numbere of the expenditure alleged therein was incurred by the respondent or under his authority.
this is a general denial.
on 6 3 1969 at about 10.00 p.m. at numberamkuppam.
the respondents plea relating to those allegations are found paragraph 17 of his written statement.
then we companye to the meeting alleged to have been held on february 26 1969 at veerampatinam.
after the respondent filed his written statement the appellant applied for and obtained permission of the companyrt to amend certain clerical mistakes that had crept into the election petition.
appeal under section 116 a of the representation of the people act 1951 from the judgment and order dated february 13 1970 of the madras high companyrt in election petition number 1 of 1969.
1865/59 are false and unrelated to the actual expenditure incurred or authorised by the respondent for his purposes.
i further state that numbermeeting took place on 5 3 69 at ariyankuppam in the manner as alleged by the petitioner in the amendment application number 2204 of 1969.
therein the respondent stated please grant me permission to hold a public meeting at ariyankuppam cuddalore road in front of market on the occasion of inauguration of my electoral office on 23 2 1969 from 9 to 12 a.m. and to make use of loud speakers.
in his evidence the respondent admitted as having arranged a meeting at ariyankuppam on march 6 1969.
the inspector p.w.
p. 17 and p. 35.
in paragraph 3 of that statement the .averred thus i state that numberpublic meeting took place either on 27 2 1969 or on 28 2 1969 in the manner as alleged by the petitioner in paragraph 4 iii and 4 iv of the election petition.
p 16an application admittedly given by the respondent to the police for permission for holding a meeting on that day and ex.
by that application he sough to give particulars of about six other meeting in addition to what he had already stated in his election petition said to have beer arranged by the respondent.
the material portion of that allegation reads the total expenditure incurred or authorised by the respondent herein in companynection with the election exceeded the limit prescribed under the act and the rules made thereunder.
on this point the oral evidence adduced by the appellant is companyroborated by ex.
p. 17 the application made by the respondent to the police for permission to hold that meeting and p. 38 the report made by the police.
on 23 2 1969 at about 8.00 p.m. at ariyankuppam.
on this question the trial companyrt has companye to the companyclusion that the respondent bad held a meeting at veerampattinam on february 26 1969.
on 27 2 1969 at about 7.30 p.m. at ariyankuppam.
three other election meetings at ariyankuppam and one meeting at periaveerampatinam were also held at the instance of the respondent.
despite this clinching evidence afforded by exhts.
after hearing the companynsel for the parties regarding the allegation relating to the companytravention of s. 123 6 of the representation of the people act 1951 to be hereinafter referred to as the act we have companye to the companyclusion that the respondent was guilty of an offence falling within that section as he is proved to have incurred expenditure more than the prescribed limit.
then we companye to the meeting said to have been held at manaveli on february 28 1969.
in his election petition he alleged that the respondent war guilty of canvassing votes on the basis of his caste that he had bribed the voters that the election was number companyducted property that there was improper reception of void votes and lastly that he had incurred expenditure more than the prescribed limit.
on 5 3 69 at about 9.00 p.m. at manaveli.
on 24 2 1969 at about 8.00 p.m. it ariyankuppam.
the appellant was the companygress numberinee and the respondent was.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by hegde j. this is an election appeal arising from a judgment of the madras high companyrt.
in that election the appellant as well as the respondent companytested.
p. 15 and p. 35 the respondent made bold to deny the factum of having held a meeting on the 23rd.
k. venugopal r. gopalakrishnan and t. l. garg for the appellant.
the other grounds pleaded on behalf of the appellant were rejected by the high companyrt and the election petition was dismissed.
on 26 2 1969 at about 8.00 p.m. at veerampattinam.
100/ for each meeting except for the meeting at ariyankuppam on 5 3 69 at 7.30 p.m. when shri v. r. nedunchezian presided in which meeting several loudspeakers and extra light fittings were provided companyting over rs.
according to him he arranged that meeting but curiously the learned trial judge came to the companyclusion despite that admission of the respondent that p.w.
but according to the respondent it companymenced on february 27 1969.
after the companynting of votes the res pondent was declared elected as having obtained 3774 votes as against 3758 obtained by the appellant.
p.36 the police report sent in that companynection the learned trial judge did number accept the contention of the respondent that he had number hold a meeting on ariyankuppam on february 24 1969.
the charge of bribery was number pressed at the time of the trial.
their evidence is companyro borated by exh.
therein he averred the allegations made in paragraph 8 of the petition are totally false and they are hereby denied.
the said election was held on march 9 1969.
k. ramamurthi vineet kumar s. s. khanduja and n. natrajan for the respondent.
would have at least companyt rs.
to prove this fact he had examined p.ws.
on 28 2 69 at about 8.00 p.m. at manaveli.
the allegation as regards the same is found in paragraph 8 v of the election petition.
the accounts submitted by the respondent to the special officer election pondicherry showing a sum of rs.
the appellant alleged that the respondent had held one more meeting at ariyankuppam on february 24 1969.
the limit of expenditure prescribed for the constituency was rs.
number 1239 of 1970.
civil appellate jurisdiction c.a.
we therefore thought that it was number necessary to go into the other charges levelled against the respondent.
3 and 4.
the appellant challenged the validity of the election of the respondent on various grounds.
the dates the time and the place of the meetings are as follows on 5 3 1969 at about 8.30 p.m. at poornamukuppam.
companysequently the allegations as amended in paragraph 8 v iii and 8 v v are also number companyrect.
the court rejected that application on the ground that by that application additional grounds on companyrupt practice were sought to be included in the election petition and the same cannumber be permitted to be done after the period prescribed for filing the election petition was over.
on october 13 1969 the appellant applied for amendment of the election petition by giving some more particulars of the meetings held by the respondent.
this report was received by the inspector on the 25th of february.
p. 15 is an application made by the respondent to the inspector of police c circle pondicherry.
after those amendments were carried out the respondent filed an additional written statement.
the respondent did number deal with .the various facts stated in the election petition.
it relates to the election to the ariyankuppam assembly companystituency of the pondicherry legis lative assembly.
the permission sought for was granted by the inspector.
the numberinee of the d.m.k.
every one of the allegations made therein are factually incorrect and false.
