Samant N. Balakrishna Vs. George Fernandez & Ors [1969] INSC 37 (12 February 1969)
1969 Latest Caselaw 37 SC

Samant N. Balakrishna Vs. George Fernandez & Ors [1969] INSC 37 (12 February 1969)

12/02/1969 HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ) HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ) MITTER, G.K.

CITATION: 1969 AIR 1201 1969 SCR (3) 603 1969 SCC (3) 238

CITATOR INFO :

RF 1970 SC2097 (264) R 1972 SC 515 (19) E 1972 SC1302 (19) E 1973 SC1419 (5) R 1974 SC 47 (13) R 1975 SC1417 (33) RF 1975 SC1788 (8) RF 1975 SC2299 (503) RF 1976 SC 744 (34) RF 1976 SC1187 (6) F 1976 SC1599 (29) R 1979 SC 154 (38) R 1979 SC 234 (40) R 1982 SC1559 (26) D 1983 SC1311 (8) R 1984 SC 146 (3,5) R 1984 SC 621 (17) R 1984 SC1161 (9) R 1985 SC 24 (2) RF 1986 SC 3 (21,151) R 1986 SC 25 (1) R 1988 SC1275 (26) F 1990 SC 19 (19) R 1990 SC1731 (6) RF 1991 SC1557 (18)

ACT:

Representation of the People Act (43 of 1951), ss. 81, 86(5), 100 (1)(b), 100(1)(d)(ii) and 123(4)-Difference between 'material facts' and 'particulars'-What amendments are permissible after the period of limitation-Candidate's lack of belief in statements made by agents to be established-Difference between s. 100(1)(b) and s.

100(1)(d)(ii)-Necessity of proof that Candidate consented to specific corrupt practice-Editor of newspaper attacking one candidate-When can be deemed to be agent of a rival candidate-Consent of candidate, if can be inferred Knowledge, if sufficient proof of consent-Statements in newspapers, weight of-Proof that result of election was materially affected-Burden of proof.

HEADNOTE:

Under s. 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, an election can be challenged by means of an election petition filed within 45 days of the date of election, on the grounds specified in s. 100(1). Section 100 (1) (b) and (d) (ii) deal with corrupt practices, and s. 123 sets out what shall be deemed to be corrupt practices. To establish the corrupt practice under s. 123(4) the election petitioner must prove: (a) the publication of a statement of fact by (i) a candidate, or (ii) his agent, or (iii) any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent; (b) that the statement is false or the candidate believes it to be false or does not believe it to be true;

(c) that the statement refers to the personal character and conduct of another candidate; and (d) that it is reasonably calculated to prejudice that other candidate's prospects of election. Under the Explanation to the section, the word 'agent' includes an election agent, a polling agent or any person who is held to have acted as an agent in connection with the election with the consent of the candidate. If-the corrupt practice is committed by the returned candidate or his election agent, under s. 100(1) (b), the election is avoided without any further condition being, fulfilled, but if the petitioner relies on a corrupt practice committed by any other agent other than an election agent the petitioner must prove that it was committed with the consent of the returned candidate or his election agent as required by s. 100(1) (b), or, that the corrupt practice which was committed in the interests of the returned candidate materially affected the result of the election in so far as it concerned the returned candidate. [617 A-B; 618 B-D] Section 83 requires that the petition must contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies and the fullest possible particular of the corrupt practice alleged. 'Material facts' and 'particulars' may overlap but the word 'material' shows that the ground of corrupt practice and the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action must be stated. The function of the Particulars is to present as full a picture of the cause of action as to make the opposite party understand the case he will have to meet. Under s. 86(5), if a corrupt practice. is alleged in the petition the particulars of such corrupt practice may be amended or amplified for ensuring a fair and effective dial, that is, more and better particulars of the charge may be given later, even after the period of limitation; but if a corrupt practice is not previously alleged in the petition, an amendment which will have the effect of introducing particulars of such a corrupt practice will not be permitted, after the period of 'limitation, because, it would be tantamount to the making of a fresh petition. Merely repeating the words of the statute does not amount to a proper statement of material facts where the allegation of corrupt practice is the making of a false statement. The false statement must appear in the petition. if the corrupt practice is the publication of an article in a newspaper no incorporation of the contents by reference can be allowed, for, if a newspaper is not exhibited and only the date is mentioned, the material fact, namely, the exact offending portion of the newspaper, would not have been stated. If the charge is that an agent did something, it cannot be amplified by giving particulars of acts on the part of the candidate or vice versa, because, in the scheme of: election law, publication of false statements by an agent is one cause of action and publication of false statements by a candidate is quite a different cause of action. They are separate corrupt practices which cannot be said to grow out of the material facts related to another person. Since a single corrupt practice committed by the candidate or by his election agent, or by any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent is fatal to the election, the case must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved; if not, such corrupt practice cannot be alleged later on after the period of limitation [619 C-H; 621 B-D; 622 A-D, F-G; 623 E-H; 629 A-B] In the present case, the election of the first respondent to Parliament from Bombay South Parliamentary constituency, was challenged by the appellant (an elector in the constituency) on the ground that corrupt practices were committed. The result of the poll was declared on February 24, 1967. The first respondent secured 1,47,841 votes and his nearest rival, the second respondent, secured 1,18,407 votes. The petition was filed on April 7, 1967. The corrupt practice alleged was that the first respondent made some speeches, and that the first respondent and two others, with the consent and for the benefit of the first respondent, made false statements, casting aspersions on the character and conduct of the second respondent, and that those and other false statements-were published as news items in the daily newspaper 'Maratha'. Extracts from the newspapers were annexed. It was also stated that similar false statements were published in some other issues of the newspaper but no attempt Was made either to specify the offending portions of the newspapers or to file the extracts or the original issues, but only the dates were given. There was also no averment that the first respondent believed the statements to be false or did not believe them to be true. After the period of limitation, the originals of all the issues of the newspapers were filed and after the examination of the election petitioner as a witness, applications for amendment were made. The High Court allowed the following amendments: (a) Speeches attributed to the first respondent and a speech said to have been made at a meeting, when the first respondent presided, casting aspersions on the second respondent, to be included among the list of corrupt practices. Reports of those speeches appeared in the issues of the 'Maratha' which were filed later. (b) An article in the 'Blitz, written by the first respondent defamatory of the second respondent also to be included in the list of corrupt practices. (c) An averment that the editor of the newspaper 'Maratha' and the first respondent believed the statements to be false or that they did not believe them to be true. And (d) an averment that the editor of the newspaper and the two others were the agents of the first respondent. The High Court however, dismissed the election petition. [614 E-F; 616 B] In appeal to this Court, on the questions : (1) Whether all or any of the amendments should be allowed; (2) Whether the editor of the 'Maratha' and the two others committed corrupt practices under s. 100 605 (1) (b) by publishing the statements about the second respondent with the consent of the first respondent and (3) Whether the result of the election in so far as it concerned the first respondent was materially affected by the publication as required by s. 100(1) (d) (ii),

