Non-compliance with election expenditure accounting does not constitute corrupt practice unless it materially affects election results.

JUDGMENT :

MINI PUSHKARNA, J.

I.A. 432/2023 (Application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC)

1. The instant Election Petition has been filed under The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (“1951 Act”) with a prayer to set aside the election of the respondent no. 1 held in AC-39, Rajinder Nagar, Assembly Constituency, thereby, declaring the said election as null and void. Additionally, the petitioner has also prayed for debarring the respondent no. 1 from contesting Assembly Elections for six years, as per Section 8(A) of the 1951 Act.

2. By way of the present petition, it is alleged that the respondent no. 1 has shown fabricated expenses in the day-to-day expenditure register. The respondent no. 1 has not lodged true accounts of expenditure incurred on refreshment, hoarding, banners, pamphlets, brooms, etc. in his election expenditure register.

3. The present application has been preferred on behalf of the respondent no. 1 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) for rejection of the present petition, on the ground that the same does not disclose any cause of action and being barred by law.

4. On behalf of the applicant/respondent no. 1, it has been submitted as follows:

4.1 The petition fails to disclose any cause of action for declaring the election of the respondent, as null and void or for debarring the respondent from contesting the elections for six years.

4.2 Mere non-compliance of Sections 77(1) and 77(2) of the 1951 Act, is not a corrupt practice, to attract Section 123 of the 1951 Act. In terms of Section 123(6) of the 1951 Act, corrupt practice only includes incurring or authorising of expenditure in contravention of Section 77 of the 1951 Act, which is beyond the prescribed limit.

4.3 The Election Petition is reiteration of information which is in public forum. The petitioner has only given a list of events and has made wide over-arching allegations. The allegations made by petitioner are in the nature of fishing and roving exercise.

4.4 Averments made in the petition are vague, without any supporting material and do not raise any triable issue.

5. Per contra, on behalf of the petitioner, it has been contended as follows:

5.1 The respondent no. 1 has shown fabricated expenses in the day-to-day expenditure register. The respondent no. 1 has not lodged true accounts of the expenditure.

5.2 Each contesting candidate has to maintain a day-to-day election expenditure register, but the respondent no. 1 has fabricated the records of election expenditure register.

5.3 An amount of Rs. 15 Lac was credited to the account of respondent no. 1 on 07^th June, 2022, but the respondent no. 1 had already spent lacs of rupees before the said amount was credited in his account, which was never shown by respondent no. 1 in any part of the election expenditure register.

5.4 The respondent no. 1 knowingly showed no other expenses other than the stamp duty and notary for filing his nomination. No expenses of conveyance, i.e., car, petrol, refreshment, etc. was shown by him in the day-to-day expenditure register for 03^rd June, 2022.

5.5 On 03^rd June, 2022, the respondent had shown Rs. 20,000/- cash in hand in affidavits filed by him, but he had paid Rs. 10,310/- on 03^rd June, 2022 for nomination, stamp paper and notary. When he had already paid the aforesaid amount on 03^rd June, 2022, in his affidavit filed on 06^th June, 2022, he again showed Rs. 20,000/- cash in hand, i.e., the exact same amount in his bank account. On account of the same, it is clear that the election expenses shown by respondent in his day-to-day election expenditure, are false and fabricated.

5.6 On 03^rd June, 2022, the respondent showed no expenses in the day- to-day expendit