D. VENKATA REDDY versus R SULTAN & OTHERS

VENKATA REDDY

R SULTAN & OTHERS

February 24, 1976

(P. K. GOSWAMI ANDS. MURTAzA FAzAL ALI, JJ.)

Representation of the People Act (43 of 1951 ), ss. 81 and 86(5)-App/ica-tion for a1ne11dment of petition for giring material part;culars-To what extent 1nay be allowed~A mendrnent allowed in \·iolation of s. 86(5) without objec-tion-If could be challenged in appeal to Supre1ne Court.

Election petition-Approach of court to evidence regci.~ding corrupt prac-tices--T ainted · and interested evidencc-J\/tcessi1y for corroboration-Attitude of court to poll verdict-Material particulars and evidence, scdpe.

The n~spondent, who wa~ Muslim, was the Congress candidate for elec-tion to the State Legit1lative Assembly. He challenged the appellant's elect;on, and the High Court allowed the election petition on three grounds (l) that the appellant committed corrupt practice under s. 123 ( 1), Representation of the Pl!ople Act, 19•51 in that he offered bribe to the Jespondent to indu1.,,'e him not to contest the election; (2) that the appellant committed corrupt prac .. tice under s. 123(3A) in that he issued and personally distributed pamphlet containing communal allegations. with view to create ill-feeling among the voters; and (3) that the appellant'si agents distributed that pamphlet with the appellant's contest.

Allowing the appeal to this_ Court,

HELD : ( 1) (a) While it ii; necessary to protect the purity of elections by ensuring that the candidares do not secure the valuable votes of the people by undue influence, fraud, communal propaganda. bribery or other corrupt practices, the valuable verdict of the people at the polls must be given due res_p~ct and should not be disregarded or ~et at naught on vague, frivolous or fanciful ailegations, or on evidence which is of shaky or pre-varicating character. [450F-G, HJ

(b) The onus lies heavily on the election-petitioner to make out strong case for setting aside the election. He must, in onler to succeed, plead \>II material particulars and prove them by clear and cogent evidence. [450G; 451K]

( c) The al1egations of corru'1t practice being in the nature of quasicrimi-nal charge, mu9t be proved beyond reasonable doubt. When the election-petitioner seeks to prove the charge by purely partisan evidence of his workers, agents. supporters and friends, the court would have to approach the evidence with great care and caution, and would, as matter of prudence, th-Ough not as rule of law, require corroboration of such evidence from independent quarters, unless the court is fully sati9fied that the evidence is so creditworthy and true, that no corroboration to lend further assurance is necessary. [451A-C]

(d) The attempt of the agents or supporters of the defeated candidate is always to get the election set aside by fair mean9 or foul and the evidence of such witnesses, must, therefore, be regarded as highly interested and tainted evidence. [451C-D]

(e) When, the evidence led by the election-petitione-r, even thoug:h consis· tent. is fraught with inherent iinprobabilities and replete with unnatural ten-dencies, the .court may refuse to accept such evidence, because consistency alone is not the conclusive test of truth. It is, however, difficult to lay down any rule of universal application and each case will have to be decided on its own facts. f451D-El

Bhanu Kumar Shastri" v. Mohan Lal Sukhadia & Ors., [1971] I S.C.C. 370; Rahim Khan v. Khurshid AhmPd & Ors .. r1974l 2 S.C.C. 660; Abdul Hussain Mir v. Shomsul Hurln nnd rn"'thPr. p9751 4 ~.C.C. 533 and Ghasi Ram v. Dal Singh & Ors. (1968] · 3 S.C.R. 102, followed. 14-L522SCI/76

(2) In the present case, the High Coun correctly adumbrated the legal propositions but had not correctly applied them to the facts and evidence. It also applied different standards in appreciating the evidence. It readily accepted the evidence of two witnesses on one issue while rejecting as partisan and in .. terested on another issue. [453A-D]

(3) The cumulative effect of' thei inherent improbabilities and the intrinsic infirmities of the evidence for the respondent, and the n.nnatural conduct of th"C: respondent and his witnesses, lead to the conclusion that the respondent had failed to prove the allegation of the offer of bribe. [465B-C]

(a) The respondent bore serious animus against the appellant and yet it was alleged that the appellant offered him bribe even though they were not well-acquainted with each other. [458G; 460D]

(b) The offer was alleg\;:d to have been made in the presence of two wit-nesses, in crowded place, and pressed upon the respondc11t even though he spurned it. The High Court is not right in its view that an offer could have been made as alleged, and 1hat only for actual payment secluded place could be chosen. [ 458F-H; 459B-C]

(c) The High Court is also not right in its view that because the appellant was at the Taluk Office when the respondent went there the appellant would have offered the bribe. On the contrary, the respondent, for that very reason, might have concocted the story of the offer of bribe, [457E-FJ

(d) The High Court failed to consider, (i) that while it is easy to make an allegation of offer of bribe, it is v~ry difficult for the person against whom it is made to rebut it; [457G-H]

(ii) that the allegation was sought to be proved by the respondent, by the partisan and highly interested testimony of two witnesses and \Vas sought to be corroborated by the equally interested testimony of two others to whom the incident was alleged to hav~ been narrated shortly thereafter; and that the respondent had not examined any independent witness, even though such wit-E nesses were available; [457H-458AJ

(iii) that the appellant would not have attempted to bribe the respondent, because, the respondent had the support of the Congress. and eve"n if he with-drew, the Congress would have put up another candidate. [461B-CJ

(iv) that the respondent had not complained about the hribe either to the local Congress committee or to the police; and [461F-G; 464D-E]

(v) that there was no reference either to the corroborating witneses or to the narration of the incident of the offe·r of the bribe' to those witnesses, in the petition. If it were true it is-unlik~ly that the respondent would have omitted reference to it. [464A-B}

( e) Further. the f11.ct of repetition of the story of the offer of bribe to the two coJToborating witnesses was material particular or an additional fact pertaining to the averments in the petition and not mere matter of evidence. Since it was not mentioned in the petition it has to be excluded from considera-G tion. [ 464 B-C]

(f) As the alleged offer is an electoral offence of quasi-criminal nature, the onus- of proving it was initially on the respondent, but he failed to dis-. charge the onus. [ 4640-H]

(g) If such serious allegation is allowed to be proved again"t ~uccessful candidate by partisan, inrerested and improbable evidence, without any inde· pendent corroboration, it would give an easy handle to the defeated candidates to destroy the sanctity of the electoral process. [464A-465B]

( 4) The respondent has. not addu~d any satisfactory evidence that the offendin!? pamphlet was printed by the appellant or distributed by him personally, whereas, the appellant has, through his evidence, though of

negative ch?racter, shown that the probabilities are that the appellant did not have it pnnted and that he did not distribute it. [491E-F1

(a) Distribution of an objectionable pan1phlet is corrupt practice. under s. 123(4) and the pamphlet in the present case, containing communal propa-ganda comes under s. 123(3A) as w,11. [471G-H; 474Jc-r]

(b) The allegation of publishing such an objectionable pamphlet is easy to make and difficult to rebut. The court must subject the tainted and interested evictencoe regarding its publication to the strictest scrutiny because it can be printed by the defeated candidate in any press with secrecy, circulated among his supporters and he can make them say that it was printed, published and circulated by the successful candidate. l471H-472B]

Baburao Bagaji Karemoga and ors. v. Govind & Ors., [1974J 3 S,C.R. 719, followed.

(c) The appellant had denied the printing: or publication of the pamphlet and the respondent failed tn discharge his ini1ial onus of proving that the ap-pellant printed and distributed it. [4720-E]

( d) Since there were considerable number of Muslim voters in the consti-tuencv. thf! appellant would not have taken the risk of offending them by cir-culating such pamphlet. The respondent, on the other hand, had strong motive to reverse the apnellant's election by any possible means, and he had his own press. [472H; 474F-G, HJ

(e) The High Court was wrong in its approach that since the pamphlet contained anti-Muslim propaganda it would not have been printed by the res-pondent. An unsuccessful candidate, motivated by the desire to unseat successful candidate, would stood to any device to show that the successful candidate was guilt of corrupt practice. [472G] (f) Merely btecause the respondent disclosed the name of the press where he got some other pamphlets printed, it could not be contended by him that he would hnve disclosed the nnme of the piess which printed the offending pamphlet if he got it printed. The content5 of the namphlet were so offensive that the printer would not have taken the risk of disclosing the name of the press and expose it to legal action. [491B-C]

(g) Most of the witnesses for the respondent who stated that the pamphlet was given to them before or during the election were of the turn coat type, that is. persons who claimed to have worked for the -appellant but .gave evi-den~ for the respondent; and the others were in some wav or the other totally interested in the respondent or connected with him. I479F]

Rnhint Khan v. Khurshid Ahnied and others_. [-1974] 2 SCC 660. followed.