HELD: (1) The amendments relating to the speeches of, the first respondent and his article in the Blitz should not be allowed; but the amendments relating to the agency of the editor of the 'Maratha' and the two others, and that seeking to incorporate the averment about the lack of belief of the editor of 'Maratha and the first respondent should be allowed. [616 E-G] In the petition as originally filed, the agency of the editor of 'Maratha, and the two others was the basis of the charge and the first respondent was left out. Only one allegation was made personally against the first respondent namely that he made some speeches but that was not relied upon and no evidence regarding it was adduced. The other allegation in the original petition was that he made some statements, and that the 'Maratha' published them; and the extracts from the 'Maratha were filed as exhibits. Since publication of a false statement is the gist of the election offence the charge was against the 'Maratha, and its editor.

If it was intended that the first respondent should be held responsible then the allegation should have been what statement he made and how it offended the election law.

'Mere was however no reference to any statement by the first respondent himself throughout the petition as it was originally filed and in fact there was no charge against him. During the election the second respondent did not once protest that the first respondent was spreading false propaganda and even after election he did not attribute anything to the first respondent. Therefore, the amendments which had the effect of introducing new corrupt practices relating to the candidate himself which had not been pleaded earlier should not be allowed, as that kind of amendment, sought after the period of limitation, is prohibited under the law. But the allegation that in publishing the statements in the 'Maratha' its editor acted as the agent of the first respondent, that the statements were false or were believed to be false by the first respondent and the editor, and that they were calculated to prejudice the second respondent's chances and did so prejudice, should be allowed. They are merely particulars to be added for completing the cause of action relating to a current practice already alleged. The result is that the 'case is confined to that of a candidate sought to be made responsible for the acts of his agent other than an election agent. [620 G; 624 A-F; 632 A-B] Jagan Nath v. Jaswant Singh, [1954] S.C.R. 892-895, Bhim Sen v. Gopali, [1960] 22 E.L.R. 288 (S.C.), Chandi Prasad Chokani v. State of Bihar, [1962] 2 S.C.R. 289, Sheopat Singh v. Ram Pratap, [1965] 1 S.C.R. 175 and Kumara Nand v. Brij Mohan, [1967]1 2 S.C.R. 127, followed.

Harish Chandra Bajpai v. Triloki Singh, [1957] S.C.R. 370, explained.

Din Dayal v. Beni Prasad, 15 E.L.R. 131, Balwant Singh, ;v. Election Tribunal, 15 E.L.R. 199, Sasivarna Thevar v. Arunagiri, 17 E.L.R. 313, Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Election Tribunal, 14 E.L.R. 147, Devaiah v. Nagappa, A.I.R. 1965 Mys. 102, Babulal Sharma v. Brijnarain Brajesh, A.I.R. 1958 M.P. 175 (F.B.), Beal v. Smith L. R. 4 C. P. 1 1 5; Bruce v. Odhams Press Ltd. [1936] 1 K.B. 697 and Phillips v. Phillips, [1878] 4 Q.B.D. 127, referred to.

(2) Regard however being had to the activities of the editor of 'Maratha' as editor and his own personal hostility to the second respondent L10Sup./69-4 606, every act of the editor could not be attributed to the first respondent. The editor's field of agency must be limited to what he said as the agent of the first respondent and would not embrace the field in which he as acting as editor of his newspaper unless the first respondent's consent to the corrupt practices was established. [636 E-F; 638 B-C] Consent need not be directly proved and could be inferred from circumstantial evidence, such as a consistent course of conduct of the candidate. But the circumstances must point unerringly to the conclusion and must not admit of any other explanation. Although an election petition is tried in accordance with the Civil Procedure Code, a corrupt practice must be proved in the same way as a criminal charge is proved. English cases dealing with illegal practices in which the candidate is held :responsible for the acts of his agent, are not a proper guide, because English law, unlike Indian law, makes a distinction between 'illegal practices' and 'corrupt practices'. Fourth the consent of the candidate must 'be specific and must be proved for each corrupt practice. If every act of an agent is presumed to be with the consent of the candidate there would be no room for the application of the extra condition laid down by S.

100(1)(d), namely, the material effect on the result of the election, be ,cause, whenever agency is proved either directly or circumstantially, the finding about consent under s. 100(1) (b) will hive, to follow. [637 A-H] In the present case, though the newspaper ran a special column as an ,election front of the first respondent, no article or comment in that column was relied on for proving a corrupt practice. It was not even suggested that the first respondent wrote any article for the 'Maratha. The statements which were relied on as corrupt practices we're made by the editor of the newspaper in the normal course of running a newspaper, as news items or in the editorial.

