Election petition service requirements: omission to supply an integral photograph was fatal, while security deposit through prescribed procedure was sufficient.

Security for costs under Section 117(1) of the Representation of the People Act was treated as substantially complied with where the amount was deposited within time through the High Court's prescribed challan and lodgment procedure, the procedural mode being directory. The Court also held that a photograph forming an integral part of a pleaded corrupt practice allegation had to be served with the election petition under Section 81(3), read with Section 83(2); omission to supply it meant the copy served was not a true and complete copy. The security deposit objection failed, but non-service of the photograph constituted fatal non-compliance, so dismissal of the election petition was upheld on that ground.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether deposit of security for costs under Section 117(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, made through the High Court's prescribed deposit procedure, satisfied the statutory requirement; (ii) Whether the failure to supply a copy of the photograph referred to in the pleaded allegation of corrupt practice amounted to non-compliance with Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Issue (i): Whether deposit of security for costs under Section 117(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, made through the High Court's prescribed deposit procedure, satisfied the statutory requirement.

Analysis: Section 117(1) required the petitioner to deposit Rs. 2,000 in the High Court as security for costs, but the manner of deposit in accordance with the High Court's rules was treated as directory. The deposit had been made within time to the credit of the Registrar through the High Court's established challan and lodgment procedure. The prescribed procedure was treated as a valid mode of payment into court, and the Reserve Bank functioned as the High Court's agent for that purpose. Substantial compliance was therefore sufficient.

Conclusion: The security deposit requirement was complied with, and this ground for dismissal failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the failure to supply a copy of the photograph referred to in the pleaded allegation of corrupt practice amounted to non-compliance with Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Analysis: The photograph was not a mere piece of evidence detached from the pleading. It was part of the pleaded allegation itself because the allegation of excessive election expenditure and corrupt practice was incomplete without the visual depiction of the banner. Section 81(3), read with Section 83(2), required copies of the petition and integral annexures or schedules to be served on each respondent. Since the photograph formed an integral part of the averment, omission to serve it meant the copy supplied was not a true and complete copy of the election petition.

Conclusion: The omission amounted to non-compliance with Section 81(3), and the election petition was liable to be dismissed on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The security deposit objection failed, but the objection based on non-service of the photograph succeeded; accordingly, the connected matters were disposed of by dismissing all but one appeal, and granting partial relief in the surviving appeal by upholding dismissal of the election petition on the Section 81(3) ground.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a pleaded document is an integral part of the allegation in an election petition, it must be served with the petition under Section 81(3), and substantial compliance may suffice for a procedural mode of security deposit under Section 117(1) when the amount is duly deposited within time through the High Court's prescribed mechanism.

---