(1.) 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: Sri M. A. Muthiah Chettiar 24,223 Sri Sa. Ganesan 23,365 Sri R. M. Subbiah 2,348 Sri 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 had 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:-
(3.) Paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 of the Election Petition contain allegations relating to this charge. Paragraph 19 runs thus: "The respondent has not included in his account various items of expenditure incurred by him in connection with the election; the full particulars of such instances of non-inclusion of expenditure incurred by the respondent in connection with his election are given below." 15 instances are given as (a) to (o).