They stated the policy of the newspaper and its comments upon the events. Many of the news items ,appeared. in more than one paper. If it could not be said that the editors of-each of those papers acted as an agent for the first respondent there is no reason for, holding that the editor of 'Maratha' alone acted as such agent. It was not as if the matter was left entirely in the hands of the ,editor who acted as a whole time agent or solely as the agent of the first respondent, nor is it a case of some persons setting up the first respondent as a candidate and sponsoring his cause. The editor did not publish any propaganda material such as leaflets or pamphlets. Therefore, though the editor was a supporter and agent of the first respondent, it could not be said that the first respondent consented to each publication as it appeared or even generally consented to the publication of items defaming the character and conduct of the second respondent. The first respondent denied knowledge of the. articles. From his false suppression of some other facts and denial of others, it could not be said that his denial of knowledge of the articles in the 'Maratha' was also false. But even if he had knowledge, it would not be sufficient, because, the law requires some concrete proof, direct or circumstantial, of consent, and not merely 'of knowledge or connivance. Further, no such inference regarding the first respondent's consent could be drawn from the comments and speeches attributed to the first respondent by the 'Maratha' and other newspapers or from any similarity of ideas or language, because, news items when published are garbled versions and cannot be regarded as proof of what actually happened or was said without other acceptable evidence through prom witnesses. [629 B-H; 630 AB: 632 F-H; 633 A-D; 634 A-H; A-G; 636 AD; 638 A-G; 639 A-B] As regards the other two persons, even evidence regarding their agency was non-existent and there was no material on which the first respondent's consent to their statements could be presumed or inferred. [640 A-B] 607 Therefore, since the consent of the candidate to the corrupt Practice was not proved the case will have to be judged under s. 100 (1) (d) (ii) and not under s. 100(1)(b). [640 D] Rama Krishna's case, C.A. No. 1949/67 dated 234-68, Inder Loll Yugal Kishore v. Lal Singh, A.I.R. 1961 Raj. 122, Gopal Swami v. Abdul Hamid Chowdhury, A.I.R. 1959 Assam 200, Adams v. Hon. E. F.. Leveson Gower, 1 O'Malley & Hardcastle 218, Christie v. Grieve, 1 O'Malley & Hardcastle 251, Spencer, John Blundell v. Charles Harrison, 3 O'Mally & Hardcastle 148, Biswanath Upadhava v. Haralal Das, A.I.R. 1958 Assam 97, Abdul Majeed v., Bhargavan, A.I.R. 1963 Kerala 18, Rustom Satin v. Dr. Sampoornanand 20 E.L.R. 221, Sarala Devi Pathak T. Birendra Singh, 20 E.L.R. 275, Krishna Kumar v. Krishna Gopal, A.I.R. 1964 Raj. 21, Lai Singh v. Vallabhdas, A.I.R. 1967 Guj. 62, Badri Narain v. Kantdeo Prasad, A.I.R. 1961 Pat. 41, Sarat Chandra v. Khagendranath, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 334 and Taunton's case, I O'Malley & Hardcastle 181, 185, referred to.

Bayley v. Edmunds, Byron & Marshall (1894) 11 T.L.R. 537, distinguished.

(3) To bring a case under s. 100(1) (d) (ii) it is not sufficient to prove that a person acted as an agent with the consent of the candidate. The petitioner will have to establish that the conditions required by s. 100(1).(d)(ii) and s. 123(4) are satisfied, that is : (a) that a false statement was made by an agent, (b) that the first respondent did not believe, the statement to be true or believed it to be false; (c) that it related to the personal character and conduct of the second respondent; (d) that it was reasonably calculated to harm the chances of the second respondent; and (e) that it in fact materially affected the result of the election in so far as the first respondent was concerned. Conditions (a), (b) and (c). were admitted by the first respondent and, since the articles cast violent aspersions on the second respondent and showed a deliberate attempt to lower his character, condition (d) was also satisfied. But as condition (e) was not satisfied, the election petition should be dismissed. [640 D-H] Even after considering the nature of attacks made on the second respondent, the frequency and extent of publicity, the medium of circulation and the kinds of issues raised before the voters, it could not be said, in the circumstances of this case, that the result of the. election in so far as the first respondent was concerned was materially affected. The matter could not be decided on possibilities or on a reasonable judicial guess, because, the law requires proof, and though s. 100(1) (d) casts a difficult burden on the election petitioner, that burden must be successfully discharged by him. [641 B-D; 644 B-D] There was a large difference (about 30,000) between the votes received by the two rival candidates, namely the first and second respondents, and as many as 38,565 votes were cast in favour of the remaining candidates and it is impossible to say how much the second respondent lost or first respondent gained by reason of the false statements.

After the election the second respondent never for a moment attributed his defeat to the false propangada of the first respondent or his supporters and even said that the election was conducted with propriety. [64-3-E-H; 644 D-F] Vashist Narain Sarma v. Dev Chandra, [1955] 1 S.C.R. 509, Surendra Nath Khosla v. Dalip Singh, [1957] S.C.R. 179 and Inayatullah v. Diwanchand Mahajan, 15 E.L.R. 219, 235, 236, followed.

Hackney's case, 2 O'Malley and Hardcastle, 77, referred to.

608

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 895 and 896 of 1968.

Appeals under S. 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 from the judgment and order dated January 29, 1968 of the Bombay High Court in Election Petition No. 6 of 1967.

R. Jethamalani and H. N. Hingorani and K. Hingorani, for the appellant (in C. A. No. 895 of 1968).

C. K. Daphtary, A. K. Sen, K. S. Cooper and K. Hingorani, for the appellant (in C. A. No. 896 of 1968).

A. S. R. Chari, Porus A. Mehta, S. B. Naik, Kumar Mehta, R. Nagaratnam and K. Rajendra Chaudhuri, for respondent No. 1 (in both the appeals).

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah, C.J. In the last General Election to Parliament from the Bombay South Parliamentary constituency eight candidates had offered themselves. The answering respondent Mr.George Fernandez secured 1,47,841 votes as against his nearest rival Mr. S.K. Patil who secured 1,18,407 votes. The remaining candidates secured a few thousand votes between them. The result of the poll was declared on February 24, 1967. and Mr. George Fernandez was returned. An election petition was filed by Mr. Samant N. Balakrishna, an elector in the constituency. It challenged the election of Mr. Fernandez and was ostensibly in the interest of Mr. S. K. Patil. The election petition was keenly contested and Mr. S. K. Patil gave his full support to the petition. The election petition failed and it was dismissed with an order for costs against the election petitioner and Mr. S. K. Patil. Two appeals have now been filed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court, one by the election petitioner and the other by Mr. S. K. Patil.

They have been heard together and this judgment will dispose of both of them.