(h) One witness gave evidence that he received the pamphlet from his wife during the election. but since shf': was riot examined, the evidence was rightly rejected by the High Court. [490H-491A]

(i) The Hi2h Court held that the pamphlet was in existence before or during the election, applying the test that the pamphlet was produced by the witness who stated that it was given to him by the appellant. But that can-not be safe criterion because, the respondent could have handed it over to the witness hefore he gave evidence. Further, the probabilities are that it was not then in existence. [471C~E]

(i) Respectable witness of the appellant gave evidence that no such pamph-let was circulated, for then they would have known about it. Also. c-onsidoer-ing its provocative language, it i-; unlikely that the Government officials nosted to prevent anv communal propaganda by the candidates would have failed to notice it. [473B; 4740-H]

(ii) Further. the respondent \vould not have failed to give in the petition or in the material particulars furnished by him later, the names of the persons from whom he came to know about the pamphlet. The respandent collected material.a for filing the election petition suon after the appellant was declared

elected and more than month before filing it. In spite of such full and comiJ1eLe opporlun1ty b.;;fore n11ng the peltuon, and later when the appellant app1i\':d for funher particulars n:garding the dis.ribu.ion of the pamphlet, the re:.pondent merely gave the names of certain villages and i.h~ dates on which the pamt-'hlet was alleged to ha\ been d.stributeo; but he did not mention the name of single person to whom the pamphlet had been dis.ributed by the appellant persona.'ly, even thougn, according to the evidenc~ led by the responuent, he was in possession of such damaging evidence against the appel-lant. [410Jl-41lli; 475A-B; 490c>Jo]

(iii) 'fhe respondent had made several complaints to the police about var.ous n1atters but did not complain about the pan1phlet either to the p-01ice or the local Long,ess committ...e. Jf h.s silence was due to legal advice, as contended, he should have given the ~xplanation in the petition or exam.ned the lawyer who gave such an advice. [487E-F; 490E-F] (5) (a) Section ?1 of the Representation of the Pc0ple Act, 1951, provides that the election petition shall -be filed within 45 days from the date of the election of the retufned candidate. Therefore, any allegullon of corrupt pfac-tice which is not made in the election petition iiled v.i1hin the time allo<w~d by the statute cannot be allowed by way of an amendment under s. 86(5) because, that \Vould amount to extending the period of limitation peremp orily fixed by the Act. The ambit of s. 86(5) is extremely narrow. It requires three essential conditions which are the silk qua non to be fulfi.11-ed before an amendment could be allowed, n«mely ( i) that the amendment seeks merely tu a1nplify the particulars, of corn,:pt practice; (ii) that the corrupt practice, whose particulars are to be given, must have been previously alleged in the election petition itself, and (iii) that the amend-ment is, in the opinion of the court necessary for ensur:ng fair and elfec_tive trial of the petition. The power of amendment or amplification is thus restrict-ed only to amplify the material partilulars of any corrupt practice which had been previously alleged in the election petition, and the court has no power to allow an amendment by p~tmitting the election pelitiomer to amplify the mate-rial particulars of corrupt practice which was not specifically pleaded in the petition; for, that would a1ncunt t_o introducing new conuilt practice after the expiry of the period of limitation-a r>esult which \Vas never envisaged by the statute. [466H; 467B-C, E-H]

San1ant N. Balakrishha etc. v. George Fernandez & or.r, etc., [1969] 3 S.C.R. 6{)3, followed. ·

(b) In the present case, reading the aVerments in election petition as whole, however_ broadly or liberally they are construed, the irresistible inference is that the respondent had laid special stress on the fact of distribution of the pamphlet by the appellant alone. Wherever the averment of distribution of the pamphlet is made in the petition, it is s.tated that it was done by the appellant. There is absolutely no averment that the pamphlet was distributed by the agents, workers or supporters or friend<; of the aopellant. Hence, it could not be con-tended by the respondent that the averments include not merely distiihution by the appellant, but also by his agents and workers. Since there was no pleading at all by the respondent that the pamphlet was distributed by his agenls, etc., particulars supplied by the respondent in his application for amendment of his petition on the point of distribution by agents, etc., must be compl-etely dig. re,garded. The court al-so has no jurisdiction to allow. su~h particulars to bo given with respect to the fact that the pamphlets were dtslnbu!ed by the agents and supporters of the appellant. Therefore, t~e amendment, 10 respect of the third ground on which the judgment of the High Court was based~ should not have been allowed, the particulars mentioned by the respondent on this item must be disregarded, the eviderice given by him should be excluded from consi-deration, and the finding of the High Court should be set aside. [468H-469D, E-F]

(c) The attention of the High. Court was not drawn by the appellant to this aspect, but, as it is pure question of law and amounts to violation of the statutory mandate in s. 86(5). this Court can decide on the correctness of the order of the High Court, allowing particulars regarding distribution of pamphlet by the agents etc., of the appellant. [ 469D-E]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1170 of 1973.

(From the judgment and order dated the 25-4-1973 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Election Petition No. 4 of 1972)

P. Basi Reddy, C. Sadasiva Reddy, G. Narayana Rao and Mrs. Vimala Markendeywu, tor the appellant. ··

B. Shiv Shankar, A. V. Rangam, Miss A. Subhashini and K. Ven-kata Ramiah, for the respodents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

FAZAL Au, J .-This is an appeal under s. 116A of the Represen-tation uf the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act') by Venkata Reddy who was Respondent No. 1 in the election petition filed beiore the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The appeal anses · out of the general elections held to the Andhra Pradesh Leoislative Assembly in March 1972 from Gooty Assembly constituen\Oy. The appellant Vcnkata Reddy, T. Papa Sab and R. Sultan (the election petitioner before the High Court) applied for Congress ticket for the Gooty Assembly Constituency seat. The District Congress Committee, Anantapur recommended the names of R. Sultan, Papa Sab and Ramachandra Goud but did not recommend the name of the appellant. The Andhra Pradesh Provincial Congress Committee, however, recommended the name of R. Sultan the first respondent alone. This recommendation appears to have been accepted by the All India Congress Committee which gave the Congress ticket to the first res-pondent R. Sultan on February 1, 1972 as result thereof the other candidates, namely, the appellant Venkata Reddy, T. Papa Sab and Venkata Subbayya decided to contest the election as independent candidates, whereas Venkata Naidu got the Congress (0) ticket. The polling to the aforesaid constituency was held on March 8, 1972 and counting was done on March 12, 1972 on which date the result was also declared. The appellant was declared elected having secured 19,974 votes polled in the constituency. Respondent No. 1 R. Sultan Jost by narrow margin of 471 votes having polled 19,503 votes. The other respondents were accordingly defeated and we are not at a11 concerned with their cases. Respondent No. 1 R. Sultan filed an .election petitron before the Anc'hra Pradesh High Court on April 20, 1972 which was assigned to Sriramulu, J., who tried the election petition. For the sake of convenience we shall refer to Venkata Reddy as the apoellant anJ R. Sultan who was the election petitioner before the High Court as the contesting respondent. The contesting resJ)Ondent sought to challenge the election of the appellant on various grounds and alleged that the appellant had indulged in Jame nmnber of corrupt practices as envisaged bv s. 123 nf the Act. namely, bribery, corn~p­lion, communal propaganda; impersonation of · voters. exces<•"e expenses, improper rejection and recept~on :nf ballot papers ~tc. The contesting respondent also filed an awhcatton before the 'fna.l Jud.~e that as number of irrerularities were committed in th~ reiectton ~d .acceptance of the ballot pape~s, the Court should allow scrutmy.

.and ;ecouming of the votes. The Court, after considering the evi-tlence of the parties on this point, eventually allowed the application, but ultimately it held that even if there was any irregularity it had not caused any material change in the electron. The petition was resisted by the appellant who emphatically denied all the allegations made by the contesting respondent and submitted that the elections were free and fair and that the appellant had not indulged in any corrupt practice at all. The appellant further pleaded that all the ,allegations made by the contesting respondent were figment of his imagination and were totally untrue. On the question 'ill corrupt practices, particularly the distribution of objectionable pamphlets, as !he contesting respondent had not given full and material particulars in his ckction petition, the appellant filed an application on July 7, 1972 praying that the Court may direct the contesting respondent to file better particulars by way of amendment. The Court directed the contesting respondent to supply fresh particulars and accordingly the contesting respondent filed his application for amendment by incorporating material particulars on Augu~t 29, 1972. On the pleadings of the parties the High Court framed as many as 3 S issu-~s :in the present case. After taking the evidence of the parties the !Court decid-ed all the issues against the contesting respondent except issues Nos. 7, 26 and 27 which were decided in favour of the con-testing respondent. In view of the findings given by the learned Judge the election of the appellant was set aside, but the learned Judge refused to grant the relief to the contesting respondent for being declared as duly elected to the seat in question. It is against this decision that the appellant has come up to this Court in appeal. Mr. P. Basi Reddy learned counsel for the appellant has assailed before us the findings of the High Court on issues Nos. 7, 26 and 27 as these were the only issues which affected the appellant. Mr. B. Shiv Sar,kar, learned counsel for the contesting respondent has en-deavoured to support the judgment of the High Court by submitting that the findings arrived at by the High Court were based on correct and proper appreciation of the evidence and the facts and circumstances of the record. In democracy such as ours, the purity and sanctity of elections, the sacrosanct and sacred nature of the electoral process must be. preserved and maintained. The valuable verdict of the people at the polls must be given due respect and candour and should not he disregarded or set at naught on va~e, indefinite, frivolous or fanciful allegations or on evidence which is of shakv or prevaricating character. It is well settled that the onus lies heavily on the election petitioner to make out strong case for setting a'ide an election. In our country election is fairly costly and expensive venture and the Representation of the People Act has provided sufficient safe"uards to make the elections' fair and free. In these circumstances. th'::refore, election results cannot be lightly brushed aside in election disputes. At the same time it is necess.;y to protect the purity and sobriety of the elections by ensuring that the candidates do not secure the valuable votes of the people bv un-due influence, fraud. comm11nal propaganda, bribery or other corrupt practices as laid down in the Act.

Another principle that is equally well settled is that the election petitioner in order to succeed must plead all material particulars and prove them by clear and cogent evidence. The allegations of cor-rupt practices being in the nature of quasi-criminal charge the same must be proved beyond any shadow of doubt. Where the elec-tion petitioner seeks to prove the charge by purely partisan evidence consisting of his workers, agents, supporters and friends, the Court would have to approach lhc evidence with great care and caution, scrutiny and circumspection, and would, as matter of prudence though not as rule of law, require corroboration of such evidence from independent quarters, unless the Court is fully satisfied that the evidence is sc credit-worthy and true, spotless and blemishlcss, co-gent and consistent, that no corroboration to lend further assurance is necessary. It has to be borne in mind that the attempt of the agents or supporters of the defeated candidate is always to get the election set aside by means fair or foul and the evidence of such wit-nesses, therefore, must be regarded as highly interested and tainted evidence which should be acted upon only if the Court is satisfied that the evidence is true and does not suffer from any infirmity. Where, however, the evidence led by the election petitioner even though consistent is fraught with inherent improbabilities and replete with unnatural tendencies, the Court may refuse to accept snch evi-dence, becanse consistency alone is not the conclusive test of truth. Judicial experience shows that sometimes even tutored or parrot-like evidence can be consistent and free from discrepancies and yet not worthy of credence. It is, however, difficult to lay down rule of universal application because each case will have to be decided on its own facts, but in appreciating the evidence the broad features mentioned above must be borne in mind and have been emphasised by this Court in large catena of decisions-a few of them may be refer-red to here.

