Omission to enter an expenditure in the account amounts to a corrupt practice.

This is an appeal against the order of the Election Tribunal, Madurai II, setting aside the election of the appellant to the seat for the single member Parliamentary constituency of Krishnagiri on an election petition filed by the respondent (E. P. No. 149 of 1957). For the said seat there were five Candidates out of whom one withdrew. The appellant secured the largest number of votes and on 8th March, 1957, he was declared as the returned candidate. The respondent, M. G. Natesa Chettiar, an elector for the Krishnagiri Assembly Constituency which is one of the constituencies comprised in the Krishnagiri Parliamentary constituency, filed an election petition out of which this appeal arises praying that the election of the appellant be declared void and one G. D. Naidu who had secured the largest number of votes after the appellant be declared duly elected. The election of the appellant was sought to be set aside on several grounds which included charges of corrupt practices committed by the appellant. For the disposal of this appeal it is not necessary to mention all of them because the Election Tribunal found that excepting the corrupt practice to which we shall refer presently the election petitioner had not proved the commission of any other corrupt practice set out in the election petition. The material allegations in the election petition relating to the corrupt practice of which the Election Tribunal found the appellant guilty are as follows:-

" The petitioner states that the first respondent has incurred and authorised the expenditure in contravention of section 77 of the Act and committed a corrupt practice under section 123 (6) of the Act. He has incurred an expenditure of over Rs. 25,000. In his return of election expenses he has not taken into consideration the heavy expenditure incurred by the Congress Party in furtherance of his candidature. The Congress Party has incurred heavy expenditure of many thousands of rupees in furtherance of the prospects of the election of the first respondent and other Congress candidates who stood for election to the Assembly in the Krishnagiri Parliamentary Constituency. The expenditure has been incurred in various ways by the Congress Party by doing propaganda in support of the Congress Party candidates including meeting, processions, dances, dramas, feeding and many other diverse ways. I state that section 77 referred to in section 123 (6) of the Act provides that 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 authorised 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, that the account shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed and that the total of the said expenditure shall not exceed such amount as may be prescribed.

The particulars which the accounts shall contain is provided for in Rule 131. The maximum amount of expenditure is provided for in Schedule III. Section 78 of the Act provides that the Return of Election Expenses shall be a true copy of the accounts kept by the candidate or by his election agents under section 77. The petitioner states that on an examination of the return of election expenses made by the first respondent it will be found that he has contravened the provisions of section 77 of the Act and therefore committed a corrupt practice under section 123 (6) of the Act. The first respondent has failed to conform to the provisions of section 77 and he has exceeded the maximum amount prescribed for expenditure for the election ".

The appellant traversed these allegations in paragraph 23 of his counter-statement which runs thus:-

"The statements in paragraph 31 that this respondent incurred or authorised expenditure in excess of the prescribed maximum are false and are denied. This