The petition was based on numerous grounds which were, set out in paragraph 2 of the petition. These grounds were shown separately in sub-paragraphs A to J. Sub-paragraphs A to D dealt with the invalidity of the election for noncompliance with s, 62 of the Representation of the People Act and Arts. 326 and 327 of the Constitution. These concerned the secrecy of ballot (A), registering of some voters in two constituencies (B), omission of qualified voters from electoral rolls (C) and impersonation by persons for dead or absent voters (D). These, four grounds 609 were given up in the High Court itself and we need not say anything about them. Sub-paragraphs E to J contained allegations of corrupt practices. The petition was accompanied by four annexures Nos. A to D which were extracts from newspapers on which the charge of corrupt practices was based. The grounds may now be noticed in detail.

Sub-paragraph E dealt with statements made at a meeting dated February 16, 1967 at Shivaji Park by Jagadguru Shankaracharya charging Mr. S. K. Patil with complicity in arson of November 7, 1966 at New Delhi and attack on the residence of the Congress President with injuries caused to people. In these articles from the 'Maratha' and the 'Blitz' extracts of which were quoted and annexed as Annexure A, Mr. Patil was described as hypocrite, insincere and dishonest. Similar speeches by Mr. Madhu Limaye, (,another candidate of the S.S.P. by which party Mr. Fernandez was sponsored) were relied upon. The statements were "inspired by Mr. Fernandez" and "with his consent and for his benefit". It was said that they amounted to a corrupt practice under s. 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act.

In Sub-paragraph F, a statement of Jagadguru Shankaracharya on cow slaughter was made the ground of attack. It was to the effect that Mr. S. K. Patil only pretended to support the anti-cow-slaughter movement but had done nothing in furtherance of it. It was contended that the cow was used as a religious symbol and the speeches offended against the Election Law as stated in section 123 (3). These statements were also said to be inspired by Mr. Fernandez and were made with his consent and for his benefit.

Sub-paragraph G referred to speeches of Mr. Fernandez and his workers with his knowledge and consent. In those speeches Mr. Fernandez is said to have described Mr. S. K. Patil as the enemy of Muslims and Christians who only professed to discourage slaughter of cows and he Was charged with interfering with the articles of faith of the Muslims and Christians and seeking expulsion of Muslims to Pakistan.

This was said to offend against s. 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act.

In Sub-paragraph H it was alleged that the 'Maratha' published a false statement to the effect that Mr. S. K. Patil had paid rupees 15 lacs to Mr. Jack Sequeira to undo the efforts of Maharashtrians for incorporation of Goa in Maharashtra. The extract from the 'Maratha' of January 25, 1967 was annexed as Ex. B. The speech of Mr. H. R. Gokhale who published a similar statement, was also referred to.

These were made the grounds of complaint under s. 123 (4) of the Representation of the People Act.

610 In Sub-paragraph 1 four issues of the 'Maratha' of the 5th and 31st January, 1967 and 5th and 8th of February, 1967 were exhibited as Ex. C. It was stated in the first two that the Shiv Sena supported the Maharashtra traitor Sadoba Patil and that the Shiv Sena was really Sadoba Sena. A cartoon showing Mr. S. K. Patil as Vishwamitra and the leader of Shiv Sena as Menka with the caption 'Sadoba denies that he has no connection with Shiv Sena like Vishwamitra Menka episode", was the third. The last of these articles was headed "harassment from Gondas of Sadoba Patil Shiv Sena in the service of Sadhshiv (S. K. Patil)". These statements were said to be false and made by the 'Maratha' in favour of respondents other than respondent No. 2 (Mr.

S. K. Patil) or at any rate on behalf of Mr. Fernandez.

These were said to prejudice the minority communities and thus to offend section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act. The statements were said to be made with the knowledge and consent of Mr. Fernandez and for his benefit.

In Sub-paragraph J three issues of 'Maratha' of the 24th, 28th and 31st December 1966 were referred to. In the first it was stated that "Shri S. K. Patil will go to Sonapur in the ensuing election. Fernandez says in his Articles Patil mortgaged India's Freedom with America by entering into P.

L. 480 agreement and Mr. Patil had no devotion, love, respect for this country at all." In the second Mr. Patil was described as Nagibkhan of Maharashtra. The third was a cartoon in which Shankaracharya was depicted as saying "Cow is my mother. Do not kill her" and Patil S. K. as saying "Pig is my father". These extracts were annexed as Ex. D. Then followed a paragraph in which was said : "Similar false statements in relation to Respondent No. 2's character and conduct were published in several issues of Maratha Daily" from December 12, 1966 to February 21, 1967 and 33 issues were mentioned by date. These were also said to be Ex. D.

This was the original material on which the petition filed on April 7, 1967 was based. Mr. Fernandez filed his written statement on June 14, 1967 and Mr. S. K. Patil on July 4, 1967. Later five amendments were asked for. By the first amendment, which was orally asked and allowed, reference to the 33 articles was altered and they were said to be contained in Ex. E instead of Ex. D. Ex. E was then introduced and gave the list of 33 articles in the 'Maratha' and one article in the Blitz, and the extracts on which reliance was placed. On July 4, 1967 an application for amendment was made seeking to add two Sub-paragraphs 2-K and 2-L. 2-K is not pressed now and need not be mentioned. By 2-L the petitioner asked for addition to the list of corrupt practices of a reference to an article dated November 5, 1966 in the Blitz. This article was written by Mr.

Fernandez.

