https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288419 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. en-us Tue, 26 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Jun 2020 16:17:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288419 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. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 26 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288419