Judgment 1. This application is made on behalf of Shri Nand Kishore Prasad Singh under Articie 227 of the Constitution against the order of the Election Tribunal of Patna, dated 10-2-1958, refusing to decide the preliminary issue whether the deposit of security money by opposite party No. 2, Shri Kaushalendra Prasad Narain Singh, had been validly made under Sec.117 of the Representation of the People Act and whether the election petition-was liable to be dismissed under Section 90, Sub-section (3) of the Act for non-compliance of the provisions of Sec.117. 2. It appears that on 24-4-1957, the opposite party No. 2, Sri Kaushalendra Prasad Narain Singh, filed an election petition before the Election Commission, New Delhi questioning the validity of the election of the petitioner. The Election Commission made the following order on 13-5-1957, on the election petition: "The petition was received by Air Mail. The Treasury chalan enclosed with the petition is defective inasmuch as it does not mention the correct authority in whose favour the amount has been deposited. The word "Secretary", has been wrongly written therein as "Security", This may make it difficult for the costs, if any, ordered against the petitioner to be realized out of the deposit. It will he for the tribunal to decide during trial after hearing the parties whether the defect in the deposit is fatal or may be cured, e. g. by a fresh deposit or otherwise so as to safeguard the respondents right to costs, if any, awarded in their favour". Thereafter the Election Commission forwarded the election petition for trial to the Election Tribunal at patna. It was objected on behalf of the petitioner that the hearing of the election petition should not proceed and the election petition should be dismissed on the ground that there was non-compliance of the provision of Sec.117 of the Representation of the People Act and that the Tribunal was bound under Section 90, Sub-section (3) of the Act to dismiss the election petition without hearing the case on its merits. This prayer was rejected by the Election Tribunal on the ground that several witnesses had already been examined on behalf of both the parties and the issue would be considered after the full hearing of the case. 3. This prayer was rejected by the Election Tribunal on the ground that several witnesses had already been examined on behalf of both the parties and the issue would be considered after the full hearing of the case. 3. On behalf of the petitioner learned Counsel contended that the present case is governed by the decision of this court in the case of Harihar Singh V/s. Ganga Prasad Singh, 1958 Pat LR 11: ( AIR 1958 Pat 287 ) (A) and also another decision of this Court in Sunder Singh V/s. Member, Election Tribunal, Misc. Judl. Case No. 686 of 1957, D/-7-2-1958 (Pat) (B:). On behalf of the opposite party No. 2 it was argued that in the present case a number of witnesses have been examined on behalf of both the parties and it would not be proper that the election petition should be dismissed on the preliminary ground under Section 90 (3) of the Representation of the People Act. We do not consider that the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 is right. The legal position in this case is exactly the same as in the two other cases to which we have referred, namely 1958 Pat LR 11: ( AIR 1958 Pat 287 ) (A) & Misc. Judl. Case No. 686 of 1957 (Pat) (B), where a precisely similar question of law was the subject-matter of consideration. We have discussed the relevant statutory provisions in those cases and have held that the provisions of Sec.117 of the Representation of the People Act are mandatory in character & that the election petition ought to have been dismissed for failure to enclose a chalan with the particulars required by the section. In the present case the original chalan has been produced before us in the course of the hearing of the case and it is reproduced below: "Chalan of cash paid Into the Treasury at Patna. By whom tendered.Name and address of person on whose behalf money is tendered.Full particulars of remittance and of authority, if any.AmountHeadOrder to Bank Baldeo Mahato.Shri Kaushalendra Prasad Narain Singh s/o late Sri Rajabahadur Harihar Prasad Narain Singh, Amawan, P. S. Asthawan, District Patna.Security deposit in election petition in favour of security Election Commission India.Rs. 1000Central Civil Sect P. Deposit and advance Part II deposit not bearing interest (C) other deposit account Civil deposit Rev. 1000Central Civil Sect P. Deposit and advance Part II deposit not bearing interest (C) other deposit account Civil deposit Rev. Dept." On behalf of the opposite party No. 2 it was contended that the expression "in favour of