LexVIDYA SAGAR JOSHI versus SURINDER NATH GAUTAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
VIDYA SAGAR JOSID v. SURINDER NATH GAUTAM September 13, 1968 A [M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J. AND G. K. MITTER, J.J B· Representation of People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951). ss. 77(3) and ~ 123(6)-Amount sp.ent on seeking party ticket-Whether expenditure-- jExpenditure', 'in connection with election', and 'incurred or authorised', meaning of. The appellant applied for a Congress ticket for election to the Legis- lative Assembly and deposited certain sums, which according to the rnles G of the Congress Party was refundable if tlie candidate was uot selected but the deposit was to be forfeited if he contested the election against th~ official Congress candidate. The appellant was denied the Congress ticket. Thereafter the notification inviting electors to elect a member to the Assembly was issued, and the last date for filing Mmination papers and for withdrawing from the contest was fixed. The appellant contested the election against the respondent who was the official Congress nominee and incurred the penalty of forfeiture. The appellant was declared elect- Di ed and he filed his return of election expenses. The respondent challeng- ed the appellant's election on the ground that he had committed corrupt practice under s. 123(6) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, for Mt having included the sum deposited by him in seeking the Congress ticket in his return and by adding this sum to the return of election expenses filed the prescribed amount was exceeded, thereby contravening s. 77(3) of Act. The High Court held in favour of the election peti- tioner. Dismissing the appeal, this Court, E: HELD : Section 77 as framed now departs in language from the ear- lier provision on the subject which was r. 117. The words 'conduct arid management of election' are. not as wide as the words 'all expenditure in oonneqtion with election incurred or authorised by him' which now find place in s. 77 with 'election' and 'incurred or authorised.' 'Expenditure' means the amount expended and 'expended' means to pay away, lay out or spend. It really represents money out of pocket, a going out. The F amount paid away or paid out need not be all money which a man spends on himself during this time. It is money 'in connection with' his election. These words mean not so mu~h as 'consequent upon' as 'having to do with'. All money laid out and having to do with the election is contem- plated. But here again money which is liable to be refunded is not to be taken note of. The word 'incurred' shows a finality. It has the ·sense of rendering one·self liable for the amount. The words a'.re not equivalent to 'conduct or management of an election' and the expenses G need not be for promotion of. the interest of the candidate. Therefore· the section regards everything for which the candidate has rendered him- self liable and of which he is out of pocket in connection with his elec- tion, that is to say having to do with his election. [87 G-88 BJ (In this case, the appellant put out the money for his election since he was trying to obtain a Congress ticket. If he had got the ticket and H the money was refunded to him, this would not have counted as an expenditure since the expense would not have been incurred. When the appellant knowing that the money would be lost went on to stand as an independent candidate, he was willing to let the money go and take a .. • • • • V!DYA SAGAR V. SURINDER NATH (Hidayatullah, C.J.) 8 5 A chance independently. So the amount was an expenditure within the meaning of the section. [88 C-D] B c D Haji Aziz and Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City, [19611 2 S.C.R. 651, distinguished. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 853 of 1968. Appeal under section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 from the judgment and order dated January 15, 1968 of the Delhi High Court, Himachal Bench in C.0.P. No. 4 of 1967. C. B. Agarwala, S. K. Bagga and S. Bagga, for the appellant. Sarjoo Prasad and Naunit Lal, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah, C.J. This is an appeal against the judgment, dated January 15, 1968, of the High Court of Delhi (Himachal Bench) setting aside the election of the appellant to the Santokh- garh Assembly Constituency of Himachal Pradesh. The election has been set aside on the ground of corrupt practice under section 123 ( 6) of the Representation
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.