In Bhanu Kumar Shastri v. Mohan Lal Sukhadia and others,([1]) this Court observed as follows :

"Allegation of corrupt practice is charge of cr;minal nature. The provisions in the Representation of the People Act are intended to preserve the purity of the election, buc at the same time these provisions should not be subverted for the impure purposes of maligning candidates who hap-pen to be in the Government on the eve of the election, x x x

The Court is always vigilant to watch not only the con-duct of the candidates and to protect their character from bping defamecl but also to see that the character and con-duct of the public is not corroded by corrupt motive or evil pnrposes of candidates. The genuine and bona fide aims and asnirations of candidates have to be protected on the one hand and mala fide abuse and arrogance of power will have to be censured on the other."

(I) [1971] 1 s.c.c. 370.

Similarly in Rahim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed & Ors.([1]) Krishna Iyer, J., speaking for the Court most lucidly and aptly observed as follows :

"An election once held is not to be treated in light-hearted manner and defeated candidates or disgruntled elec-tors should not get away with it by filing election petitions II on unsubstantial grounds and irresponsible evidence, there-by introducing serious clement of uncertainty in the ver-dict already rendered by the electorate. An election is politically sacred public act, not of one person or of one official, but of the collective will of the whole constituency. Courts naturally must respect this public expression secretly written and show extreme reluctance to set aside or declare void an election which has already been held unless clear and cogent testimony compelling the court to uphold the corrupt practice alleged against the returned candidate is ad-duced. Indeed election petitions where corrupt practices are imputed must be regarded as proceedings of quasi-crimi-nal nature wherein strict proof is necessary. The burden is therefore heavy on him who assails an election which has been concluded."

To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Abdul Hu.esain Mir v. Sltamsul Ruda and Another(') where this Court observed as fol-lows:

"Even so, certain basic legal guidelines cannot be lost sight of while adjudging an election dispute. The verdict at the polls wears protective mantle in democratic polity. The Court will vacate such ballot count return only on proof beyond reasonable doubt of corrupt practices. Charges, such as have been imputed here, are viewed as quasi-criminal, carrying other penalties from losing seat, and strong testimony is needed to subvert Returning Officer's dec-laration. x x x x x

When elections are challenged on grounds with cri-minal faint, the benefit of doubt in testimonial matters be-longs to the returned candidate.

Similarly in Ghasi Ram v. Dal Singh & others(•) while emphasizing the standard of proof in an election case for corrupt practice of bribery, Hidayatullah, J., as he then was, speaking for the Court observed thus :

"In Anjaneya Reddy v. Gangi Reddy and other<-21 E.L.R. 247-it was held that the proof required to estahl'sh corrupt practice must be almost of the character required to establish criminal charge.

In our opinion the law requires that corrunt prac-.tice involving bribery must be fully established. The evi-dence must show clearly that the promise or gift directly or [1974] 2 S.C.C. 660. (2) [15io] 4 ~ 533.

(I) [1974] 2 S.C.C. 660.

(3) [1968]3 S.C.R. 102.

indirectly was made to an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an election."

We have gone through the judgment of the High Court, particu-larly on issue Nos. 7, 26 and 27 and find that although in his prdude to the discussion on issue No. 7 the learned Judge has referred to the various authorities and has correctly adumbrated the legal pro-positions he does not appear to have applied the principles enun-ciated in the decisions correctly to the facts or the evidence covered by this issue. It also appears that the learned Judge has applied two different standards in appreciatiµg the evidence with respect to issues Nos. 7, 26 & 27 and other issues on which he has given find-ings against the contesting respondent. For instance, while he has refused to accept the evidence of partisan or an interested witness being staunch supporters of the contesting respondent on other issues, particularly issue No. 8, he has, while dealing with the evidence of the witnesses on issue No. 7 which suffers from the self-same infir-mity, readily accepted their evidence without even noticing the deep interest that these witnesses had in supporting or bolstering up the case of the contesting respondent. We shall, however, refer to this aspect of the matter after we have dealt with the evidence led by the parties on these issues.In the light of the principles enunciated by us we shall now pro-ceed to discuss and examine the findings of the High Court on issue No. 7 and the evidence led thereon by the parties. Issue No. 7 was cast by the Trial Judge thus :

"Did the 1st respondent (the appellant) commit cor-rupt practice under s. 123(1) of the Representation of the People Act by making an offer to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the petitioner and trying to induce him not to contest the elec-tion ?"

To beoin with we would like to refer to the pleadings of the contesting respcrndcnt in order to show the exact material particulars averred in the election petition itself. The allegation which is the subject-mat-ter of issue No. 7 is to be found in paragraph-12 of the election petition appearing at p .. 2:? of the Paper Book (Vol. I). R. Sultan the contesting respondent '·!lad alleged that he had applied for Con-gress ticket for Gooty Assembly constituency and was ultimately granted the said ticket by the Central Election Committee, Delhi on February !, 1972. Alt.hnuoh the n C.C. arl-hnc Congress Com-mittee, Anantapur, had recommended the name of the contesting res-pondent and others, the Pcovmciat Con~rcss Lomm1ttee recommend-ed the name of the contesting respondent alone which was finally accepted by the Central Election Committee at Delhi. After having been given the Congress ticket the contesting respondent returned to Hyderabad on February 2, 1972 and day later he was contacted on telephone by Mustafa of Guntakal one of his supporters and had talk with him regarding the filing of his nomination paper. The con-testing respondent told Mustafa that he would be reaching Gooty on February 4, 1972, for filing his nomination papers for the Gooty Assembly constituency and that Mustafa also should reach Gooty on the morning of February 4, 1972. We might pause for little while

here and notice two important averments. In the first place it was the definite case of the contesting respondent that his visit to Gooty on February 4, 1972, was for the purpose of filing his nomination papers, but it appears from the evidence that he did not file his nomination on this date but some time later. Secondly during his talk with Mustafa on the telephone the contesting respondent did not ask him to bring P.W. 29 Nabi Saheb and P.W. 33 Chinna Bhemanna with him to Gooty. Resuming the thread of averments in the elec-tion petition, the further facts arc that the contesting respondent rea-ched Gooty on February 4, 1972 at about 10-00 A.M. and proceed-ed to Bharat Sewak Samaj-hereafter referred to as 'B.S.S.'-Building which is sometimes described as an office and sometimes as Guest House in the evidence. P.Ws. 29 and 33 and some others were waiting for the contesting respondent at the B.S.S. Building. The contesting respondent then, along with P.Ws. 29 and 33 went to Taluk office for obtaining a' copy of the voters list for the Gooty Assembly constituency and reached the Taluk office at about 11-00 A.M. While he was returning from the Taluk office the appellant met the contesting respondent and wished him and after talking for some time he made an offer of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to the con-testing respondent if he. agreed to withdraw from the election and help the appellant. This offer is said to have been made in the presence of P.Ws. 29 and 33. Even after the contesting respondent refused the offer he was again persuaded by the appellant to consider the same and on his final refusal the appellant threatened that the contesting respondent was bound to face defeat in the elections. It was also alleged that the appellant took the refusal of the offer as challenge and spent money lavishly to win the election. The last part of the averment which forms the subject-matter of issue No. 8 and certain other issues has not been accepted by the High Court. These are the only particulars mentioned in the petition with respect to the offer of bribe which· is the subject-matter of issue No. 7. In the course of the evidence, however, new fact was sought to be introduced by the contesting respondent, namely, that P.Ws. 29 & 33 returned to the B.S.S. Building after the contestng respondent refused the offer of the appellant and then the two witnesses P.Ws. 29 & 33 narrated the entire incident to P.W. 34 Mustafa and P.W. 22 Rama-. chandraiah and others. This fact was introduced in order to ]end corroboration to the evidence of the contesting respondent and that of P.Ws. 29 and 32. But as this was undoubtedly material parti-cular or an additional fact pertaining to the averments in paragraph-12 of the election petition and the same not having been mentioned has to be completely excluded from consideretion. We shall. how-ever, dilate on this matter when we deal with the evidence led by the contesting respondent on this point.

In short, therefore, the story regarding the offer of bribery and the occasion for it may be conveniently divided into three stages :

Stage No. 1.