611 On September 12, 1967, an application was made for seven additions to paragraph 2J. Seven incidents were sought to be included. Of these four were ordered by the Court to be included in 2-J on September 15, 1967 as Sub-sub-paragraphs (i) to (iv) and three were rejected. In the first of the Sub-sub-paragraphs so, included, a speech at a public meeting at Shivaji Park by Mr. Fernandez on January 31, 1967 was pleaded in which Mr. Fernandez is said to have made a statement that even God could not defeat the second respondent (Mr. S. K. Patil) because unlike the second respondent God was not dishonest. It was also alleged that Mr. S. K. Patil won elections by "tampering with the ballot boxes or substituting the same". These statements were said to be made by Mr. Fernandez deliberately and maliciously and that he believed them to be false or did not believe them to be true. The report of the speech was quoted from the 'Maratha' of February 1, 1967 and was included as part of Ex. E. In the second Sub-sub-paragraph a Press Conference at Bristol Grill Restaurant on February 9, 1967 addressed by Mr. Fernandez was referred to. At that Conference Mr. Fernandez charged Mr. S. K. Patil with "unfair and unethical electioneering practices" and as illustrations of his methods mentioned the release of 70 dangerous characters from jail on parole and the suspension of externment orders against some and the allowing of some other externed persons to return, were alleged. It was also said that these persons were being used by Mr. Patil in his campaign.

Extracts from the issues of the 'Maratha' of the 10th and 11th February, 1967 were made part of annexure E. In the third Sub-sub-paragraph a public meeting at Sabu Siddik Chawl, of' February 10, 1967 was referred to. At that meeting, it wag alleged, Mr. Fernandez described Mr. Patil as an "American Agent, Dada of Capitalists and Creator of Shiv Sena." All these statements were said to be false and to reflect upon personal character and conduct of Mr. Patil and thus to be corrupt practices under s. 123 (4) of the Representation of the People Act. In. the fourth paragraph a meeting of January 8, 1967 at Chowpati, presided over by Mr. Fernandez was referred to. Mr. Madhu Limaye was said to have addressed that meeting and referred to the incident of November 7, 1966. These statements were also, said to be false and to materially affect the prospects of Mr. Patil.

In this Sub-sub-paragraph it was also alleged that Mr. P. K. Atrey, Editor and Proprietor of the 'Maratha, Jagadguru Shankaracharya and Mr. Madhu Limaye were agents of Mr.

Fernandez and had made these statements in his interest and with his consent.

The petitioner also asked for addition of three other grounds of corrupt practices, which the Court did not allow to be included. Paragraph 2-L to which we have referred was an article by Mr. Fernandez. It was captioned as a fight against political 612 thuggery" and included the following passage which was made the basis of the following charge :

"These men (including the 2nd Respondent) from the hard core of the coterie which control the destinies of the nation, even decides who should be the Prime Minister and who should not be, hounds out the few honest Congressmen from Public life, props up the Aminchand Pyarelal and Chamanlal and supports them in all their misdeeds and puts a premium on dishonest businessmen and industrialists." This allegation was said to suggest dishonesty in Mr. Patil. The other amendments which were disallowed referred to a speech at Dr.

Vigas Street on February 27, 1967, a speech by Dr. Lohia at Chowpati on January 1, 1967 published in 'Andolan' of January 9, 1967 and a Press Conference by Mr. Madhu Limaye at Bristol Grill Restaurant on December 10, 1966.

Prior to the application for amendment certain events had happened to which it is necessary to refer. On April 7, 1967 the office objected that the originals of Exs. A, B, C and D ha not been filed. The remark of the office is as follows :"Exhibits A, B, C, D are mere repetitions of what is mentioned in the body of the petition.

Is it not necessary to annex the original copies of the said newspaper?" Mr. Kanuga, one of the Advocates for the petitioner replied to the objection as follows :

"We undertake to file the original issues and official translations later as the same is (sic) with the Chief translator, High Court, Bombay before the service of Writ of Summons".

Till July 3, 1967 no effort seems to have been made to file the originals. On that date the 'Rozanama' read as follows "Mr. Jethmalani applies for leave to amend the petition by pointing out that 'D' in last sentence of paragraph 2 on page 12 of the petition be corrected and read as 'E' and to annex reports in original P. C. leave to amend granted." The issues were settled on the same day and particulars were asked for. On July 7, 1967 the 'Rozanaina' read as follows "Mr. Gurushani tenders the original of the exhibits A (Coll) to Exhibit E (Coll) mentioned in para 2J of page 1 1 of the petition." A chamber summons was taken out because the particulars were not supplied and on August 4, 1967 the particulars were furnish613 ed. It was then on September 12, 1967 that the application for seven amendments was made, four of which were allowed and three were rejected. This was by an order dated September 15, 1967.

Before dealing with this appeal it is necessary to clear the question of the amendments and whether they were properly allowed. This question consists of two parts; the first is one of fact as to what was exhibited with the petition as materials on which the petition was based. The case of the petitioner before us is that in support of 2J copies of relevant newspapers were filed with the petition. This is denied on behalf of the answering respondent.

Mr. Daphtary's contention is that if the originals of the 'Maratha' had not been filed an objection would have been taken in the court and none was taken. Even witnesses were examined and cross-exhibited with reference to the statements and the originals must have been in court. This, in our opinion, is not decisive. The first witness to be examined was the petitioner himself. Evidence commenced on August 25, 1967. The petitioner proved the copies of the newspapers and they were marked as exhibits. By that date the copies of the 'Maratha' had already been filed and the petitioner in his evidence referred to all of them. The cross-examination, therefore, also referred to these documents. Nothing much turns upon the want of objection because (as is well-known) objection is not taken to some fatal defect in the case of the other side since the party, which can take the objection, wants to keep it in reserve.

It is true that if the objection had been taken earlier and had been decided the petitioner would have had no case to prove on the new allegations and might not have led some evidence. But we cannot hold from this that any prejudice was caused to him. After all it was his responsibility to complete his allegations in the petition by inclusion of the copies of the 'Maratha' and the other side cannot be held to have waived its objection since that objection was in fact raised and has been answered in the High Court. The Rozanamas clearly show that the copies of the 'Maratha' were not filed with the election petition but much later and in fact beyond the period of limitation. Mr. Daphtary characterises the Rozanamas as inaccurate but the internal evidence in the case shows that the Rozanamas were correctly recorded.

The petition quoted some of the offending statements in the newspapers and exhibited them as Exs. A to D. In the petition these 10 extracts are to be found in Sub-paragraphs 2E, H, I and J. The change of Exs. D to E and the filing of E show that the extracts which were with the translator were referable to those extracts already mentioned in the petition and not those mentioned in the last paragraph of 2J. It will be noticed that 614 that paragraph refers to 33 numbers of the 'Maratha'.

