Back
1959 Supreme(Mad) 84
MADRAS HIGH COURT
P. V. RAJAMANNAR,GANAPATIA PILLAI
M.A.Muthiah Chettiar
Versus
Sa. Ganesan
A.A.O. No. 21 of 1959
Decided On : 1 May, 1959
M.K. Nambiyar and K.K. Venugopal for Appellant S. Mohan Kumaramangalam and K.V. Sankaran, for Respondent.
The omission to include certain items of expenditure in the account of election expenses does not constitute a corrupt practice under S. 123(6) read with S. 77(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Headnote:
The court held that the respondent was not guilty of any corrupt practices alleged against him in the petition and therefore his election could not be declared void. The court also found that the respondent was not disqualified from standing for election.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an election petition before the Election Commission alleging that the respondent had committed corrupt practices and was disqualified from being elected to the Madras Legislative Assembly. The Election Commission referred the petition to the Election Tribunal for trial. The Tribunal found that the respondent was guilty of one corrupt practice under S. 123(6) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and declared his election void. The respondent appealed to the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the respondent was not guilty of any corrupt practices alleged against him in the petition and therefore his election could not be declared void. The court also found that the respondent was not disqualified from standing for election.
Issues: Whether the respondent was guilty of any corrupt practices alleged against him in the petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent was not guilty of any corrupt practices alleged against him in the petition because: * The omission to include certain items of expenditure in the account of election expenses did not constitute a corrupt practice under S. 123(6) read with S. 77(1) of the Act. * The contravention of S. 77(2) of the Act did not constitute a corrupt practice under S. 123(6) as no item of expenditure which should have been included was omitted. * The total amount of election expenses incurred or authorised by the respondent did not exceed the maximum prescribed. * There was no evidence to determine the amount which should be included in the return of the election expenses for the items found by the Tribunal. * There was no specific plea in the election petition that the respondent should be debited with moneys not spent or authorised to be spent by him but which nevertheless should be notionally deemed to have been expended by him. * The respondent was not guilty of any corrupt practice under S. 123(6) read with S. 77(3) of the Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed and the order of the Tribunal declaring the election of the respondent void was set aside. The election petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
RAJAMANNAR, C. J. :- This is an appeal against the order of the Election Tribunal, Madurai, in Election Petition No. 86 of 1957 filed in the following circumstances. In the recent general elections to the Madras State Assembly four candidates went to the polls to contest the seat for the Karaikudi Constituency in the Ramanathapuram district. There were others who had filed their nomination papers but they withdrew before the due date. Polling took place on 1-3-1957. The four candidates obtained votes as under :
1. Sri M. A. Muthiah Chettiar 24,223
2. " Sa. Ganesan 23,365
3. " R. M. Subbiah 2,348
4. " U. P. L. Venkatachalam Chettiar 1,171
Muthiah Chettiar having secured the largest number of votes was declared duly elected on 5-3-1957. Sa. Ganesan filed an election petition before the Election Commission on 15-4-1957 and it was referred to the Election Tribunal at Madurai for trial. Muthiah Chettiar was the sole respondent and the prayer was for an order declaring the election of the returned candidate, M. A. Muthiah Chettiar to be void. The petitioner alleged that by reason of the respondent being disqualified for being chosen to fill a seat in the Madras Legislative Assembly on the ground stated in paragraph 5 of the petition and by reason of the corrupt practices set out in paragraph 6 the election of the respondent was liable to be declared void under S. 100 (1) (a), (b) and (d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. These provisions run thus :
"100. Subject to the provisions of sub-sec. (2) if the Tribunal is of opinion -
(a) that on the date of his election a returned candidate was not qualified or was disqualified to be chosen to fill the seat under the Constitution of this Act; or
(b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his election agent; or
(d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected -
(i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination, or
(ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interests of the returned candidate by a person other than that candidate or his election agent or a person acting with the consent of such candidate or election agent, or
(iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders made under this Act, the Tribunal shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void;"
Section 123 of the Act enumerates seven categories of corrupt practices in sub-clauses 1 to 7. The petitioner alleged that the respondent had committed corrupt practices set out in clauses 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. The Petition and the schedules contained over fifty instances of corrupt practices. Voluminous evidence oral and documentary was recorded. There were 106 witnesses for the petitioner and 52 for the respondent. 314 exhibits were filed on behalf of the petitioner and 114 on behalf of the respondent. The trial occupied several days and the order of the Tribunal runs into 125 paragraphs. The Tribunal held that the respondent was not disqualified and except the corrupt practice under S. 123 (b) of the Act none of the other corrupt practices was proved. The Tribunal held that the respondent was guilty of corrupt practice under S. 123 (6) of the Act and consequently he declared the election of the respondent to be void. The respondent (M. A. Muthiah Chettiar) has filed the above appeal. In this judgment to avoid any confusion the election petitioner who is the respondent before us will be referred to as the petitioner and the returned candidate who is the appellant before us and who was the respondent in the election petition will be referred to as the respondent.
2. The corrupt practice set out in clause 6 of S. 123 is "the incurring or authorising of expenditure in contravention of S. 77". Sec. 77 is in the following terms :-
"(1) Every candidate at an election shall, ei
