SARKARIA, - (1.) THE Judgment of the court was delivered by
(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 2/01/1973, of the High court of Punjab and Haryana, declaring void the election of the appellant Bhagat Ram alias Bhagtu to the Haryana State Assembly. The material facts are these: Election to the Haryana State Legislature took place in March 1972. Bhagtu Ram appellant, Bhagat Ram respondent and three others contested the election as rival candidates from Kalayat Constituency (Reserved). The result was announced on 12/03/1972. Appellant secured 17032 votes as against 15812 polled by Bhagat Ram, respondent herein. Appellant was declared elected. Bhagat Ram respondent filed an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) challenging the election of the appellant on three grounds. Of them, only these two are relevant for the purpose of this appeal: (1) The returned candidate and his workers with his consent published a statement of fact (poster, Ex. Public Witness 1/1) which was false and which he either believed to be false or did not believe to be true and that statement relating to the personal character and conduct of the petitioner, was reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the petitioner's election and thus he committed a corrupt practice under S. 123(4) of the Act. (2) The returned candidate incurred or authorised, in connection with his election, expenditure to the tune of Rs. 15,000.00. in contravention of the requirements of Section 77 of the Act and thus committed the corrupt practice under S. 123(6) of the Act.
(3.) ISSUES Nos. 1 and 2 framed by the learned trial Judge relate to the first charge, and issue No. 6 to the second. ISSUES Nos. 1 and 2 were decided against the petitioner. Under issue No. 6, it was held that the returned candidate had incurred, in connection with his election, expenditure of Rs. 93.02 in excess of the permissible fimit of Rs .9,000.00. On this short ground the election petition was allowed, and the election of the returned candidate was set aside. Hence this appeal. In the statement of account, Ex. Public Witness 6/1, filed under S. 78 of the Act, the appellant showed the incurring of a total expenditure of Rs. 1,668.92 in connection with his election. The permissible limit being 806 Rs 9,000.00, the election-petitioner, in order to succeed, had to prove that the returned candidate had incurred or authorised the election expenses, aggregating more than Rs. 7,331.08, in addition to those disclosed in the return, Ex. Public Witness 6/1.;