The main legal point established in the judgment is that amendments to election petitions must not widen the scope of the petition by introducing new corrupt practices not previously alleged within the period of limitation, and immediate action is required in seeking amendments after being given notice of additional material/facts by the respondent.

By this application made under Section 86(5) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 read with Order VI Rule 17 CPC the applicant/petitioner has sought to make amendments in the Election Petition. It is stated by the applicant/petitioner that the petitioner had made allegations in para 10 of the election petition about distribution of packets of sweets and food to the voters and to the children of voters on 18th November, 2008 and 22nd November, 2008.

In para 19, the dates regarding distribution were mentioned as 18th November, 2008 to 22nd November, 2008. It is submitted that in fact the distribution of sweets and food packets by respondent no.1 and his election agents had started on 16th November, 2008 and continued up to 22nd November, 2008. Therefore, the petitioner seeks to amend paras no. 10 & 19 of the petition. In para 10 of the petition, he seeks to amend the dates of distribution of sweets and food packets from ³16th November, 2008 to 22nd November 2008´18th November, 2008 and 22nd ´ similarly para 19 he seeks leave to replace ³18th November 2008 to 22nd November, 2008´ th November, 2008 to 22nd ´.

2. The other amendment sought by the election petitioner is in para 18 of the petition. In para 18 of the petition, the petitioner had stated that respondent no.1 contravened Section 77 of the Act since respondent no.1 had not shown the actual expenses incurred by him during election and not maintained the accounts of the expenses incurred by him in accordance with law, which shall amount to violation of law and shall amount to corrupt practices. The petitioner now wants to make following additional submissions in para 18 of the petition: sweets distributed by Respondent No.1, his election agent and supporters under the instructions of Respondent No.1/with his knowledge and consent on various occasions during the elections and on the pamphlets, leaflets, posters, voting slips and other such material got printed and distributed by Respondent No.1, his election agent and supporters with the consent of Respondent No.1, as accounted for by the Respondent No.1 is not correct. He has concealed the actual expenses by showing far lesser quantity and cost per piece/per head of the said items. If the actual expenses borne on the said items are taken into account the total expenditure of Respondent No.1 in the

3. It is submitted by the applicant/petitioner that by way of amendments, the petitioner only seeks to give the particulars of corrupt practices and non-compliance of rules, already stated in the petition. No new corrupt practice was sought to be introduced in the petition by the petitioner therefore, the application be allowed.

4. In reply to this application, the respondent no. 1 has taken the stand that the issues in the case had already been framed and the matter was fixed for recording of evidence. As a general rule, amendment is not allowed after framing of issues and after the matter is fixed for recording of evidence. The application for amendment made by the petitioner after framing of issues was therefore liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that amendments as sought by the petitioner would result into withdrawal of admissions, which was not permissible under law. The respondent in his WS had stated the dates of meeting with his workers as 16th November, 2008. In the replication the petitioner again reiterated the facts of the petition and thereafter issues were framed. If the petitionerV case had been that the distribution of sweets had taken place between 16th November to 22nd November, 2008 as is now alleged, the petitioner, after WS of respondent, would have immediately moved application for amendment but the petitioner in his replication denied the contentions made by the respondent, which amounted to admission on the part of the petitioner about no meeting having taken place on 16th November, 2008. The petitioner now by way of amendment cannot be allowed to withdraw this admissi