P C PURUSHOTHAMA REDDIAR Vs. S PERUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an election appeal arising from a judgment of the Madras High Court. It relates to the Election to the Ariyankuppam Assembly constituency of the Pondicherry Legislative Assembly. The said election was held on March 9, 1969.In that election, the appellant as well as the respondent contested. The appellant was the Congress nominee and the respondent was the nominee of the D. M. K. after the counting of votes, the respondent was declared elected as having obtained 3774 votes as against 3758 obtained by the appellant. The appellant challenged the validity of the election of the respondent on various grounds. In his election petition he alleged that the respondent was guilty of canvassing votes on the basis of his caste, that he had bribed the voters, that the election was not conducted properly, that there was improper reception of void votes and lastly that he had incurred expenditure more than the prescribed limit. The charge of bribery was not pressed at the time of the trial. The other grounds pleaded on behalf of the appellant were rejected by the High Court and the election petition was dismissed.

(2.) After hearing the Counsel for the parties regarding the allegation relating to the contravention of S. 123 (6) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act), we have come to the conclusion that the respondent was guilty of an offence falling within that section as he is proved to have incurred expenditure more than the prescribed limit. We therefore though that it was not necessary to go into the other charges levelled against the respondent. The limit of expenditure prescribed for the constituency was Rs. 2,000/-. In his election return, the respondent had stated that he had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 1865/59 P. The trial court came to the conclusion, which conclusion was not challenged before us, that he had incurred a further expenditure of Rs. 20/50 P. Hence if the appellant is able to establish that the respondent had incurred at least a further expenditure of Rs. 113/92 P., then the election of the respondent will have to be set aside under S. 100 (1) (b) of the Act on the ground that the respondent was guilty of the corrupt practice falling under S. 123 (6).

(3.) The appellant had alleged in his election petition that the respondent had suppressed in the return submitted by him expenditure incurred under various heads such as, expenditures incurred in connection with, the holding of election meetings, hire paid for the cars used in connection with the elections as well as for the price of petrol used for the cars used in that connection.