This stage starts with the decision of the Central Election Com-mittee, Delhi, in giving the Congress ticket to the conte,ting rcs,,cm-dent and as consequence thereof his arrival at Hyderabad on Febru· ary 2, 1972. On reaching Hyderabad the contesting respondent

who is P.W. 16 received telephone call from Mustafa who was asked to go to Gooty on February 4, 1971. in order to meet the contesting respondent. Accordingly the contesting respondent reach-, ed Gooty on February 4, 1972 and accompanied by P.Ws. 29 and 33 left !or the Taiuk ofiice. This is the enu ot the drama enacted in Stage No. I. The facts are proved by P.W. 16 the contesting res-pondent himself, by Mustafa P.W. 34 and by P.Ws. 29 and 33. It may be mentioned here that all the witnesses examined to prove the facts covered by this stage are interested witnesses who are staunch supporters of the contesting respondent and there appears to be serious discrepancy in the evidence led on this point. It appears from the evidence that when the contesting respondent reached B.S.S. Building apart trom P.Ws. 29 and 33, P.Ws. 34 and 22 were also present. P.Ws. 34 and 22 however did not accompany the contesting respondent to the Taluk Office. P.W. 22 Ramachandraiah says that he did not go to the Taluk office because of ill health and P. W. 34 Mustafa says that he did not go as he had some work at the Railway Station. It may also be noticed that in paragraph-12 of the election petition where the material particulars are given by the con-testing respondent, while it is clearly mentioned that when the con-testing respondent reached Gooty P.Ws. 29 & 33 were there, the name of P .W. 22 is not specifically mentioned as being present at Gooty. It would appear from the evidence of P.W. 22 that he was great friend and supporter of the contesting respondent and even the learned Judge has commented on the deep interest which P.W. 22 had shown in order to support the case of the contesting respon-dent. It is, therefore, difficult to believe that if P.W. n would have been present at the B.S.S. Building how could the contesting res-pondent have omitted to mention the name of his most confident friend and supporter in paragraph-12 of his election petition. This taken together with the fact that P.W. 22 had given lame excuse for not having accompanied the contesting respondent to the Taluk office clearly throws considerable amount of suspicion on the pre-sence of P.W. 22 at Gooty on February 4, 1972. Similarly, while P.W. 34 Mustafa gives specific reason whv he had not accompanied the contesting respondent to the Taluk office. namely, that he had some work at the Railway Station, which is also deposed to by P.W. 16 himself, yet this fact which was within the knowledge of the con-testing respondent at that very time is not mentioned in the election petition. Another important circumstance that has to be noticed is that whereas in the election petition it is the, definite case of the contesting respondent that he had to go to Gooty on February 4, 1972 for filing his nomination papers. the evidence shows that he did not file the nomination papers at all on that date but he merely applied for the voters list of the constituency. This is important, because, while it. mav have been relevant for P.Ws. 29 & 33 to accompany the contesting respondent to the Taluk Office if it was the question of his filing nomination papers. their presence at the Taluk office was not at all necessary if the contesting respondent had merely to take copy of the voters· list which could have been done by him alone.

P.W. 16 the contesting resoondent has no doubt proved the facts mentioned above. Similarly P.W. 34 has supported the contesting

Iii

respondent regarding his having talk with the contesting respondent on the telephone anu his bemg askta to go to Gooty on February 4, 1Y7L P.ws. 29 and 33 have aiso said that they were asked by P. W. 34 Mnstafa to accompany him to Gooty in order to meet the contestmg respondent. lhus so tar as the tacts in stage No. I are concerned, whether they are true or not, they do not appear to be very relevant for the purpose of issue No. 7. Stage No. II This brings us to stage No. 2 which is the bulwark and the bed-rock or the case of the contesting respondent regarding the offer of br,be said to have been made by the appellant to h!Ill. So far as this stage 1s concerned the only evidence tnat the contesting n"pornknt has given consists of the tesl!mony of P. Ws. L9 and 3.J apart from ·C h,s own evidence. We would first deal with the evidence of P.Ws. 29 and 33 before commg to the evidence of the contesting respondent himself. P.W. 29 Nab1 Saheb appears to be one of the mo't inter-ested witnesses and great friend and supporter-of the contesting res-pondent. He admits at p. 498 of the Paper Book (Vol. I][) that both the witness and Mustafa P.W. 34 worked for the contesting res-pondent during the recent general elections. He then says that Mus-D tafa approached h,m on February 3, 1972 and requested him and PW. 33 Ch.nna Bhemanna to accompany him to Gooty. The w:tness further admits that the contesting res,pondent R. Sultan and he had been friends for the last ten years. suggestion was given by the appellant that his younger brother Khah Hussain was godown ke-oper oi the B.S.S. at Guntakal and he was arrested on the charge of selling goods and that the contesting respondent Sultan had helped him. The witness admits at p. 501 of the Paper Book (Vol. III) that the pol;ce had no doubt arrested his younger brother who was Godown Keeper of the B.S.S. and he further admits that the case was later shown out. He, however, denied the suggestion that Sultan helped his bro- · ther. It is, however, admitted by Sultan P.W. 16 at p. 307 of the Paper Book (Vol. II) that he was the Secretary of the B.S S. and was, therefore, obviously in position to help the brother of the w'tness. In these circumstances, therefore, to begin with, the C0urt has to ap-proach the evidence of th;s witness with great care and caution berausc he was not only close friend of the contesting respondent. but was also his supporter and worker and he was interested in giving evi-dence which may result in the election of the appellant being set aside. He states that when the contesting respondent decided to go to the Taluk office on February 4, 1972. P.W. 34 Mustafa did not accom-pany the party because he had some work at the Railway Station with the result that P.W. 33 and the witness only accompanied the con-testing respondent. The witness further stated that he acconinanied the contesting resoondent to the Taluk office but P.W. 33 Ramachan-dra;ah stayed beh;nd as. be was not keeping goorl health. Thorea'ter when the contesting respondent came out of the Taluk office the party went towards the place where the car was parked when <'n th0 way the apoellant met them and greeted the con•e<t;ng re<pondent. There the appellant is said to have offered Rs. 25.0001- if the co~testing respondent agreed not to contest the election. Sultan laughed and

spurned the ofier. The witness as also P.W. 33 Chinna Bheemanna told the appellant that Sultan the contesting respondent did not rcqu,re the money, when the appellant repeated the offer which was aga.n refused. Thereafter the party returned to the B.S.S. Building where P.W. 22 Ramachandraiah and P.W. 34 Mustafa and others were wa.t-ing in the office of the B.S.S. Both the witness and P.W. 33 narrated the incident relating to the offer of bribe to Mustafa P.W. 3 i and Ramachandraiah P.W. 22.

P.W. 33 Chinna Bheemanna who is the other witness has narrat-ed more or less the same facts regarding their reaching the B.S.S. Building at Gooty, their accompanying the contesting respondent to the Taluk office, the offer of bribe made by the appellant and the narration of the facts to P.Ws. 22 and 34. P.W. 16 the contesting respondent had also deposed to these facts.

The learned Judge has accepted the evidence of these witnesses because he thought that there was no major discrepancy in the testi-mony of these witnesses. Further more, the learned Judge, has, on consideration of the evidence of P.Ws. 23, 38, 39 and 41, held that both the contesting respondent and the appellant were present at Taluk office on February 4, 1972 near about 12 Noon and from their presence he appears to have presumed that the offer of bribe must have been made. We are, however, unable to agree with this somewhat unusual process of reasoning. The mere fact that the contesting respondent and the appellant happened to be present at the Taluk office on February 4, 1972, at about the same time does not necessarily lead to the inference that the appellant must have made the offer of bribe which is quite different fact and has to be proved separately and independently. Indeed if one has to wander in the domain of conjectures, then it can be equally said of the contesting respondent that the presence of the appellant at the same day and time at the Taluk office furnished him an occasion to concoct and bolster up case of the alleged offer of bribe by the appellant to the contesting respondent and in order to prove this allegation the con-testing respondent had no difficulty by enlisting the support not of any independent witness but his own stooges hirelings or friends and supporters. While, therefore, we agree with the finding of the learn-ed Judge that the appellant and the contesting respondent were no doubt present at the Taluk office on February 4, 1972 it by no means follow that the story of the offer of bribe is true on this ground alone. In fact the learned counsel for the appellant also has not disputed the fact that the contesting respondent or the appellant were actually present in the Taluk office on February 4, 1972 at the relevant time-a fact which is proved by independent witnesses and documentary evidence. What the learned J µdge has overlooked is the fact that while it is very easy to make an -allegation of an offer of bribe, it 1s very difficult for the person against whom the allegation is made to rebut the same. The learned Judge also failed to consider that the actual offer alleged to have been made by the appellant to the con-testing respondent has been proved only by the partisan and highly interested testimony of P.Ws. 29 and 33 which was sought to be corroborated by equally interested testimony of P.Ws. 22 and 34, and no attempt was made to examine any independent witness even

though the evidence was that at the B.S.S. Building, apart from P.Ws. 22 and 34 other persons were also present. So far as P.W. 29 is concerned we have shown that he is thoroughly interest-ed witness being close friend of the contesting respondent. P.W. 33 Chinna Bheemanna is also partisan witness. He admits that he was worker of Sultan during the last elections. He further admits at p. 536 of the Paper Book (Vol. III) that he tried to procure the evidence of one Sunkauna for the contesting respondent in this res-pect. The witness deposed thus : "Sultan asked Sunkanna to come and give evidence in this case. Yesterday when I was coming here I approached Sunkanna. But at that time he was not in his house. Then I sent another person to Sunkanna asking him to come to Hyderabad to give evidence." This shows the extent to which the witness could go in order to support the case of the contesting respondent. The witness further admits that he was member of the B.S.S. and therefore colleague of Sultan. It seems to us that the evidence of P.Ws. 16, 29 and 33 regarding the oiler of bribe in the circumstances mentioned by them is inherently improbable. In the first place it would appear from the topography of the spot where the talk between the contesting res-D pondent. and the appellant took place that the place was crowded one and was situated in the heart of the Taluk office surrounded by the District Munsif Court. According to P.W. 16 apart from the District Munsif's Court there were four other offices in that com-pound and that there was crowd near the District Munsif's Court. He also admits that there was canteen in between the Taluk office and the District Munsif's court where people were sitting. Similarly P. W. 29 has admitted that the canteen was situated only at distance of 10 to 15 yards from the place where the talk regarding the offer of bribe took place and that the District Munsif's Court was at some distance from the canteen. He also admits that the litigant public sit under the trees near the Munsif's Court. The distance between the Munsif's Court and the place where Sultan's car was parked would be about 30 to 40 yards. In view of these surroundings it is most unlikely that the appellant would make an offer of bribe to the contesting respondent in such an open and crowded place where he could be exposed bv Sultan at any time. The offer of bribe was un-doubtedly criminal act and the Munsif's Court being near at hand the aopellant would bave faced grave risk in making such an offer. Further more, it appears that the appellant was not fully acquainted with Sultan the contesting respondent though he may have seen him once or twice. No one makes an offer of bribe to sfrangers without knowing their reaction. Further more. it is impossible to believe that even if the offer of the bribe is made it would be made in the presence of the witnesses who were accomoanying Sultan so that the person who makes the offer of bribe would be party to the creation of clear evidence against him. It is absolutelv against the normal and prudent human conduct to make such an offer at crowded place in the presence of the two witnesses who were known to be the suppor-ters of the contesting respondent and persist in making the offer in soitc of the blunt refusal of the same by the contesting respondent. On the other hand the natural conduct of the appellant would have