security Election Commission, India" should be read in favour of Secy. Election Commission, India" & so there was compliance with the requirements of Sec.117 of the Act. We are unable to accept this argument as correct. It is impossible to accept the submission on the word "Security" is meaningless and so should be scored out from the chalan, but it is not possible to substitute another word "Secretary" in the chalan and to say that the requirements of Sec.117 have been satisfied in this case. Counsel on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 referred to the legal maxim "falsa demonstratio non nocet" at page 426 of Brooms Legal Maxims, 10th edition, and said that mere false description did not vitiate if there be sufficient certainty as to the object. We do not think that this maxim has any application to the present case as it is impossible to say upon perusing the contents cf the chalan that the security was deposited in favour of the Secretary of the Election Commission of India. Our conclusion, therefore, is that the material facts of the present case are exactly similar to those in 1958 Pat LR 11: ( AIR 1958 Pat 287 ) (A) and Misc. Judl Case No. 686 of 1957 (Pat) (B) and there has been a failure on the part of opposite party No. 2 to comply with the provisions of Sec.117 of the Representation of the People Act. The view that we took in 1958 Pat LR 11: ( AIR 1958 Pat 287 ) (A) is further supported by two more authorities cited in this case on behalf of the petitioner. The first case is of Mather V/s. Brown (1876) 1 C. P. D, 596 (C) in which the name of a candidate in a nomination paper at an election for town-councillors of a borough was inserted as "Robert V/s. Mather", but the full name of the candidate was Robert Vicars Mather. The first case is of Mather V/s. Brown (1876) 1 C. P. D, 596 (C) in which the name of a candidate in a nomination paper at an election for town-councillors of a borough was inserted as "Robert V/s. Mather", but the full name of the candidate was Robert Vicars Mather. It was held by Lord Coleridge, C. J. that it was not such a statement of "the surname and other names of the persons nominated as to satisfy the requirements of Sec.1 of the Municipal Elections Act of 1875 and the form given in the 2nd schedule and that the inaccuracy was not cured by Sec.142 of 6 and 7 Wm. 4, chapter 76. In the course of his judgment the Lord Chief Justice made the following observations: "I repeat that I yield to the objection with great reluctance; nevertheless, it is one which the party had a right to take; it was taken in time, and was properly allowed by the mayor. It must be remembered that, in dealing with cases under these Acts, we are sitting as a final tribunal of appeal, in the exercise of a duty cast upon us under peculiar circumstances and as a sort of compromise between conflicting parties in the legislature, and therefore are more especially bound to keep ourselves strictly within the letter of the Acts, and to abstain from any attempt to strain the law. Therefore, although I yield reluctantly to the objection, conceiving it to be a fair one, I do so without hesitation. There must be judgment for the respondent". 4. There is a decision to the similar effect in another case, the Queen V/s. Joseph Jonathan Deighton, (1844) 13 LJ QB 241 (D) in which it was held that "to describe a party in voting papers for the office of Alderman, under 1 Vict. C. 78, Sec.14, as of the place where he daily transacts his business, instead of describing him of the place at which he resides, is such a misdescription of the place of his abode as to avoid his election". For these reasons, in addition to those we have given in 1958 Pat LR 11: ( AIR 1958 Pat 287 ) (A) and Misc. Judl. For these reasons, in addition to those we have given in 1958 Pat LR 11: ( AIR 1958 Pat 287 ) (A) and Misc. Judl. Case No. 686 of 1957 (Pat) (B), we hold that the order of the Election Tribunal in the present case dated 10-2-1958, is erroneous in law and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to proceed further with the hearing of the election petition and it should dismiss the election petition for failure to comply with the provisions of Sec.117 of the Re-presentation of the People Act. 5 Therefore, in exercise of our authority under Article 227 of the Constitution, we set aside the order of the Election Tribunal dated 10-2-1958, and order that the election petition filed by opposite party No. 2, Shri Kaushalendra Prasad Narain Singh, should be dismissed for non-compliance with the requirements of Sec.117 of the Representation of the People Act. 6. We, accordingly, allow this application with costs; hearing fee Rs. 200.00 to be payable by opposite party No. 2 alone to the petitioner.