JUDGMENT

ANAND, J.:—This appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of People Act 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), by two electors is directed against the judgment and order of a learned single Judge of the Nagpur Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissing the election petition. The returned candidate has also filed cross objections challenging those findings which have gone against him. Both shall be disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The appellants filed an election petition under S.80 of the Act challenging the election of respondent No. 1, Dattaji Raghobaji Meghe, the returned candidate from 23 Nagpur Parliamentary Constituency in the elections held for the Xth Lok Sabha and also sought a declaration to the effect that respondent No.2 Shri Banwarilal Bhagwandas Purohit be declared as the duly elected candidate from the said Constituency after setting aside the election of the returned candidate. The challenge to the election of respondent No.1 was mainly based on the allegations of commission of various corrupt practices by him and/or his election agent detailed in the petition.

3. Appellant No. 1 was at the relevant time the Vice President of Bhartiya Janta Party (Nagpur City) Nagpur while appellant No.2 was a worker of the Bhartiya Janta Party. Respondent No. 2, Shri Banwarilal Bhagwandas Purohit, the defeated candidate had been sponsored as a candidate by the Bhartiya Janta Party while respondent No.1 Datta Raghobaji Meghe, the returned candidate, had been sponsored by Congress (I). Besides respondents 1 and 2, the other candidates, who had contested the election and had not withdrawn their candidatures from the contest, numbering more than forty two were also joined as respondents to the election petition.

4. The main case of the appellants projected before the High Court and canvassed before us against the returned candidate was that the expenditure incurred or authorised by respondent No.1 or his election agent was much more than what had been disclosed by him in the return of expenditure lodged under S.78 of the Act with the District Election Officer and that huge expenditure incurred by him in connection with his election had been suppressed. It was further alleged that though the expenditure incurred in connection with the election of respondent No.1 was shown to have been incurred by the political party, some other sympathetic associations, organisations, individuals, friends and well wisher, the said expenditure in fact had been incurred and/or authorised by respondent No. 1 and/or his election agent and the amount spent by those organisations had been provided out of the funds made available by respondent No. 1 to those parties for making the payment and their names were given only to conceal the truth of the transactions so as to escape from the mischief of S.123(6) of the Act. It was placed that some of the organisations under whose names the advertisements had appeared, were in fact non existent and that the individuals who were shown ostensibly to have incurred some expenditure for furtherance of the prospects of the election of respondent No. 1, had actually no funds of their own to spend and respondent No. 1 had placed his own funds in their hands to meet the expenditure. According to the appellants, the expenditure incurred by respondent No. 1 was far in excess of the limit prescribed by S.77 of the Act read with Rule 90 of the Conduct of Election Rules 1961 (hereinafter the `Rules) and the return of election expenditure did not reflect the correct state of affairs. Since respondent No. 1 had exceeded the prescribed limit of expense, he was guilty of committing the corrupt practice under S.123(6) of the Act and his election was, therefore, liable to be declared void and respondent No. 1 also disqualified for committing the corrupt practice.

5. Respondent No. 1 before filing his written statement raised a preliminary objection, through Ex.16 and Ex.17 to the effect that th