 501 to the Sarpanch of Moti Abdoli was proved beyond reasonable doubt as a corrupt practice under the election law; (ii) Whether the alleged excess election expenditure of Rs. 2,100 on taxi hire was proved so as to sustain a finding of breach of the statutory limit.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged payment of Rs. 501 to the Sarpanch of Moti Abdoli was proved beyond reasonable doubt as a corrupt practice under the election law.

Analysis: A charge of bribery or corrupt practice in an election petition is of a quasi-criminal character and must be established by clear, cogent and wholly reliable evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The allegation was found to be vague and uncertain as to amount, date and source of payment. The supporting affidavit was defective in not properly disclosing the source of information. The oral evidence was unsupported by the independent villagers said to be present, while the documentary material was regarded as suspicious: the Panchayat entry was unreliable, the receipt was not signed by the appellant, and the endorsement on the petrol voucher was not proved. The surrounding circumstances also failed to dispel doubt about the alleged payment.

Conclusion: The alleged corrupt practice was not proved, and the finding against the appellant could not stand.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged excess election expenditure of Rs. 2,100 on taxi hire was proved so as to sustain a finding of breach of the statutory limit.

Analysis: The Court found no sufficient basis to disturb the appellant's case that the taxi was engaged only for three days and that the amount shown in the election return was substantially correct. The evidence relied upon to prove payment of Rs. 2,100 was not supported by any receipt or independent corroboration. In the absence of reliable proof of the higher expenditure, the alleged breach of the spending limit could not be established.

Conclusion: The allegation of excess election expenditure was not proved.

Final Conclusion: The election petition failed on both grounds, and the appellant's election was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A charge of election bribery or corrupt practice must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by reliable and corroborated evidence; where the supporting documents and circumstances are suspicious or unproved, the finding cannot be sustained.

---