Mere Failure To Maintain "True & Correct" Account Of Election Expenditure Not 'Corrupt Practice' U/S 123(6) Representation Of People Act: Manipur HC

While dismissing the election petition filed against Langpoklakpam Jayantakumar Singh, Chief Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar relied upon a judgment (infra) of the Apex Court and observed,

"...it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that non-compliance with Sections 77(1) and (2) would also fall within the scope of Section 123(6) and consequently, such non-compliance cannot fall under Section 100(1)(b). The Supreme Court pointed out that failure on the part of the returned candidate to maintain an account as required by Sections 77(1) and (2) would in no case affect, and much less materially, the result of the election."

Factual Background:

Laisom Ibomcha Singh, the original petitioner, secured the second position in the 2017 Elections to the 11th Legislative Assembly of the State of Manipur. He filed an election petition praying to declare the election of Respondent from 12-Keishamthong Assembly Constituency on three counts:

1. Respondent failed to open a separate bank account for his election expenses in accordance with the directions/ instructions of the Election Commission of India;

2. He had sworn a false affidavit while filing his nomination, wherein he stated that he had no Government dues, except for a motor car advance, though he had pending Government dues, viz., land revenue dues for his landed property;

Judgment:

The Court held that Section 123(6) of the Act states that the incurring or authorization of expenditure in contravention of Section 77 would be deemed to be a 'corrupt practice' for the purposes of the Act.

Section 77(1) merely requires a candidate at an election, either by himself or by his election agent, to keep a separate and correct account of all expenditure in connection with the election between the date on which he has been nominated and the date of declaration of the result thereof. Section 77(2) provides that the account should contain such particulars as may be prescribed. Section 77(3) mandates that the total of the said expenditure shall not exceed such amount as may be prescribed.

In the instant case, the original petitioner never pressed that Respondent's election expenditure exceeded the maximum amount prescribed. His only allegation was that Respondent had failed to maintain a proper account of his election expenditure and no more.

Thus, the Court noted that the question that arises is whether the failure on the part of Respondent to maintain a true and proper account of his election expenses and failure to route it through his bank account, even if proved, would by itself be sufficient to constitute a 'corrupt practice'.

The Court relied on L.R. Shivaramagowda & Ors. v. T.M. Chandrashekar (Dead) by LRs & Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 666, wherein the Supreme Court observed that what is referred to in Section 123(6) as a corrupt practice is only incurring or authorizing of excess expenditure in contravention of Section 77 thereof. Section 123(6) does not take into its fold the failure to maintain true and correct accounts and its language is clear that the corrupt practice defined therein can relate only to Section 77(3), i.e., incurring or authorizing of expenditure in excess of the amount prescribed.

Hence, the Court concluded that even if the original petitioner's allegation that respondent No.1 failed to maintain a proper account is accepted, it would not constitute a 'corrupt practice' under Section 123(6) of the Act.

So far as the issue relating to false affidavit is concerned, the same was not pressed.

Accordingly, the election petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Shri Maibam Sarat Singh & Anr. v. Langpoklakpam Jayantakumar Singh & Ors. and other connected matters

Case No.: E.P. No. 11 of 2017 & other connected cases

Date of Judgment: 08 February 2022

Coram: Chief Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Man) 2