Jagat Narayan, J.
1. This is an election petition under Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 challenging the election of Shri Surendra Kumar Taparia, respondent No. 1, to the Lok Sabha from the Pali Parliamentary Constituency. The petition has been filed by one Mohan Raj, an elector to the Constituency. The election has been challenged under Section 100(1)(b) on the ground that respondent No. 1, his election agent and some other persons with his consent committed various corrupt practices defined under Section 123
2. The election petition was presented before this Court on 7-4-67. It was put up on 14-4-67 before me with an office report that the provisions of Sections 81, 82 and 117 had been complied with. This was done in pursuance of Section 86(1) which lavs down that the High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of these Sections. It was not detected by me at that time that the petition did not comply with the provisions of Section 82(b). Allegations of corrupt practice had been made in the petition against Shri R. P. Periwal who was the election agent of the returned candidate. Shri R. D. Periwal was himself a candidate at the election. He filed his nomination paper for the Lpk Sabha from the Pali Parliamentary Constituency on 18-1-67. It was accepted as valid. Shri Periwal however withdrew his candidature on 23-1 -67.
3. Section 82(b) provides that a petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition. 'Candidate' occurring in Section 82(b) has been defined under Section 79(b) as follows:-
'Candidate means a person who has been or claims to have been duly nominated as a candidate at any election, and any such person shall be deemed to have been a candidate as from the time when, with the election in prospect, he began to hold himself out as a prospective candidate.'
4. As Shri R. D. Periwal was duly nominated as a candidate at the election for this constituency he was a candidate within the meaning of the word as used in Section 82(b) and T should have dismissed the election petition on 14-4-67 under Section 86(1) on the ground that Shri Periwal was not joined as a respondent to the petition. The provision contained in Section 86(1) is mandatory.
5. As has been mentioned above, the petition was not dismissed under Section 86(1) by me on 14-4-67. Respondent No. 1 appeared through counsel on 15-5-67 and prayed for time to file a written statement, which was granted. He filed his written statement on 15-6-67. In this written statement no objection was taken on behalf of respondent No. 1 that the petition was liable to be dismissed under Section 86(1) for non-compliance of Section 82(b). Objections were taken that several of the allegations were vague and were lacking in necessary particulars. On 2-7-67 a detailed order was passed asking the petitioner to furnish further and better particulars of the corrupt practices alleged in the petition. An amendment application was filed on 26-7-67 Respondent No. 1 filed objections against the amendment application. These objections were decided on 1-8-67. One allegation of corrupt practice and several instances of it were deleted for want of sufficient particulars. The petitioner was allowed to amend the petition in accordance with the order of this Court dated 1-8-67. Time was granted to respondent No. 1 to file an amended written statement. This amended written stale-merit was filed on 24-8-67.
6. In this written statement a preliminary objection was taken that the petition should be dismissed under Section 86(1) as Shri R. D. Periwal was not joined as a respondent This obiection in the written statement was based on the allegations contained in the amended election petition. The hearing of this preliminary objection commenced on 29-8-67. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 contended in his arguments that the petition as filed originally before this Court should have been dismissed under Section 86(1) as it contained allegations of corrupt practice against Shri R D. Periwal who was a candidate at the election within the meaning of Section 82(b).
7. On behalf of the petitioner it was contended that as the original petition has been amended, this Court can only examine the amended petition to see whether or not it complies with the provision contained in Section 82(b) The decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Amin Lal v. Hunna Mal AIR 1965 SC 1243 was referred to in this connection. That decision is of no help in deciding this question In that case the original petition did not suffer from the defect of non-compliance of Section 82(b). It was only the amended petition which suffered from such a defect. It was contended on behalf of the election petitioner before their Lordships that what Sub-section (3) of Section 90 of the Act, as it stood at that time, contemplated was a petition as originally filed by the petitioner and an amended petition could not be dismissed For non-compliance of Section 82(b). Section 86(1) of the Act as it now stands corresponds to Section 90(3) of the Act before the amendment. In repelling the above argumenttheir Lordships observed:--
'Since an election petition can be permitted by the Tribunal to be amended a petition which has been amended would, from the date of amendment, be the only petition before it. Therefore, that would be the petition with respect to which it could exercise the powers conferred upon it by subsection (3) of Section 90. To hold otherwise would lead to the result that the powers conferred by the legislature on the Tribunal by this provision will become non-exercis-able in respect of one category of election petitions.'
