C R NARASIMHAN Vs. M G NATESA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of the Election Tribunal, Madurai II, setting aside the election of the appellant to the seat for the single member Parliamentary constituency of Krishnagiri on a election petition filed by the respondent (E. P. No. 349 of 1957 ). For the said seat there were five candidates out of whom one withdrew. The appellant secured the largest number of votes and on 8-3-1957 he was declared as the returned candidate. The respondent. M. G. Natesan Chettiar, as elector for the Krishnagiri Assembly constituency which is one of the constituencies comprised in the Krishnagiri parliamentary constituency filed an election petition out of which this anneal arises praying that the election of the appellant be declared void and one G. D. Naidu who had secured the largest number of votes after the appellant be declared duly elected. The election of the appellant was sought to be set aside on several grounds which included charges of corrupt practices committed by the appellant. For the disposal of this appeal it is not necessary to mention all of them because the Election Tribunal found that excepting the corrupt practice to which we shall refer presently the election petitioner had not proved the commission of any other corrupt practice set out in the election petition. The material allegations in the election petition relating to the corrupt practice of which the Election Tribunal found the appellant guilty are as follows :

(2.) THE appellant traversed these allegations in paragraph 23 of his counter statement which runs thus :

(3.) THE appellant asked for particulars of the corrupt practice above mentioned, that is to say the precise items of expenditure incurred or authorised by the appellant which according to the respondent (election petitioner) ought to have been included in the return of election expenses. The respondent furnished a list of such expenses. This list included seven items out of which it is sufficient to mention one because the election tribunal found that the respondent had failed to prove the other items. That one item is item No. 7.