been to take the contesting respondent to secluded spot where he would not be seen or heard by any body and then make the ofter. In fact P.W. 16 clearly suggests that the appellant had taken him aside but he says that the other witnesses did not part with his company and also came there and yet the appellant did not object to their presence. We find it difficult to believe that the ofter of bribe would be made by the appellant in these circumstances. The learned Judge, however, has tried to draw an artificial distinction bet-ween an ofter of bribe and payment of actual bribe. He seems to think that whereas an ofter of bribe could be made in crowded place in the presence of the witnesses as no money was to be passed, yet when actual payment of bribe was to be made it should have been done in secluded place. This reasoning of the learned Judge is not at all intelligible to us. Under the provisions of s. 123(1) (A) of the Act an ofter of bribe or payment of actual bribe are both electoral offences amounting to corrupt practices which are to be visited with similar consequences. The offences of an offer of bribe or of actual payment of bribe were of the same nature and it cannot be said that one is lesser crime and the other is graver one. Neither the criminal law nor the election statute seek to draw any distinction between an offer of bribe or actual payment of bribe. In these circumstances, therefore, whether it is an ofter of bribe or it is payment of actual bribe, normal human conduct requires jj,at if person intends to commit such an offence he would not do so in crowded place but would try to find out secluded spot so that com-plete secrecy is maintained.

Alljlher important circumstance that makes the story put forward by the witness regarding the offer of bribe absolutely incredible is the absence of any. genesis or occasion for the presence of the wit-nesses at the Taluk office or for that matter for accompanying the contesting respondent Sultan' to the Taluk Office. To begin with we have already indicated that in paragraph-12 of the election petition the main purpose of the visit of the contesting respondent Sultan to the Taluk office was to file his nomination papers. Indeed if this was the purpose of his visit one could have understood the significance of Sultan's asking his supporters accompanying him to the Taluk office because the filing of nomination papers is one of the most important and momentous steps in the electoral process. From the evidence of the witnesses as also that of Sultan the contesting respondent it is clear that Sultan did not at all go to the Taluk Office for the purpose of filing his nomination papers but had only applied for copy of the voters list : For this purpose the presence of P.Ws. 29 and 33 was not at all necessary. Even P.W. 29 says at p. 502 of the Paper Book (Vol. III) that Sultan had told the witness that he was going to the Taluk Office to purchase the voters list. Further more, even though the witnesses accompanied Sultan they do not appear to have given him any worthwhile assistance. Both P.Ws. 29 and 33 cate-gorically state that they did nothing at all at the Taluk Office except sitting in the verandah. P.W. ~9 states as follows :

"We sat in the front verandah of the Taluk Office along with Sultan. With whom Sultan spoke and what he did in the Taluk Office, I do not know."

It would, therefore, be clear from the evidence of this witness that except for sitting in the verandah there was absolutely no occasion for their presence at the Taluk Office, nor there was any ea. thiy reason why Sultan should have taken them to 1'he T:aluk Office except for the fact that he wanted them to witness the offer of bribe. 1'his, ho\vever, could not be possible, becau~·~ there was nothing to show that Sultan knew before hand that he would meet the appe1lant at the Taluk Office and that the appellant would make an ot!er of bribe to him. This circumstance, therefore, which is in some vari-ance from the allegation made in the pleadings smacks of concoc-tion and throws good deal of doubt on the presence of these two witnesses at the Taluk Office. We have already indicated that both P.Ws. 29 and 33 are thoroughly interested witnesses. P.W. 33 apart -from being worker of Sultan is member of the B.S.S. of which the contesting respondent Sultan is the Secretary.

The only other witness so far as the facts in Stage No. II arc concerned is P.W. 16 the contesting respondent himself. P.\V 16 is the most interested witness who also bears serious animus against the appellant. It would appear from his evidence that the appellant held, at the instance of one K. Suryanarayana Reddi, filed complaint against the contesting respondent for cheating and that the contesting respondent had filed petition in the High Court for quashing the investigation in pursuance of the complaint. He further stated that he had also filed criminal complaint against Suryanarayana Reddi in Jhe Magistrate's Court at Gooty and P.Ws. 22 and 29 had been cited as witnesses in that case. Apart from the animus, it would also appear that P.Ws. 22 & 29 are stock witnesses of the contesting respondent to be utilised wherever and whenever necessary. Further more, P.W. 16 narrates an incident at the Travellers Bungalow at Anantapur which happened before the general elections of 1972 in the presence of Challa Subbarayudu, where again the appellant seems to have requested him not to contest the elections. This fact is not mentioned in the election petition at all and it seems to us that it has been concocted for the first time in the evidence of P;W. 16 in order to give credence to his version that the appellant had made an offer of bribe.

Another inherent improbability in the version given by P.W. 16 and P.Ws. 29 & 33 regarding the off~r of bribe is that the appellant himself was aspiring for the Congress ticket and was therefore folly conscious and aware of the influence that the Congress party wielded and the resources it possessed. He was also aware that the contest-ing respondent Sultan was Congress nominee having been granted the Congress ticket by the Central Election Committee and he had, therefore, the support of such big party behind him. Would he, under these circumstances, ever dare to think of making an offer of bribe and that too at crowded place in the presence of the witnesses, of all persons to the contesting respondent and persist in that offer u· even after the same was refused by the contesting respondent. These two circumstances appear to introduce an element of intrinsic infirmitv in the evidence led by the contesting respondent on this point and the story appears to us to be too good to be true.

Another important circumstance that makes the story of the contes-ting respondent on this point improbable and untrue is the fact that the appellant should have made an offer of bribe. as early as Feb-ruary 4, 1972. According to the evidence the last date for filing nomination papers was February 8, 1972 and for withdrawal was Feb-ruary 11, 1972. If the appellant had succeeded in persuading the contesting respondent to accept his .offer and withdraw from the comest, even tnen that would not have served the purpose of the appel-lant because with the resourcefulness that !he Congress party posses-sed it could have set up any other nominee immediately who would have filed the nomination papers by February 8. In these circum-stances if the appellant was really bent upon seeing that no Congress candidate entered the field he would have made the offer of bribe, if any, either 011. February 7, 1972 or February 8, 1972, so that no chance was given to any party to sponsor any other candidate.

Lastly the conduct of the contesting respondent is clear pointer to the incredibility of the version propounded by him and his witnesses on this point. Assuming that the version given by the contesting res-pondent is true, then it was very serious matter so far as the pres-tige of the Congress party was concerned. By offering bribe to Congress nominee the appellant had sought to throw challenge to the party itself. In his election petition P.W. 16 has also mentioned the fact that the appellant had thrown challenge on his refusal that he would be defeated. It would appear from the evidence of P.W. 22 at p. 428 of the Paper Book (Vol. III) that after returning from the Taluk Office and having lunch, the witness, Sultan and Mustafa went to Anantapur. It would appear from paragraph-12 of the election petition that the District Congress Committee office is situated at Anantapur. P.W. 29 also states at p. "500 of the Paper Book (Vol. III) that P.W. 22, Mustafa P.W. 34 and Sultan left for Ananta-pur. P.W. 34 Mustafa also states at P. 548 of the Paper Book (Vol. III) that when the incident about the offer of bribe by the appellant was narrated to him he said that it was monstrous to sell away the Congress ticket. Indeed if this was the feeling· of P.W. 16 and his supporters, then it is impossible to believe that had the offer been made by the appellant at Gooty either Sultan or his supporters would not make complaint of this serious incident to any of the office bearers of the District Congress Committee at Anantapur, particularly when they went to Anantapur soon after the incident from Gooty. The fact that no such report or information was sent to the District Con-gress Committee at Anantapur, or any where else, throws mountain of cloud of suspicion and doubt on the version put forward by the contesting respondent. The learned Judge has noticed some of the improbabilities mentioned above but not all of them and seems to have brushed them aside on trivial grounds and has readily accepted the evidence of the P. Ws merely because there was no major dis-crepancy in the evidence of the witnesses. In our opinion, the app-roach .l!lllde by the learned Judge was riot correct. If the broad pro-babilities and the unusual conduct of the contesting respondent and the witnesses rendered the version presented by them unbelievable or doubtful, then the Court could not refuse to take notice of such l 5-522SCI/76

cjrcumstances. For these reasons, therefore, we find ourselves unable to agree with the learned Judge that the offer of bribe at Gutty Taluk Office as alleged by P.W. 16 and P.Ws. 29 & 33 was made by the appellant to P.W. 16. We therefore disbelieve the facts sought to be proved by the contesting respondent in Stage No. II.

