9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (9) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act read with s. 98(b) of the Act. By a notification dated January 13, 1967 the electors of this constituency were invited to elect a member to the Assembly. The last date of withdrawal was January 23, 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 February 18, 1967. Votes were counted four days later at Una and the result was declared at follows: Vidya Sagar Joshi (Appellant) 8437 votes Surinder Nath Gautam 7695 votes (Election Petitioner) Shanti Swarup 2067 votes 1267 ballots were rejected as invalid. Thus the present appellant was return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 (January 20, 1967). He had time till January 23, 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. The case of the election petitioner was that if this deposit were added to the election expenses, the limit of ₹ 2,000/- was exceeded and therefore this amounted to a corrupt practice under section 123(6) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 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." In the present case, therefore, the critical dates were January. 13, 1967 and February 22, 1967. The amount in question was paid before the first date. It was liable for confiscation not on the date on which the Congress ticket was refused to the returned candidate but on January 23, 1967 when he did not withdraw from the' contest and offered himself as a contesting candidate against the official Congress candidate. In other words, the payment was made before the period marke ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s mean not so much as 'consequent upon' as 'having to do with'. All money laid out and having to do. with the election is contemplated. 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 oneself liable for the amount. Therefore the section regards everything for which the candidate has rendered himself liable and of which he is out of pocket in connection with his election that is to say having to do with his election. The candidate here put out this money for his election since he was trying to obtain a congress ticket. If he had got the ticket and the money was refunded to. him, this would not have counted as an expendi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l are of the same Bench and concern Rule 117. They need not be considered. The two cases of this Court may be noticed. In Haji Aziz and Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City([1961] 2 S.C.R. 651) the question arose under the Indian Income-tax Act. A firm importing dates was found to have breached some law and a penalty was imposed on it under the Sea Customs Act. The firm sought to treat the penalty as expenses and they were disallowed by this Court. Learned Counsel for the appellant relied on this case and claimed that the same principle applies and this penalty cannot be said to be an expenditure in connection with the election. The analogy is not apt because not only the prescriptions of the two laws are differen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
