HIDAYATULLAH, C. - (1.)THE following Judgment of the court was delivered by ;
(2.)THIS is an appeal against the judgment, dated 15/01/1968, of the High court of Delhi (Himachal bench) setting aside the election of the appellant to the Santokhgarh Assembly Constituency of Himachal Pradesh. The election has been set aside on the ground of corrupt practice under section 123(6) of the Representation of People Act read with s. 98(b) of the Act.
By a notification dated 13/01/1967 the electors of this constituency were invited to elect a member to the Assembly. The the last date of withdrawal was 23/01/1967. Three candidates contested the election. The appellant was an independent candidate opposed by the respondent who was a Congress nominee and one Shanti Swarup, Jansangh candidate. The poll took place throughout the constituency on 18/02/1967. Votes were counted four days later at Una and the result was declared at follows: JUDGEMENT_288_AIR(SC)_1969Html1.htm Thus the present appellant was returned with a margin of 742 votes. The returned candidate filed his return of election expenses showing an expenditure of Rs. 1,862.05P. The limit of expenditure in this constituency was Rs. 2,000.00. One of the contentions of the election petitioner was that he had filed a false return of his election expenses, that he had spent .an amount exceeding Rs. 2,000.00 in the aggregate and therefore contravened the provisions of s. 77 (3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and therefore committed corrupt practice under section l23(6) of the Act. The election petitioner therefore asked that his election be declared void. There were other grounds also on which the election was challenged, but we need not refer to them since no point has been made before us.

The main item on which the expenses were said to be false was a deposit of Rs. 500.00 as security and Rs. 200.00 as application fee which the returned candidate had made with the Congress party on or before 2/01/1967. The fee was not returnable, but as this payment was, made before the notification calling upon the voters to elect a member to the Assembly nothing turns upon it. The returned candidate was denied the Congress ticket on or about 10/01/1967. This was also. before the said notification. According to the rules of the Congress party the security deposit was refundable to a candidate if he or she was not selected. It was however provided in the same rules that if the candidate contested the election against the official Congress candidate, the security deposit would be forfeited. The returned candidate chose to stand as an independent candidate against the official Congress nominee and incurred the penalty of forfeiture. This was after the date for the filing of the nomination paper ( 20/01/1967). He had time till 23/01/1967 to withdraw from the contest. If he had done so the deposit would have presumably been returned to him. As he became a contesting candidate the forfeiture of the deposit became a fact.

(3.)THE case of the election petitioner was that if this deposit were added to the election expenses, the limit of Rs. 2,000.00 was exceeded and therefore this amounted to a corrupt practice under section 123(6) read with s. 77(3) of the Representation of People Act. THE High court held in favour of the election petitioner and hence the appeal.
Section 77 of the Representation of People Act provides as follows.: Section 77. Account of election expenses 'and maximum thereof--(1 ) 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. (2). The account shall contain such particulars, as may be prescribed. (3) The total of the said expenditure shall not exceed such amount as may be prescribed.