8. It was not disputed before their Lordships that even if the petition as filed originally suffered from the above defect it had to be rejected. Under Section 86(1) it is the duty of the Court to dismiss the petition if it does not comply with the provisions of Section 81 or 82 or 117. The petition is put up before the Court to see if there is any defect of the above nature and it is onlv if the Court is satisfied that the petition does not suffer from anv such defectl that service is effected on the respondents. Even if the Court omits to notice any such defect at that stage it is bound to dismiss the petition under Section 86(1) whenever it is brought to its notice that the petition as filed originally suffered from anv such defect. The provision contained in Section 86(1) is mandatory and a petition which is liable to be dismissed under this provision cannot be allowed to be amended. If any amendment of such a petition is permitted by the Court, the amendment itself is void.
9. I now proceed to examine the original as well as the amended petitions.
10. Para 9 of the original petition runs as follows:--
'That in order to promote feelings of hatred against the Congress candidates on the ground of religion, caste and community the respondent No. 1 or his election agent or other persons with the consent of respondent No. 1 got prepared a poster on cloth in which a Congressman (with a Gandhi cap) was depicted as a butcher with a naked sword slaughtering a cow. This Congressman was shown as wearing Muslim dress. This poster was published in the main Bazar of Rani just near the office of the respondent No. 1 at Ram Rani is a big industrial Centre and people from more than 300 villages visit 'Mandi' at Rani every day. The matter was reported to higher authorities by local police and Vikas Adhikari and the poster was thereafter removed. This is also a corrupt practice accordins to Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act. 1951.'
11. On behalf of the petitioner it was contended that the allegations contained in the above paragraph do not amount to a corrupt practice against the election agent of respondent No. 1. The allegation is no doubtvague inasmuch it is not stated whether respondent No. 1 was responsible for the preparation or publication of the poster or his election agent or some other person with the consent of respondent No. 1. The petitioner was directed to give the name or names of persons who prepared the poster or who exhibited it. He was also asked to give particulars of the facts on the basis of which he had asserted that the poster was exhibited with the consent of respondent No. 1. In the amended petition (para 8) the petitioner has alleged that the poster was got prepared by respondent No. 1 and it was he who got it affixed outside his office in the main Bazar of village Rani, through his agent Shri N. C. Mehta.
12. There is thus no categorical allegation of corrupt practice against Shri R. D. Periwal contained in para 9 of the original petition. I do not express any opinion in this case whether or not the exhibition of such posters amounts to a corrupt practice under Section 123.
13. Para 10 of the original petition runs as follows:--
'That respondent No. 1 or his election agent or other persons with the consent of respondent No. 1 sent persons in Sadhu garb in the Pali Parliamentary Constituency who told electors of this constituency that if they vote for Congress they would be responsible for cow slaughter (Gao Hatya). Not only this they administered oaths to the voters not to vote for Congress. This is a corrupt practice according to Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.'
14. This did not contain a clear allegation that the election agent committed the corrupt practice. The allegation made in it is that either respondent No. 1 or his election agent or some other persons with the consent of respondent No. 1 sent the Sadhus. The petitioner was asked to state in respect of each Sadhu the date and place where he told the voters that if they voted for the Congress they would be responsible for cow slaughter and administered oaths to them not to vote for the Congress. He was also asked to state in respect of each Sadhu whether he was sent by respondent No. 1 or his election agent or by some other person with the consent of respondent No. 1. He was asked to disclose the name of the person who had sent the Sadhus with the consent of respondent No. 1.
15. In response to the above order the petitioner added the following sub-para by way of further particulars to the above paragraph. Para 10 has been renumbered as para 9:--
'(i) The same was done at a meeting in Gandhi Katia Pali on 13-1-1967 by Swami Sankranand Ji, Richanand Ji and Ramsukh Ji and on 16-1-67 at a meeting in Bhan-mandi by Swami Banarsi Giri Maharaj. These meetings were arranged by respondent No. 1 and his election agent and his local workers.'