This bring us to the last scene of the drama, namely Stage No. III. According to the contesting respondertt, after the offer made by the appellant to the contesting respondent was refused by him in the 1aluk Office, the contesting respondent along with P.Ws 29 and 33 returned to the B.S.S. Building at Gooty. On return to the B.S.S. Building they found P.Ws. 22 Ramachandraiah and P.W. 34 Mustata there. According to P.Ws 29 and 33 the witnesses were laughing and when they were asked by P.Ws. 22 & 34 they narrated the entire incident which had happened at the Taluk Oflice. According to P.W. 16, however, when he arrived at the B.S.S. Office after his visit to the Taluk Office P.Ws 22 and 34 asked him as to what is the news, and insteaq of replying to them P.Ws 29 & 33 narrated the incident which happened at the Taluk Office, namely, the offer of the bribe. P.Ws 29 & 33 have, however, given slightly different version. But what is most extraordinary in this incident is that whereas in ordinary circumstances we would have expected Sultan the contesting respondent himself who was the hero of the whole show and to whom the offoc of the bribe had been made by the appellant to narrate the facts to his friends P.Ws. 22 and 34, but instead ilf that Sultan remained absolutely silent and P.Ws. 29 & 33 wern assigned the role of doing the talking. This conduct of the contesting respondent is not at all understandable. Again there does not appear to be any good reason why P.W. 22 Ramachandraiah and P.W. 34 Mustafa were left behind and n()t taken to the Taluk Office. According to P.W. 22 he did not go because of ill health. This appears to us to be figment of his imagination. If P.W. 22 in spite of his ill health could come all the way from his house to the B.S.S. office and waited there right frpm morning until the afternoon, there was no reason why he should not have accompanied the contesting respondent to the Taluk Office. P.W. 34 gives lame excuse that he had some work at the Railway station and, therefore, he could not accompany the party to the Taluk Office. It seems to us that as the allegation regarding the offer of bribe was totally untrue one and no indepen-dent witnesses would have been prepared to support this version, the contesting respondent hit upon plan to prove this allegation through his supporters and friends by making two of them to overhear the alleged offer of bribe and the other two namely P.Ws. 22 & 34 to remain at the B.S.S. Office to hear the narration of the said offer and thereby produce corroborative evidence. Otherwise we do not see any earthly reason why P.W. 34 Mustafa who was playing lead-ing part in the drama enacted on February 4, l 972 and who was res-ponsible for getting the programme from the contesting respondent and collecting his other friends at Gooty should not have accompanied the contesting respondent to the Taluk Office in order to help him in getting the forms and stayed away on the lame excuse that . he had some work at the Railway Station. It appears to us that according'

to the evidence of P.W. 16 as also the averments made by him in the election petition P.W. 34 Mustafa was taking very prominent part in the aftairs of the contesting respondent on his return to Hyderabad. It was he who telephoned the contesting respondent, brought his <:ompanions to Gooty, stayed at Gooty and accompanied the contest· ing respondent and others to Anantapur, and yet he did not accompany the contesting respondent to the Taluk Office. It seems to us that P.Ws. 22 & 34 were deliberately made to stay at the B.S.S. Office so as to corroborate the story put forward by P.Ws. 16, 29 and 33 being persons to whom the story was immediately narrated. Apart from this there does not appear to be any object for keeping these two persons at the B.S.S. office. Finally the evidence shows that apart from P. Ws. 22 & 34 there were other persons present at the B.S.S. Office but none of them has been examined to support the version given by P.Ws. 22 & 34. These two witnesses were close friends and supporters of P.W. 16 and their evidence would not inspire any confidence. So. far as P .W. 22 is concerned he admits that he worked for the election of Sultan at Gooty and supported the Congress party. He further admits that he toured various villages with Sultan. He was also the counting agent of Sultan having been appointed by him as per Ext. A-18. He was also au employee of the B.S.S. and bad been appointed by Sultan. Sultan was the Managing Director of Brim Stone Rubber Products Ltd. The witness was partner of the firm which had the sole agency for the products of the aforesaid firm. Apart from that the witness admitted that he was staunch supporter of the Congress. Even the learned Judge has clearly observed that this witness was keenly interested in the future of Sultan and in this connection, while dealing with issue No. 8, the learned Judge observed as follows :

"Because of the great enthusiasm shown by this witnes> (P.W. 22) in the witness-box while giving evidence on be-half of the petitioner, which is still fresh in my mind, I am unable to accept the evidence of this witness as dis-interested evidence."

The learned Judge, however, appears to have readily believed the evjdence of this witness on issue No. 7 forgetting the scathing remarks issue No. 7 forgetting the scathing remarks which he himself had made on the demeanour of this witness with regard to the issue No. 8. Similarly P.W. 34 Mustafa is also an equally interested witness and admits that he worked for the Congress and he had been friend of Sultan for ien years. He also admits that he had worked for Sultan even in the 1962 elections. In these circumstances, we are unable to place any reliance on the evidence of this witness.

In fact if the evidence of P .W s. 16, 29 & 33 is disbeileve do the question of the offer of bribe, then the evidence of P.Ws. 32 & 34 also falls automatically, because if there was no offer of bribe there was nothing to be narrated to these witnesses. Finally, the most important ground on which the evidence of these two witnesses has to be com· pletely excluded is •he fact that P.Ws. 29 & 33 narrated the incident

[1976] 3 S.C.R.

to these two witnesses which is undoubtedly very material particular and it is conspicuous by its complete absence in paragraph-12 of the election petition where the facts on which issue No. 7 was framed have been pleaded. The facts deposed t? by P.Ws. 22 a1!-d 34 a~e not me~e­ly matter of evidence but very important matenal part1cnlar which seeks to corroborate the interested evidence of P.Ws. 16, 29 & 33 and it is difficult to beheve that had this been true the contesting res-pondent would not have cared to mention this fact in his petition. In this connection it may be interesting to note that P.W. 16 has admitted. in his evidence at p. 303 of the Paper Book (Vol. II) that on 15th or 16th of March, 1972 the Returning Officer had suggested to the contest-ing r~spondent to file an e_Jection petition if he was defeated and since then the witness was making enquiries to collect material for filing an election petition. If this was really so and the contesting respondent was careful enough to gather the materials long before he filed his elec-tion petition, it is difficult to comprehend that he would make ne> mention of this important fact in his petition. ·

Lastly the contesting respondent states in his evidence at p. 304 of the Paper Book (Vol. II) that in respect of the threats said to have been administered by the appellant on 5th or 6th of March,· 1972, he had drawn the attention of the police-officer and had contacted the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Guntakal. Indeed if the contesting respon-dent was so vigilant would he not have drawn the attention of any police officer of Gooty to the offer of bribe made by the appellant or the threats or challenge thrown by him to the contesting respondent ?

In view of the improbabilities and the compelling circumstances mentioned above, we are clearly of the opinion that the contesting res-pondent has not been able to prove his allegation regarding the offer of bribe made by the appellant to the contesting respondent at the Taluk Office as_ alleged by him beyond any shadow of doubt. The learned Judge has observed that as against the evidence produced by the con-testing respondent there is bare denial by.the appellant. The learned Judge seems to have laid stress on the words that the appellant alone has denied the allegation and seems to suggest that he has not examined any witnesses in support of thel denial. The learned Judge failed to ap-preciate that according to P.Ws. 16, 29 & 33 there was no one else at the time when the appellant had made the offer of bribe to the contest-ing respondent excepting four persons, namely, P.W. 16 Sultan, P.W. 29 Nabi Saheb, P.W. 33 Chinna Bheemanna and the appellant. The three persons deposed in support of the story of the contesting respon-dent and the appellant was, therefore, left alone whq denied the story completely. It could not be expected of the appellant to ooncoct or pro-cure witnesses when there could be none. As the offer of bribe was an electoral offence amounting to corrupt practice which partakes of quasi-criminal nature, the onus was initially on the contesting respon-dent to prove this fact. As the contesting respondent has failed to prove this fact, he must fail.

Indeed if snch serious and momentous allegations made against snc-cessful candidate are allowed to , be proved by interested and partisan evidence as in the present .case without any corroboration and where

the evidence adduced is highly improbable and unworthy of credence, it would give an easy handle to any defeated candidate to unseat duly elected candidate by collecting evidence of his friends and supporters which will undoubtedly destroy the very sanctity and purity of the elec-toral process. Thus in view of the cumulative effect of the compelling circumstances, the inherent improbabilities the intrinsic infirmities and the unnatural human conduct disclosed by the evidence produced by the contesting respondent leads us to the inescapable conclusion that the contesting respondent has failed to prove the allegation of the offer of bribe which is the subject-matter of issue No. 7 beyond any shadow of <ioubt. Therefore issue No. 7 is decided against the contesting respon-dent and the finding of the learned Judge in favour of the contesting res-pondent on issue No. 7 is set aside.

Tl1is bring us now to the discussion of issues Nos. 26 & 2 7, the only -0ther issues which remain to be decided in the present appeal. Issues Nos. 26 and 27 may be extracted thus :

(26) "Whether the 1st respondent (the appellant) com-mitted corrupt practice under section 123 (3-A) of the Representation of the People Act by issuing pamphlet dated 20-2-1.972 to create ill-feelings among the voters on religious grounds and if so, has it materially affected the result of the election of the petitioner as stated in para 39 of the Election , Petition ?''

(27) "Whether the said persons distributed the pamphlet with the consent of the 1st respondent (the appellant) ?"

The facts comprising issues Nos. 26 & 27 are mentioned in para-·graph-39 of the election petition and relate to two separate and inde-pendent allegations-( 1) the distribution of objectionable pamphlets -0f the nature of Ext. A-1, which contained communal propaganda and sought to persuade the voters to vote on purely communal grounds, personally by the appellant to various persons in various villages; and (2) the distribution of such pamphlets by the workers and agents of the appellant with his consent to number of persons belonging to large number of villages. It would, therefore, be seen that the two types of allegations are essentially different and cannot be said to form one composite allegation. We have adverted to this aspect of the matter because Mr. Basi Reddy for the appellant has vehemently con-tended before us that no foundation has been laid by the contesting ·respondent in his election petition regarding the distribution of the vamphlets by the workers and agents of the appellant as indicated in item (2) supra. It was further contended that this matter does not merely constitute .a material particular of specific fact which should have been mentioned in the petition but is separate item of fact itself and as there is no allegation to this effect in the election petition the same should be excluded from consideration and lhe evidence given by the contesting respondent on this point must be completely ignored. The learned counsel for the contesting respondent, how-ever, sought to repel this argument on the ground that broad con'-truction of the petition filed by the contesting respondent . wonld

clearly show that sufficient foundation has been laid in the petition for these allegations which were later amplified by giving the material particulars after the application for amendment of the petition was made by the contesting respondent before the High Court. In these circumstances we would like to dispose of the contention of the parties on this point before proceeding to the merits of issues Nos. 26 & 27.

