L.R. SHIVARAMAGOWDA ETC. versus T.M. CHANDRASHEKAR (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 241 · Decided: 01-12-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

L.R. SHIVARAMAGOWDA ETC. 
A 
11. 
T.M. CHANDRASHEKAR (D) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 1, 1998 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ., B.N. KIRPAL AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.] 
B 
Representation of the People Act, 1951. 
Ss. 77(1) and (2), 110(1), 123(6)-Legislative Assembly Election-
Corrupt practice-Election petition-Pleadings-"Material facts" and C 
"Material particulars"-Dijference between-Absence of material facts in 
petition-Effect of-Election of returned candidate challenged for non-filing 
of correct and true accounts of election expenses-No a/legation of incurring 
expenses over and above prescribed limit-Held, essential requirement under 
S.123(6) is that result of election insofar as it concerns the returned candidate D 
has been materially affected-Failure on part of returned candidate to 
maintain accounts as required by S. 77(1) and (2) will in no case affect the 
result of election-Election petition dismissed-Conduct of Election Rules, 
1961. 
Conduct of Election Rules, 1961-Rule 94-A-Form-25-Election E 
Petition-Affidavit-Non compliance with Rule 94-A-Effect of 
Respondent no. 1 filed an election petition challenging the election of 
the appellant to the State Legislative Assembly. It was, inter alia, alleged that 
the appellant did not file correct and true accounts of his election expenses 
with the District Election Officer as required under the Conduct of Election F 
Rules, 1961 and, therefore, the appellant was guilty of corrupt practices 
within the meaning of Section 123(6) of the Representation of the People 
Act, 1951. It was prayed that it be declared that the appellant committed 
corrupt practices under Sections 100(1) (b), 100(1) (d) (ii) and 100(1) (d) (iv) 
of the Act as also under the Rules and; that respondent No. 1, having polled 
second highest number of votes, was duly elected to the said Assembly G 
Constituency. The appellant denied the allegations. The High Court held that 
the appellant had not maintained true and correct accounts of expenditure 
incurred or authorised by him which amounted to corrupt practice. It also 
observed that the expenditure incurred by the appellant was not proved to 
have crossed the prescribed limit, but he was guilty of suppression of true H 
241 
242 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A accounts. On these findings, the High Court declared the election of the 
appellant as void and set it aside. However, keeping in view the number of 
votes polled by respondent No. 1 being considerably low, the High Court 
directed a fresh election for the constituency. Aggrieved, the appellant filed 
the present appeal. 
B 
It was contended for the appellant that the High Court erred in 
rendering a finding that the election was void under Section 100(1) (d) (iv) 
read with Section 123(6) of the Act as it overlooked the absence of material 
facts in the election petition which disabled respondent No. 1 from adducing 
any evidence in the regard; and that the High Court also overlooked that the 
non-maintenance of true and correct accounts would not by itself be sufficient 
C to nullify the election. It was submitted that it was absolutely necessary for 
the election petitioner to plead that the result of the election, insofar as it 
concerned the returned candidate, had been materially affected by the alleged 
non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or of the Rules. 
D 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. The election petition suffers from a very serious defect of 
failure to st;t out material facts of the alleged corrupt practice. The defect 
invalidates the election petition in that regard and the petitioner ought not 
to have been permitted to adduce any evidence with reference to the same. 
The election petition does not contain any averment that the appellant had 
E spent for the election an amount exceeding the prescribed limit or that the 
result of the election was materially affected by the failure of the appellant 
to give true and correct accounts of expenditure. These are material facts 
which ought to find a place in an election petition if the election is sought 
to be set aside on the basis of such facts. In the absence of either averment 
p it was not open to the appellant to adduce evidence to that effect. 
[258-F; 253-E) 
1.2. The averment found in the election petition is only to the effect that 
the cost incurred by the appellant had not been furnished in his statement 
of account. Mere allegation that there was contravention of Section 123(6) 
G

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.