16. Reading para 9 of the amended petition along with the above sub-para, I am of the opinion that a clear allegation of corrupt practice against the election agent is made out. The argument on behalf of the petitioner is that it is not stated that respondent No. 1 or his election agent or other persons who sent the Sadhus to tell the voters that if they voted for the Congress they would be committing the sin of cow slaughter and who also administered oaths to the voters not to vote for the Congress were told to do so by respondent No. 1 or his election agent or other persons who sent them with the consent of respondent No. 1. Reading the allegations as a whole it is implicit that the Sadhus were sent with the object that they may exercise undue influence over the voters by telling them that if they voted for the Congress they would be committing the sin of cow slaughter. It was with this object that respondent No. 1 and his election agent arranged one meeting in Gandhi Katia at Pali and arranged for Swami Sankranand Ji, Swami Richanand Ji and Swami Ramsukh Ji to address the same. Further they arranged another meeting on 16-1-67 in Dhan Mandi and arranged for Swami Banarsi Giri Maharaj to address it with the same object namely to tell the voters that they would be committing the sin of cow slaughter if they voted for the Congress and to administer vote to them not to vote for the Congress. It was not disputed that these amount to corrupt practices under Section 23.
17. Paras 11 and 13 of the original election petition run as follows:--
'(11) That the respondent No. 1 and his election agent and persons authorised by respondent No. 1 incurred and authorised the expenditure of large sums of money for the election campaign of respondent No. 1 between 13th January 1967 and 23rd February 1967. The election expenses of respondent No. 1 between the aforesaid dates far exceeded the limit of Rs. 25,000/- and thereby the respondent No. 1 contravened the provisions of Sections 77 and 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The return filed by the respondent No. 1 is wholly incorrect. That some of the instances amongst others of such election expenses have been enumerated in this petition.'
(13) That the respondent No. 1, his election agent and other persons authorised by respondent No. 1 consumed petrol worth at least Rs. 50,000/- during 13th January 1967 to 23rd February 1967 in the Pali Parliamentary Constituency in connection with this election.'
18. The permissible limit of expenditure prescribed under Section 77(3) for a candidate for election to a Lok Sabha seat is Rs. 25,000/- The above two paragraphs contain a clear allegation that both respondent No. 1 and his election agent were guilty of the corrupt practice mentioned in Section 123(6).
19. Two contentions were advanced on behalf of the petitioner with regard to the above two paragraphs. One was that full particulars of the corrupt practices alleged under the above paragraphs as required by Section 83(1)(b) were not given by the petitioner in these two paragraphs and therefore they cannot attract the provisions of Section 82(b). This argument is misconceived. Section 82(b) only refers to allegations of corrupt practice. If allegations of corrupt practice are made in the petition but particulars as required by Section 83(1)(b) are not given, the High Court has power under Section 86(5) to allow such particulars to be given by an amendment of the petition. In this connection I may refer to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Harish Chandra v. Triloki Singh AIR 1957 SC 444.
20. In Beal v. Smith, (1869) 4 CP 145 the election petition merely stated that the respondent by himself and other persons on his behalf were guilty, of bribery treating and undue influence.' The respondent took out an application for an order that the petition be taken off the file on the ground that it merely stated the grounds but not the facts constituting the particulars as required by Rule 2. In the alternative, it was prayed that the petitioners should be directed to give particulars relating to the several corrupt practices. In reiecting the former prayer. Bovill C. J. observed:
'Now, with regard to the form of the petition, it seems to me that it sufficiently follows the spirit and intention of the rules, and no injustice can be done by its generality, because ample provision is made by the rules to prevent the respondent being surprised or deprived of an opportunity of a fair trial, by an order for such particulars as the Judge may deem reasonable. I think therefore, it would be quite useless to require anything further to be stated in the petition than appears here.
With reference to the alternative prayer it was held that an order that the particulars be furnished three days prior to the trial was a proper one to be passed. Similar decision was given in the Greenock Election case a report of which is given in a footnote at page 150 of (1869) 4 CP 145-38 LJ CP 145.'