In paragraph-39 of the election petition, as it stood before the amendment, the contesting respondent alleged that the appellant had issued pamphlet dated February 20, 1972 in furtherance of his elec-tion prospects and the pamphlet issued was distributed among the voters throughout the Gooty Assembly constituency which caused ill-feelings among the voters on religious grounds. It was further alleged. that by distributing the pamphlet the appellant indulged in creating hatred and ill-feelings among the voters in the constituency and there-fore committed corrupt practice. In order to understand the import of the allegations made in paragraph-39 of the petition it may be necessary to extract the relevant part of it thus :

"39. The petitioner states that /st 1~espondent (the appellant) issued pamphlet dated 20-2-72 for the further-D ance of his election prospects and the pamphlet issued and distributed among the voters throughout the Gooty Assembly Constituency has caused lot of set back and it created ill-feelings among the voters on religious grounds. He criti-cised the Muslim voters on religious and communal Jines. * * * The petitioner received several complaints in the village that the pamphlet issued and distributed by 1st resp0n-E dent has caused feelings of enmity, hatred between Hindus and Muslims and this has created dish;irmony among the voters. • * * The pamphlet issued and distributed' by the /st respondent is herewith enclosed as annexure No. 5."

We have underlined the portions on which we propose to lay parti-cular emphasis .. It would be seen from the perusal of the allegations made in paragraph-39 extracted above that there is absolutely no avermcnt that the pamphlet issued by the appellant was distributed by the agents, workers or supporters or friends of the appellant. The only fact averred in paragraph-39 of the petition is that the pamphlet in question was distributed by the appellant alone. This fact is clearly evident from the portions extracted and underlined by us. In these circumstances it was rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no pleading at all by the contesting res-pondent that the pamphlet was distributed by his agents, workers or supporters and therefore the particulars supplied by the contesting respondent in his application for amendment on this point must be completely disregarded. In order to appreciate this contention it may be necessary to examine the concerned provisions of the Act. Section 81 of the Act clearly provides that the election petition shall be lilecl within forty-five days from the date of election of the returned candi-date and runs thus :

"81. (I) An election petition calling in question any elec-A tion may be presented on one or more of the grounds speci-f fied 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 or their election are different, the later of those two dates." lt is obvious, therefore, that any allegation of corrupt practk~ which which is not made in the election petition filed within the time allowed by the statute cannot be allowed by way of an amendment under s. by way of an amendment under s. way of an amendment under s. s. 86(5) of the of the Act, because that would amount to extending the period of limitation fixed Power of amendment of the election

lt is obvious, therefore, that any allegation of corrupt practk~ which which is not made in the election petition filed within the time allowed by the statute cannot be allowed by way of an amendment under s. by way of an amendment under s. way of an amendment under s. s. 86(5) of the of the Act, because that would amount to extending the period of limitation p.;remptorily fixed by the Act. Power of amendment of the election petition as contained. in s. 86 ( 5) of the Act is clearly confined to allowing the particulars of any corrupt practice which has been set out and clearly alleged and specified in the election petition. Sub-section (5) of s. 86 of the Act runs thus:

"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 fair and effective trial of the petition, but shall not allow any amendment of the petition which "ill have the e!fect of introducing particulars of corrupt prac-tice not previously alleged in the petition". lt would be seen that the ambit of this statutory provision is extre-+ mely narrow so that the power of amendment or amplification is res-tricted only to amplify the material particulars of any corrupt practice which had been previously alleged in the election petition. In other words, the sub-section requires three essential conditions to he fn !-filled before an amendment could be allowed-( 1) that the amendment seeks merely to amplify the particulars of corrupt practke; (2) that the corrupt practice whose particulars are to be given must have l:'een previously alleged in the election petition itself; and (3) that the amendment is, in the opinion of the Court, necessary ior ensuring fair and effective trial of the petition. Thus the three conditions men-tioned above are the sine qua non for the exercise of the power by · the court under sub-s. (5) of s. 86 of the Act. It is, therefore, mani-fest that the Court has no power to allow the amendment by permitt-G ing the election petitioner to amplify material particular of corrupt practice which is not specifically pleaded in the election petition itself for that would amount to introducing new corrupt practice after the expiry of the period of limitation-a result which was never envi-saged or contemplated by the statute. This matter fell [or determina-tion of this Court in Samant N. Balakrishna etc. v. Georf!e Fernandez ' and others etc.,([1]) where Hidayatullah, C.J., speaking for the Court observed as follows : -• (I) [1969J3 S.C.R. 633.

"The power . of .amendment is given in respect of parti-culars but there is prohibition against an amendment which will have the effect of introducing particulars of corrupt practice not previously alleged in the petition. One alleges the corrupt practice in the material facts and they must show complete cause of action. If petitioner has omitted to allege corrupt practice he cannot be pennit-B ted to give particulars of the corrupt practice. * * * * In the scheme of election law they are separate corrupt practices which cannot be said io grow out of the material facts related to another person. Publication of false state-ments by an agent is one cause of action, publication of false statements by the candidate is quite different cause of action. Such cause of action must be alleged in the matec rial facts before particulars may be given. One cannot under the cover of particulars of one corrupt practice give parti-culars of new corrupt practice. They constitute different causes of action.

Since single corrupt practice committed by the candi-date, by his election agent or by another 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 it has not been pleaded as part of the material facts, particulars of such corrupt practice cannot be supplied later on. * * * *

If the material facts of the corrupt practice are stated more or better particulars of the charge may be given later but where the material facts themselves are missing it is im-possible to think that the charge has been made or can be later amplified. This is tantamount to the making of fresh petition."

In our opinion the facts of the present case and the nature of the averment contained in the election petition filed by the contesting res-pondent is clearly covered by the ratio of the decision cited above. It may be pertinent to note that in this case also the question is whether publication of false statements was by the candidate himself or by his agents and since what has been pleaded is only the distribution of the pamphlet by the appellant/candidate alone and not by his agents or workers with his consent, the Court had no jurisdiction to allow parti-G culars to be giveu with respect to the fact that the pamphlet was distri-buted by the agents and supporters of the appellant to various persons in various villages as given in the schedule. The learned counsel for the contesting respondent conceded the central weakness in this. part of the case but he tried to persuade us to hold that the words "pamph-let issued and distributed among the voters throughout the Gooty Assembly Constituency" tend to include not merely the distribution of the pamphlet by the appellant himself but also by his agents and wor-H kers; We are, however, unable to agree with this contention because reading the averments contained in paragraph-39 as whole, how-ever broadly or liberally the same may be construed, the irresistible

inference is that the contesting respondent has laid special stress on the fact of distribution of the pamphlet by the appellant alone. At least at three places underlined by us in the extracted portion of the pleadings of the contesting respondent he has over-emphasized the fact that the distribution of the pamphlet was made by the appellant him-self. Wherevei:. the averment of distribution of the pamphlet is made in the election petition it is said that the same was done by the 1st respondent before the High Court, namely the appellant. In these circumstances, therefore, we are not in position to agree with the interpretation sought to be placed by Mr. Shiv Shankar learned coun-sel for the contesting respondent on the pleadings of the contesting respondent which in fact is not borne out by the allegations mentioned in paragraph-39 as extracted above. The learned counsel for the con-testing respondent with fairness and ingenuity did not pursue the matter further and submitted that if his contention regarding the wider interpretation which he sought to put is not accepted, then he would concede that th.e amendment in respect of issue No. 27 should not have been allowed and the particulars mentioned by the contesting r~spondent on this item must be disregarded and the evidence given by the contesting respondent should be excluded from consideration. It appears, however, that as the attention of the learned Judge does not appear to have been drawn to this aspect of the matter he· allowed the amendment as also the evidence on issue No. 27 and ~!so proceed-ed to give.his finding thereon. As, however, this is pure question of law and amounts to violation of the statutory mandate contained in s. 86 (5) of the Act, this Court has to give effect to the violation of the statutory provision. For those reasons, therefore, we hold that there is no pleading by the contesting respondent that the pamphlet was distributed by the agents or workers of the appellant with his con-sent to various persons. The order of the High Court, therefore, along with the particulars given by the contesting respondent in item !A in the schedute to the application for amendment is set aside and the said amendment is deleted from the election petition. As legal con-sequence thereof the evidence given by the contesting respondent on issue No. 27 has to be excluded from consideration and the finding of the learned Judge on issue No. 27 is hereby set aside and issue No. 27 is deleted. This disposes of the finding of the High Court so far as issue No. 27 is concerned.