Extracts from those were furnished only on July 3, 1967 when Ex. E was separately filed and according to the Rozanama, the originals were filed on July 7, 1967. Mr. Kanuga could not have referred to all the 33 issues of the 'Maratha'.

Only 10 extracts from the 'Maratha' were in Exs. A to D and of these eight are included in the list of 33 numbers of the 'Maratha' in the last paragraph of 2J. If they were already filed, Mr. Kanuga would have said so and not promised to file them later. He mentions in his note that they were with the translation department and would be filed later.

If all the 33 issues of the 'Maratha' were already filed there would be no occasion for the office objection and the reply of Mr. Kanuga could apply to two numbers only. They were the issues of 25th January and 5th February, 1967. The office noting shows that not a single original was filed with the petition. This appears to us to be correct. We are satisfied that 10 issues of the 'Maratha' from which extracts were included in the petition in Exs. A to D were the only numbers which were before the translator. Mr. Kanuga's remark applies to these 10 issues. The other issues which were mentioned in the last paragraph of 2J numbering 33 less 8 were neither in the translator's office nor exhibited in the case. Hence the amendment of the second reference from D to E and the request to file original issues.

It seems that when the petition was filed a list was hurriedly made of all the issues of the 'Maratha' to which reference was likely and that list was included in the last portion of 2J. But no attempt was made either to specify the offending portions of the newspapers or to file the extracts or the original issues. All this was done after the period of limitation. No incorporation of the contents of the articles by reference can be allowed because if a newspaper is not exhibited and only the date is mentioned, it is necessary to point out the exact portion of the offending newspaper to which the petition refers. This was not done. We have to reach this conclusion first because once we hold that the issues of the 'Maratha' or the extracts referred to in the petition were not filed, the plea as to what was the corrupt practice is limited to what was said in the body of the petition in paragraph 2J and whether it could be amended after the period of limitation was over. The attempt today is to tag on the new pleas to the old pleas and in a sense to make them grow out of the old pleas. Whether such an amendment is allowable under the Election Law is therefore necessary to decide.

Mr. Daphtary arguing for the appellant contends that he was entitled to the amendment since this was no more than an amplification of the ground of corrupt practice as defined in S. 123(4) and that the citation of instances or giving of additional parti615 culars of which sufficient notice already existed in 2J as it originally stood, is permissible. According to him, under s. 100 the petition has to show grounds and under s. 83 there should be a concise statement of material facts in support of the ground and full particulars of any corrupt practice alleged. He submits that under s. 86(5) particulars can be amended and amplified, new instances can be cited and it is an essence of the trial of an election petition that corrupt practices should be thoroughly investigated. He refers us to a large body of case law in support of his contention.

On the other hand, Mr. Chari for Mr. Fernandez contends that there was no reference to the speeches by Mr. Fernandez in the petition. The cause of action was in relation to the publication in the 'Maratha' and not in relation to any statement of Mr. Fernandez himself and that the amendment amounts to making out a new petition after the period of limitation.

To decide between these rival contentions it is necessary to analyse the petition first. Paragraph 2J as it originally stood, read as follows :

"The Petitioner says that false statements in relation to character and conduct of the Respondent No. 2 were made by the 1st Respondent and at the instance and connivance of the' 1st. Respondent, Maratha published the following articles, as set out hereinafter. The petitioner says that the said allegations are false and have been made with a view to impair and affect the prospects of Respondent No. 2's elections to Lok Sabha.

Some of the extracts are : etc." (Emphasis added).

Here three issues of the 'Maratha' of 24th, 28th and 31st December, 1966 were referred to.

Of the extracts, the last two make no reference to Mr. Fernandez. The first spoke thus "Maratha Dated 24-12-66. Pages 1 and 4.

Shri S. K. Patil will go to Sonapur in the ensuing election. Fernandez says in his Articles Patil mortgaged India's Freedom with America by entering into P.L. 480 agreement and Mr. Patil had no devotion, love, respect for this country at all." Then followed this paragraph:

"Similar false statements in relation to Respondent No. 2 character and conduct were published in Maratha Daily dated 12th December, 1966, 17th December, 23rd December, 24th December, 28th, 29th and 31st December issues, January issues dated 4, 5, 7th, 10th, 18th, 20th, 21st, 28th, 30th and 31st.

February issues, 616 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th, 11th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st....... These reports in original are filed and true translation are marked Ex. D to the petition." We have already held that the newspapers mentioned in the last paragraph were not filed with the petition but on July 7, 1967 after the period of limitation was over. The allegations thus were that Mr. Fernandez made the false statements and they were published in the 'Maratha' at his instance and with his connivance. There is no mention of any speech at Shivaji Park, or at Sabu Siddik Chowk or at Dr. Vigas Street or the press inter-view at Bristol Grill Restaurant. All these statements which are now referred to were said to be made by Mr. Fernandez himself. By the amendment a charge of corrupt practice was sought to be made for the first time in this form. In the original petition (Sub-paragraph 2J) there was no averment that Mr. Fernandez believed these statements to be false or that he did not believe them to be true and this was also sought to be introduced by an amendment. It may, however, be mentioned that in an affidavit which accompanied the election petition this averment was expressly made and the appellants desire us to read the affidavit as supplementing the petition. By another application for amendment the petitioner sought to add a paragraph that the 'Maratha', Jagadguru Shankaracharya and Mr. Madhu Limaye were agents of Mr. Fernandez within the Election Law. By yet another application reference to an article in the 'Blitz' was 'Sought to be included as Subparagraph 2L.

At the conclusion of the arguments on this part of the case we announced our decision that the amendment relating to the speeches of Mr. Fernandez at Shivaji Park, Sabu Siddik Chowk and Dr. Vigas Street and his Press Conferences at Bristol Grill Restaurant and the article in the 'Blitz' ought not to have been allowed but that the amendment relating to the agency of the 'Maratha' etc. and that seeking to incorporate the averment about the lack of belief of Mr. Fernandez were proper. We reserved our reasons which we now proceed to give.