21. These two English decisions were approved by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above decision and it was held that the failure to give particulars of corrupt practices is not fatal to the maintainability of the election petition Their Lordships observed:--
'There is, it should be observed, nothing in the Election law of England corresponding to Section 83(2) the question of particulars being left there to be dealt with under the Rules applicable to the trial of causes. The consequence is that while under the English practice, the petitioners are not obliged to state particulars of corrupt practices in their petition, under Section 83(2) a statement of those particulars must be made in the petition in a separate list annexed thereto. But this difference is more a matter of form than of substance as Section 83(3) provides for particulars being called for and furnished in the course of the proceedings, and does not affect the conclusion as to the power of the Tribunal to allow new instances to be pleaded.'
22. In the present case I did not order deletion of the above two paragraphs from the petition in the first instance but gave an opportunity to the petitioner to furnish full particulars as required by Section 83(1)(b) and when full particulars were given I allowed the petition to be amended. The provision contained in Section 82(b) is attracted whenever an allegation of any corrupt practice is made in the petition even if no particulars of the corrupt practice are given.
23. The next contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the allegations contained in paras 11 to 13 do not amount to allegations of corrupt practice against the election agent. They only amount to the corrupt practice against respondent No. 1. The argument is that it is not alleged in these two paragraphs that the election agent by himself incurred or authorised expenditure in excess of Rs. 25,000/- and that no corrupt practice under Section 123(6) is committed by a person other than the contesting candidate unless he by himself incurs or authorises expenditure in excess of Rs. 25,000/-. No authority was cited in support of this contention, it was argued that the commission of a corrupt practice entails a severe penalty. Section 140 provides that a person found guilty of a corrupt practice by an order under Section 99 shall be disqualified for a period of 6 years from the date on which that orders take effect. It was contended that a person other than the contesting candidate should only be held to be guilty of the corrupt practice under Section 123(6) if it is alleged and proved that he by himself incurred or authorised expenditure in excess of the prescribed limit in connection with the election.
24. I am unable to accept this contention. Section 77 runs as follows:
'77. Account of election expenses and maximum thereof. (1) Every candidate at an election shall, either by himself or by his election agent, keep a separate and correct account of all expenditure in connection with the election incurred or authorised by him or by his election agent between th' date of publication of the notification calling the election and the date of declaration of the result thereof, both dates inclusive.
(2) The account shall contain such particulars, as may be prescribed.
(3) The total of the said expenditure shall not exceed such amount as may be prescribed.'
25. According to the above Section either the candidate should himself keep a separate and correct account of all expendi-ture in connection with the election incurred or authorised by him or by his election agent or the election agent should maintain such an account. Keeping an account means that, it should be maintained from day to day so that the person maintaining it whether it be the candidate himself, or his election agent, knows exactly how much expenditure has been incurred upto date, in order that the prescribed limit may not be exceeded. A duty is cast not only on the candidate but also on his election agent to keep a watch on the total expenditure so that it does not exceed the prescribed limit. If it so exceeds then in my opinion both the candidate and his ejection agent are equally responsible for it.
26. A perusal of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1953 goes to show that the powers and privileges of an election agent are the same as those of the candidate. It stands to reason that he should share the same responsibilities with the candidate and should be subject to the same disabilities as the candidate himself. Under Section 41 a person who is for the time being disqualified for being a member of either House of Parliament or either House of the Legislature of a State is also disqualified for being an election agent at any election. Under Sections 46 and 47 the election agent has the same power of appointing polling and counting agents as the candidate himself. Under Section 50 both the candidate and his election agent are authorised to perform the functions of a polling agent or a counting agent. Under Sections 77 and 78 an election agent has the same power of maintaining accounts and lodging them with the District Election Offi-jcer as the candidate himself Under Section 100(1)(b) a corrupt practice, committed by an election agent or with his consent, has the same effect as a corrupt practice committed by the candidate or with his consent. Under Section 123 which defines corrupt practice the election agent is on the same footing as the candidate.
27. I am accordingly of the opinion that if the total expenditure authorised or incurred by the candidate and by his election agent exceeds the prescribed limit both of them are guilty of the corrupt practice under Section 123(6). even if neither the candidate nor the election agent individually exceeded the prescribed limit tt is their joint responsibilitv to see that the expenditure incurred or authorised by the two of them does not exceed the prescribed limit. In this view of the matter paras 11 and 13 of the original petition contain an allegation of corrupt practice against the election agent of respondent No. 1.
