- (1.) This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") from an order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh dismissing the election petition filed by the appellant calling in question the election of the first respondent to the Haryana State Legislature from the Kaithal Assembly Constituency in 1972. Poll was taken on March 11, 1972. The first respondent who secured 26095 votes was elected defeating the nine other candidates who contested the election. Appellant Om Prabha Jain who polled 22673 votes secured the next position in the contest. In her election petition the appellant, hereinafter also referred to as the petitioner, alleged various corrupt practices against the returned candidate seeking his election to be declared void under Section 100 of the Act and also prayed for an order under Section 99 naming him guilty of corrupt practice so that he might be disqualified under Section 8A of Act. In this appeal the challenge is confined to the allegations of corrupt practice under sub-sec. (6) of S. 123 - "incurring or authorising of expenditure in contravention of Sec. 77". Section 7 as it stood when the election petition was presented was in these terms: "77. Account of election expenses and maximum thereof (1) Every candidate at an election shall, either by himself or by his election agent, keep a separate and correct account of all expenditure in connection with the election incurred or authorized by him or by his election agent between the date of publication of the notification calling the election and the date of declaration of the result thereof, both dates inclusive. (2)The account shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed. (3) The total of the said expenditure shall not exceed such amount as may be prescribed."
(2.) For the State of Haryana the prescribed limit on election expenses was Rs. 9000/-
(3.) During the pendency of the appeal in this Court an Ordinance, namely, the Representation of the People (Amendment) Ordinance, 1974 was promulgated amending Sec. 77 of the Act by inserting two explanations to sub-sec. (1) thereof. The explanations read as follows: 'Explanation 1. - Notwithstanding any judgment, order or decision of any court to the, contrary, any expenditure incurred or authorized in connection with the election of a candidate by a political party or by any other association or body of persons or by any individual (other than the candidate or his election agent) shall not be deemed to be, and shall not ever be deemed to have been, expenditure in connection with the election incurred or authorized by the candidate or by his election agent for the purposes of this sub-section: Provided that nothing contained in this Explanation shall affect (a) any judgment, order or decision of the Supreme Court whereby the election of a candidate to the House of the People or to the Legislative Assembly of a State has been declared void or set aside before the commencement of the Representation of the People (Amendment) Ordinance 1974; (b) any judgment, order or decision of a High Court whereby the election of any such candidate has been declared void or set aside before the commencement of the said ordinance if no appeal has been preferred to the Supreme Court against such judgment, order or decision of the High Court before such commencement and the period of limitation for filing such appeal has expired before such commencement. Explanation 2. - For the purposes of Explanation 1, "political party" shall have the same meaning as in the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, as for the time being in force.' The Representation of the People (Amendment) Ordinance, 1974 was subsequently repealed and replaced by the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1974 (Act 58 of 1974) inserting the aforesaid explanations in Section 77 of the Act. The appeal before us does not attract the proviso to Explanation 1 and Sec. 77 with the explanations added will govern this case.;