The subject of the amendment of an election petition has been discussed from different angles in several cases of the High Courts and this Court. Each case, however, was decided on its own facts, that is to say, the kind of election petition that was filed, the kind of amendment that was sought, the stage at which the application for amendment was made and the state of the law at the time and so on. These cases do furnish some guidance but it is not to be thought that a particular case is intended to cover all situations.

It is always advisable to look at the statute first to see alike what it authorises and what it prohibits.

617 Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 enables a petitioner to call in question any election on one or more of the grounds specified in s. 100(1) and s. 101 of the Act. The petition must be made within 45 days from the date of election. Sections 100 and 101 enumerate the kind of charges which, if established, lead to the avoidance of the election of a returned candidate and the return of some other candidate. The first sub-section of section 100** lays down the grounds for dec*"81. Presentation of petitions.

(1) An election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of section 100 and section 101 to the High Court by any candidate at such election or any elector within forty-five days from, but not earlier than, the date of election of the returned candidate, or if there are more than one returned candidate at the election and the dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates.

Explanation-In this sub-section, 'elector' means a person who was entitled to vote at the election to which the election petition relates, whether he has voted at such election or not.

(2) (3) Every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition." **"100. Grounds for declaring election to be void.

(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if the High Court 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 or this Act or the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, 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 (c) that any nomination has been improperly rejected; 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 an agent other than his election agent, or (iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void, 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 High Court shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void.

(2) If in the opinion of the High Court, a returned candidate has been guilty by an agent, other than his election agent, of any corrupt practice but the High Court is satisfied :(a) that no such corrupt practice was committed at the election by the candidate or his election agent, and every such corrupt practice was committed contrary to the orders, and without the consent, of the candidate or his election agent;

(c) that the candidate and his election agent took all reasonable means, for preventing the commission of corrupt practices at the election, and 618 learning an election to be void. These include corrupt practices committed by the candidate, his election agent and any person with the consent of the returned candidate or his election agent. The second sub-section lays down an additional condition which must be satisfied before the election can be declared to be void even though the corrupt practice is committed by an agent other than the election agent. Section 101* sets forth the grounds on which a candidate other than the returned candidate may be declared to have been elected. Section 101 actually does not add to the grounds in s. 1 00 and its mention in s. 81 seems somewhat inappropriate. Sections 100 and 101 deal with the substantive law on the subject of elections. These two sections circumscribe the conditions which must be established before an election can be declared void or another candidate declared elected. The heads of substantive rights in s. 100(1) are laid down in two separate parts : the first dealing with situations in which the election must be declared void on proof of certain facts, and the second in which the election can only be declared void if the result of the election in so far as it concerns the returned candidate, can be held to be materially affected on proof of some other facts. Without attempting critically to sort out the two classes we may now see what the conditions are. In the first part they are that the candidate lacked the necessary qualification or had incurred disqualification, that a corrupt practice was committed by the returned candidate, his election agent or any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his election agent or that any nomination paper was improperly rejected. These are grounds on proof of which by evidence, the election can be set aside without any further evidence. The second part is conditioned that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, was materially affected by the improper acceptance of a nomination or by a corrupt (d) that in all other respects the election was free from any corrupt practice on the part of the candidate or any of his agents, then the High Court may decide that the election of the returned candidate is not void." *"101. Grounds for which a candidate other than the returned candidate may be declared to have been elected.

If any person who has lodged a petition has, in addition to calling in question the election of the returned candidate, claimed a declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected and the High Court is of opinion-(a) that in fact the petitioner or such other candidate received a majority of the valid votes; or (b) that but for the votes obtained by the returned candidate by corrupt practices the petitioner or such other candidate would have obtained a majority of the valid votes, the High Court shall after declaring the election of the returned candidate to be void declare the petitioner or such other candidate, as the case may be, to have been duly elected." 619 practice committed in his interest by an agent other than an election agent or by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of votes or by any noncompliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of the Representation of the People Act or rules or orders made under it. This condition has to be established by some evidence direct or circumstantial. It is, therefore, clear that the substantive rights to make an election petition are defined in these sections and the exercise of the right to petition is limited to the grounds specifically mentioned.

Pausing here, we may view a little more closely the provisions bearing upon corrupt practices in s. 100. There are many kinds of corrupt practices. They are defined later in s. 123, of the Act and we shall come to them later. But the corrupt practices are viewed separately according as to who commits them. The first class consists of corrupt practices committed by the candidate or his election agent or any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent. These, if established, avoid the election without any further condition being fulfilled. Then there is the corrupt practice committed by an agent other than an election agent. Here an additional fact has to be proved that the result of the election was materially affected. We may attempt to put the same matter in easily understandable language. The petitioner may prove a corrupt practice by the candidate himself or his election agent or someone with the consent of the candidate or his election agent, in which case he need not establish what the result of the election would have been without the corrupt practice. The expression "Any other person" in this part will include an agent other than an election agent. This is clear from a special provision later in the section about an agent other than an election agent. The law then is this : If the petitioner does not prove a corrupt practice by the candidate or his election agent or another person with the consent of the returned candidate or his election agent but relies on a corrupt practice committed by an agent other than an election agent, he must additionally prove how the corrupt practice affected the result of the poll. Unless he proves the consent to the commission of the corrupt practice on the part of the candidate or his election agent he must face the additional burden. The definition of agent in this context is to be taken from s. 123 (Explanation) where it is provided that an agent "includes an election agent, a polling agent and any person who is held to have acted as an agent in connection with the election with the consent of the candidate." In this explanation the mention of "an election agent" would appear to be unnecessary because an election agent is the alter ego of the candidate in the scheme of the Act and his acts are the acts of the candidate, consent or no consent on the part of the candidate.

620 Having now worked out the substantive rights to the making of the petition, we may now proceed to see what the corrupt practices are. Since we are concerned only with one such corrupt practice, we need not refer to all of them. For the purpose of these appeals it is sufficient if we refer to the fourth sub-section of s. 123. It reads :

"123. The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practice for the purposes of the Act (4) The publication by a candidate or his agent or by any other person, with the consent of a candidate or his election agent, of any statement of fact which is false, and which he either believes to be false or does not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate, or in relation to the candidature, or withdrawal, of any candidate, being a statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's election.