28. Para 16 of the the original petition runs as follows:--
'That the respondent No. 1. his election agent or other persons with the consent and authorisation of respondent No. 1 held big feasts at Bisapur. Bere Mundara, Nupawas, Gundej, Natharlia. Mandha Thikanas Radsu Undarya Bera Sinayari Bori Nads. Gajnel Kernel etc.
These feasts were held in order to induce electors to vote for respondent No. 1'.
29. It has not been specifically alleged in the above paragraph that the election agent also consented to the holding of one of the feasts. An opportunity was given to the petitioner to furnish full particulars of the corrupt practice alleged under the above paragraph. He did not furnish the necessary particulars in accordance with the order of this Court. This paragraph was therefore deleted.
30. Para 24 of the original petition runs as follows:--
'That the respondent No. 1, his election agent and other persons with his consent and authorisation secured the assistance of Govt. servants. Patwari, Gram Sewaks, teachers etc. for the election campaign of respondent No. 1'.
31. The above paragraph contains a clear allegation that the election agent also secured the assistance of Patwaris who are Government servants covered by Section 123(7)(f). Full particulars of the corrupt practice alleged under the above paragraph were not given in the original petition. The petitioner was given an opportunity of furnishing full particulars. As he failed to do so the above paragraph was deleted.
32. The effect of making a baseless allegation recklessly by a petitioner is the same as that of making a bona fide allegation. Para 25 of the original petition runs as follows:--
'That the respondent No. 1, and his election agent and other persons by the consent of respondent No. 1 paid and offered bribes between 13-1-67 to 14-2-67 to induce electors directly or indirectly to vote for respondent No. 1.
The following amongst others are some of the instances:--
(a) Rs. 2,000/- were paid to the Mukhia of Scheduled Caste voters in village Khundala in the night of 14th Feb., 1967. Packets of sweets and Rs. 2/- to Rs. 5/- per voter were distributed in several houses.
(b) Rs. 2/- to Rs. 5/- per voter were given tn about 300 scheduled tribe voters of Sadri.
(c) Rs. 7500/- were paid for the Community temple for the village Bavariya Ka Jumpa. Sadri and Rs. 100/- cash were paid to 22 Mukhias.
(d) Rs. 750/- were paid to one Hakke-ram Meghwal of Sadri for scheduled caste voters of Chotu Bhambi Ka Bas.
(e) Rs. 750 were offered to Shri Kupa-ram Suthar, a trustee of Shri Laxmi Narain temple Bunawas who refused to take the amount, but it was later paid to another Mukhia. This temple is worshipped by all Suthars of Bali and Besuri Tehsils. Similar offers were made in other villages of these Tehsils.
(f) Shri Mohanlal Nohara of Sadri was offered Rs. 2000/- to induce him not tocanvass for Congress and to secure voters for respondent No. 1.
(g) Rs. 750/- were paid for the temple of the V. Bheetwara (Tehsil Bali) through the Sarpanch.
(h) Rs. 2000/- were paid for the repairs of two temples at Bali.
(i) Shri Abdul Rasak of Ludni, Mohanlal Sharma of Bisapur, Shri Nathulal of Nana and Shri Tolaram of Malnu were offered money to secure votes for respondent No. 1.
(j) Shri Rama and Tola Meena of V. Riola were paid Rs. 200/ and 20 Kg. of rice for the village feast. Money was paid similarly at Thandi Beri. Bijapur and several other villages.
(k) That in the night of 14th Feb. 1967 in about 20 villages of Bali Constituency Biri bundles, Match boxes, sweet packets and Rs. 2 per voter were distributed along with voter slips.
(l) that in amount 50 villages of Bali Constituency 1 kg. Gur was distributed per house on the day of meeting of Swatantra Party held during 13-1-67 to 13-2-67.
(m) Rs. 5000/- were promised to the Panchas of Bhat community of Rani for the repairs of the temple.
(n) Rs. 500/- were paid to Meghwal Khanna of Desuri Assembly Constituency.
(o) Rs. 1800/- were paid for Idgah at Kherwa and Rs. 5000/- for school building.
(p) Rs. 700/- were paid to Dhosis of Pali for purchase of grazing ground.
(r) Rs. 500/- were paid at V. Sonar for school building and Rs. 1500/- for Bargara Community.
(s) Rs. 5000/- were paid at V. Lambia for school building and Pyau.
(t) Substantial amount was paid to the Nawaries of Lambia and Bhakariwals and Kumbars and Mochis of Bagrete.
(u) Handsome amount was paid for school building at Godawari and Mahila Shiksha Sangh, Ranswas.
(v) More than Rs. 10,000/- were paid to labourers at Pali.
(w) Rs. 100/- were paid at V. Kharda for school building.
(x) Rs. 1000/- were paid for repair of Mahadeoji temple at V. Basant (Sumerpur).
(y) Rs. 10,000/- were paid in the wedding of the daughter of Kasrisingh Ji of Jojawar and a transister was presented to Thakur Sahib of Jadan.
(z) Sarpanchas of villages in Kharchi Assembly Constituency were paid Rs. 500/-to Rs. 1000/-.
(aa) Rs. 2000/- were paid to Khateeks of Kushalpura. Rs. 2000/- were paid to Patels and Kumbars of Khushalpura. Rs. 1000/- were paid to Mochis of Raipur and Rs. 500/- were paid to Megwals of Bhankeri.
(ab) A letter was addressed by Shri Taparia's agent Shri Pukhraj Kalani to Mukhias of village Deoli, Udawatan and Ban-jakuri that if they vote for Swatantra candidate they will get their case pending in the court of Munsiff Magistrate Soiat compromised or will compensate them.
(ac) Shri Sukhlal Dave was paid Rs. 15000 to secure votes for Swatantra Party.
(ad) Clothes and money were distributed in Kotda and several other villages,
(ae) Rs. 2000 were paid for Mensaid, Anjuwan at Kotda.
(af) Rs. 2000 were paid for Higher Secondary School at Kotda.
(ag) Rs. 1000 were promised to Mukhias of Meghwal community of Gogunda for Ramdewara temple.
(ah) Employment was promised to several influential persons or persons connected with them for getting their support in securing votes for respondent No. 1.
(ai) Promised to employ persons in Mills and Factories which were promised to be established in Pali Parliamentary Constituency if votes were cast in favour of respondent No. I.
(aj) Several houses were taken on rent for the offices and for residence of the respondent No. 1 and his workers at several places in the Pali Parliamentary Constituency.
(ak) That more than 150 jeeps, cari and other conveyance of the various companies at Jaipur, Bharatpur etc. were utilised in the election of respondent No. 1 between 13-1-67 to 23-2-67. Several jeeps were also purchased for the election.
(al) That the posters and pamphlets were printed and published by respondent No. 1 in contravention of the provision of Section 127A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
33. In the opening part of the above paragraph there is a clear allegation that the election agent of the respondent also offered and paid bribes between 13-1-67 and 14-2-67 to induce the electors to vote for respondent No. 1.
34. It will thus be seen that clear allegations of corrupt practice were made against the election agent of respondent No. 1. It is not disputed that Shri R. D. Periwal was the election agent of respondent No. 1 who had filed his nomination paper which had been accepted as valid and who was thus a candidate within the meaning of Section 82(v). The election petition is thus liable to be dismissed under Section 86(1) the provision of which is mandatory. In this connection I may refer to the decision of this Court in Brii Mohan Lal v. Fateh Singh, Elec. Petn. No. 11 of 1967, D/- 13-3-1967 (Raj).
35. I accordingly dismiss the election petition with costs in favour of respondent No. 1.
36. Respondent No. 2 who supported the petition shall bear his own costs. The other respondents did not appear.
37. The petition was heard on 15th June 1967, 2nd July 1967, 1st August 1967, 29th August 1967 and 26th September 1967 to 29th September 1967. Respondent No 1 was represented by more than one counsel. The case was heard on the last four days only for part of the day as evidence in another election petition was being recorded. I assess the advocates' fee in favour of respondent No. 1 at Rs. 750/-.
38. The substance of the above decision shall forthwith be communicated to theSpeaker of the Lok Sabha and the ElectionCommission and an authenticated copy ofthe judgment shall be sent to the ElectionCommission as provided under Section 103of the Representation of the People Act,1951.