This corrupt practice may be committed by (a) the candidate (b) his agent, that is to say(i) an election agent (ii) a polling agent (iii) any person who is held to have acted as an agent in connection with the election with the consent of the candidate.

(c) by any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent.

We are concerned in this appeal with (a) and (b) (iii) mentioned in our analysis. In the original petition the allegations were made on the basis of corrupt practices committed by a person alleged to have acted as an agent with Mr. Fernandezs consent. In the amendment application the allegation is that the candidate himself committed the corrupt practice under this subsection.

As we pointed out earlier the difference between the original petition and the amendments will lie in the degree of proof necessary to avoid the election. If the corrupt practice is charged against an agent other than the election agent, a further burden must be discharged, namely, that the result of the election was 621 materially affected. If, however, the corrupt practice is charged against the candidate personally (there is no election agent involved here), this further proof is not required. Another difference arises in this way. In s. 100 (1) (b) the word 'agent' is not to be found. Therefore an agent other than an election agent will fall to be governed by the expression 'any other person'. To get the benefit of not having to prove the effect of the corrupt practice upon the election the consent of the candidate or his election agent to the alleged practice will have to be established.

Again for the establishment of the corrupt practice under s. 123 (4), from whatever quarter it may proceed, the election petitioner must establish (a) publication of a statement of fact, and (b) the statement is false or the person making it believes it to be false or does not believe it to be true, and (c) that the statement refers to the personal character and conduct of the candidate, and (d) is reasonably calculated to prejudice the candidate's prospects.

It appears, therefore, that it is a question of different burdens of proof as to whether the offending statement was made by the candidate himself or by an agent other than an election agent.

Having dealt with the substantive law on the subject of election petitions we may now turn to the procedural provisions in the Representation of the People Act. Here we have to consider sections 81, 83 and 86 of the Act. The first provides the procedure for the presentation of election petitions. The proviso to sub-section alone is material here. It provides that an election petition may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in subsection (1) of s. 100 and s. 101. That as we have shown above creates the substantive right. Section 83* then provides that the *Section 83.

(1) An election petition(a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies :

(b) shall setforth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of each such practice; and (c) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 for the verification of pleadings :

(provided that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice, the petition shall also be accompained by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof.

(2) Any y schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be singed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition.

L10Sup./69--5 622 election petition must contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies and further that he must also set forth fun particulars of any corrupt practice that the Petitioner alleges including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of each such practice. The section is mandatory and requires first a concise statement of material facts and then requires the fullest possible particulars.

What is the difference between material facts and particulars? The word 'material' shows that the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action must be stated.

Omission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and the statement of claim becomes bad. The function of particulars is to present as full a picture of the cause of action with such further information in detail as to make the opposite party understand the case he will have to meet. There may be some overlapping between material facts and particulars but the two are quite distinct. Thus the material facts will mention that a statement of fact (which must be set out) was made and it must be alleged that it refers to the character and conduct of the candidate that it is false or which the returned candidate believes to be false or does not believe to be true and that it is calculated to prejudice the chances of the petitioner. In the particulars the name of the person making the statement, with the date, time and place will be mentioned. The material facts thus will show the ground of corrupt practice and the complete cause of action and the particulars will give the necessary information to present a full picture of the cause of action. In stating the material facts it will not do merely to quote the words of the section because then the efficacy of the words 'material facts' will be lost. The fact which constitutes the corrupt practice must be stated and the fact must be correlated to one of the heads of corrupt practice. Just as a plaint without disclosing a proper cause of action cannot be said to be a good plaint, so also an election petition without the material facts relating to a corrupt practice is no election petition at all. A petition which merely cites the sections cannot be said to disclose a cause of action where the allegation is the making of a false statement. That statement must appear and the particulars must be full as to the person making the statement and the necessary information. Formerly the petition used to be in two parts.

The material facts had to be included in the petition and the particulars in a schedule. It is inconceivable that a petition could be filed without the material facts and the schedule by merely citing the corrupt practice from the statute. Indeed the penalty of dismissal summarily was enjoined for petitions which did not comply with the requirement. Today the particulars need not be separately included in a schedule but the distinction remains. The entire and complete cause of action must be in the 623 petition in the shape of material facts,. the particulars being the further information to complete the picture. This distinction is brought out by the provisions of section 86 although the penalty of dismissal is taken away. Subsection (5) of that section provides (5) The High Court may, upon such terms as to costs and otherwise as it may deem fit, allow the particulars of any corrupt practice alleged in the petition to be amended or amplified in such manner as may in its opinion be necessary for ensuring a fair and effective trial of the petition, but shall not allow any amendment of the petition which will have the effect of introducing particulars of a corrupt practice not previously alleged in the petition." The power of amendment is given in respect of particulars but there is a prohibition against an amendment "which will have the effect of introducing particulars if a corrupt practice not previously alleged in the petition." One alleges the corrupt practice in the material facts and they must show a complete cause of action. If a petitioner has omitted to allege a corrupt practice, he cannot be permitted to give particulars of the corrupt practice. The argument that the latter part of the fifth sub-section is directory only cannot stand in view of the contrast in the language of the two parts. The first part is enabling and the second part creates a positive bar. Therefore, if a corrupt practice is not alleged, the particulars cannot be supplied.

There is however a difference of approach between the several corrupt practices. If for example the charge is bribery of voters and the particulars give a few instances, other instances can be added; if the charge is use of vehicles for free carriage of voters, the particulars of the cars employed may be amplified. But if the charge is that an agent did something, it cannot be amplified by giving particulars of acts on the part of the candidate or vice versa. In the scheme of election law they are separate corrupt practices which cannot be said to grow out of the material facts related to another person. Publication of false statements by an agent is one cause of action, publication of false statements, by the candidate is quite a different cause of action. Such a cause of action must be Alleged in the material facts before particulars may be given. One cannot under the cover of particulars of one corrupt practice give particulars of a new corrupt practice.

They constitute different causes of action.

Since a single corrupt practice committed by the candidate, by his election agent or by another person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent is fatal to