Before dealing with the facts comprising issue No. 26 it may b0 necessary to mention few circumstances which may be extremely relevant for examining the probative value of the case of the contesting re;;pondent on this issue. The election petition was filed before the High Court on April 20, 1972 i.e. about month and few days after the results of the election were announced. The contesting respondent has clearly admitted in his evidence at p. 303 of the Paper Book (Vol. II) that as far back as March 15, 1972 he had started making enaui-ries and coll~cting materials for filing the election petition. The witness stated thus :

"All this talk metween Ravindra Choudhary and myself took place at about 3-00 P.M. at the Gutti Bus-Stand on 15th or 16th· of March 1972. It was on the very day when the

Returning Officer suggested to me on phone to file an Elec-tion Petition that that idea entered into my mind to file an Election Petition in case I was defeated. Since then I was making enquiries to get material for filing an election petition. Whenever I used to get any information regarding the elec-tions, I used 'to go to those places to make enquiry." ·ro begin with, therefore, the contesting respondent had started mak-ing full and frantic preparations for filing election petition month before he filed the same. In these ,circumstances it can be safely presumed that before filing the election petition the contesting respon-dent must have collected all the materials which enabled him to give the necessary details and material particulars of the corrupt practices which he sought to allege against the appellant and which formed the bedrock of his case. Against this background therefore we shuuld have expected the contesting respondent to mention not only the corrupt practices committed by the appellant but also to give various particulars thereof without taking recourse to the necessity of having to amplify the particulars by virtue of an amendment and that too when reminded of the same by the appellant himself. So far as the aliegations in paragraph-39 are concerned it would appear that prior lo the amendment no particulars or deta:b of distribution of the pam-phlet had been mentioned by the contesting respondent at all. All that was said was that the appellant had distributed the pamphlet of communal nature in order to incite communal feelings between the Hindus and the Muslims. It was not stated to whom the pamphlets were distributed by the appellant and on what dates were the pamphlets distributed by the appellant, to the villagers. Neither the names of the villages nor of the persons to whom they were distributed were mentioned. In fact when we deal with the evidence on this point it would appear that before' filing the election petition the contesting res-pondent had been fully apprised of the fact that the pamphlets had been distributed to various persons in various villages and yet he failed to give any further particulars in the election petition. Continning the historical background of the election petition the position is that two <lays after the election petition was filed the High Court closed for vacation on April 22, 1972 and re-opened on June 10, 1972. Even after the re-opening no attempt was made by the contesting respondent to file an application for amendment nor to amplify the material parti-culars of the corrupt practices which he alleged in paragraph-39 of lhe petition. Strangely enough it was the appellant who filed an appEca-G -tion on July 27, 1972, i.e. after about month and half later, where-in he prayed to the Court that the contesting respondent may be direct-ed to file better particulars of the corrupt practice alleged by him. Even after the contesting respondent was rem;nded by the appellant through his application the contesting respondent took full one month to file his application for amendment which was subsequently allowed by the Court. By virtue of the amendment the only pa~t;culars .that the contesting respondent gave were the names of the villages given in schedule where the appellant distributed the pamphlet and the dates on which the pamphlet was distributed. In spite of having been given full and complete opportunity to disclose the essential details

·i'-. <

and the material particulars of the distribution of the pamphlet by the appellant, the contesting respondent did not mention the name of single person to whom the pamphlet had been distributed. by the appellant, whereas the evidence led by him shows that some of the individuals to whom the pamphlet is alleged to have been given by the appellant had actually informed the contesting respondent of this fact well before the election petition was filed and quite few months before the amendment was asked for. This belated conduct on the part of the contesting respondent speaks volumes against the credibility of the material particulars which appear to have been given by him t?rough the amendment.

The learned Judge in approaching the veracity of the witnesses produced by the contesting respondent on this point has attached great importance to those witnesses who have themselves produced the pamphlet Ext. A-1 and seems to be of the opinion that but for the evidence of such witnesses; the evidence of other witnesses who gene-rally spoke about the pamphlet having been given to them by the appellant should not be accepted. We are, however, of the opinion, that the approach made by the learned Judge on this aspect of the matter is not legally sound. The basic fact which had to be deter-mined was whether the pamphlet was in existence before or during the elections, because there was no dispute that the pamphlet was un-doubtedly printed somewhere. If the test applied by the learned Judge was that the pamphlet should be produced by the witnesses to whom the same was given it would be very easy for the contesting respondent to hand over the pamphlet to the witnesses before they came to depose before the Court and ask them to produce the same in the Court. This sort of computerised approach cannot be safe criterion for determining the truth of the allegation that the pamphlet was actually distributed by the appellant to the witnesses con~erned.

Before going to the evidence, we would like to discuss the law on the subject. Distribution of an objectionable pamphlet is undoubted-ly corrupt practice within the meaning of sub-s. (4) of s. 123 of the Act which runs thus :

" ( 4). The publication by candidate or his agent or by any other person, with the consent of 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 relatio!1 to th~ personal character or conduct of any candidate, or m relation to the candidature or withdrawal of ~nv. candidate, being statement reasonably calculated td preiud1ce the prospects of that candidate's election."

In fact on the allegations of the contesting respondent publication ot the pamphlet containing communal propaganda would' also attract s_ub-s. (3A) of s. 123 of the Act. The allegation of publishing an objec-tionable pamp?Iet ~s indeed very easy to make bnt very difficult to rebut. At the sam~ l!!Ile 1t puts the Court on the strictest possible scrutiny because .obiecbonable pamphlet can be printed by any body in any Press with utmost secrecy and if corrupt practice can be sought to

be proved merely by publication of pamphlet then it will amount to giving free licence to any .defeated candidate to get an objectioo.able pamphlet published and circulated to his supporters and to make them say that such pamphlet was printed or pubhshed or crrculated by the successful candidate. In these circumstances, therefore, the Court frowns on the evidence regarding the publication of the pamphlet which comes from tainted or interested sources. In Baburao Bagaji Kare-B more and others v. Govind & others(') this Court laid down certain tests to judge the evidence regarding the publication or distribution oi ob1ectionab!e pamphlet and observed as follows : "It appears to us that when an election of successful candidate is challenged, particularly on ground of corrupt practice, 1t is not unknown that attempts are made to manu· facture or bring into being subsequent to the declaration of the result, documents or other material, which could be used for unseating successful candidate. At any rate, when any impugned document is hotly contested on that ground and it is the case of the respondent that it was brought into existence subsequently, the onus on the petitioner who chal-lenges the election on that ground is all the more heavy." In the instant case the appellant has emphatically denied the publica-tion of the pamphlet of the nature of Ext. A-1 or the distribution of the same to any body. Thus both the publication of the pamphlet and distribution thereof appears to be hotly contested by the appellant in this case. In these circumstances, therefore, it was the bounden duty of the contesting respondent on whom lay the initial onus to prove that the pamphlet was published and distributed by the appellant. There is absolutely no direct evidence to prove that the pamphlet concerned was in fact pnblished, printed or caused · to be published or printed through any agency of the appellant. On the other hand there is evidence to show that the contesting respondent has press of his own and the possibility that he might himself have got the p~mpblet printed with view to set at naught the election of the appellant cannot be reasonably excluded. The High Court seems to think that as the pamphlet contained communal propaganda and incited the Hindus against the Muslims the same could not be printed by the contesting respondent who was Muslim himself. This argu-ment fails to consider that if an unsuccessful candidate, whatever be his caste or creed, files an election petition with the avowed cbject of unseating the successful candidate he generally stoops to all devices in order to show that the successful candidate was guilty of such corrupt practices which may lead the Court to unseat him. If an unsuccessful candidate is motivated by this consideration, the religion or caste to which he belongs is wholly irrelevant for the purpose which is sought to be achieved. We do not mean to suggest for moment that the pamphlet in yuestion was in fact printed or published by the contest-ing respondent but if the contesting respondent wanted to print such pamphlet there was nothing to stop him from doing that since he had press of his own and as be was the owner of the press the matter

(0[1947! 3 c.c. 719.

could have been kept absolutely secret. On the other hand there no evidence to show that the .appellant owned any press at all.

On the other hand there is

The dominant fact in such case which had to be proved was whether the pamphlet had come into existence either before or during the elections. Unless we believe the evidence of the witnesses pro. duced by the contesting respondent on this point in toto it will be difficult to hold that the pamphlet was published or distributed by the appellant. The appellant has produced respectable witnesses to show that if such an objectionable pamphlet as Ext. A-1 had been published and circulated, the witnesses would have known about it. In other words, the appellant sought to prove the negative aspect of the exis-tence of the pamphlet and that is all that he could have d()ne. The learned Judge appears to have brushed aside the evidence of these witnesses merely on the ground that their evidence does not exclude the possibility of there being pamphlet like Ext. A-1 which was not brought to their notice. Indeed if this artificial approach is made to the evidence of such nature, then it would be asking the successful candi-date to prove the impossible. We shall, however, advert to this aspect of the matter when we deal with the evidence produced by the appel-lant on this point.

With this preface we shall now proceed to consider the evidence produced by the contesting respondent in proof of issue No. 26. By virtue of the application for amendment filed by the contesting respon-dent and allowed by the Court schedule has been annexed giving the names of the villages and the dates of distribution of the pamphlet which mentions as many as 26 villages but at the trial the contesting respondent had adduced evidence only to show that the pamphlet was distributed by the appellant to various persons on various dates at four places, namely, Gooty, Yadiki, Gundala and Guntakal. There were some other villages mentioned where the workers of the appel-lant are alleged to have distributed the pamphlet but that has to be ignored in view of our finding on issue No. 27. The evidence adduced by the parties on this question may be reduced in the form of the following chart. In this chart the witnesses examined by the peti-tioner/contesting respondent are for short referred to as "P.Ws." and the witnesses examined by the appellant as "R.Ws.".

Before taking up the evidence of the parties Jed on the allegations regarding the di5tribution of pamphlet by the appellant personally it may be necessary to set out few important principles in the light of which the evidence has to be appreciated. In the first place it may be necessary to extract the relevant portions of the pamphlet itself to show the offensive and objectionable nature of the same with view to find out whether person like the appellant could go to the extent of publishing such clumsy pamphlet, which runs thus : "Everywhere Muslims are given importance by the con-gress and the Congress is ruining the future of Hindus. In every election Muslims always vote for Muslim candidate. When that is the case, what is there wrong if all Hindus vote for me who is Hindu candidate ? Muslims have com-c mitted many atrocities and still the Congress is giving im-portance to the Muslims. For example, Mr. Baraktullah Khan is made Chief Minister in Rajasthan and Mr. Mohd. Ismail who is not well known in Andhra Pradesh is made the President of the Congress in the State. * * * In Hyderabad Muslims are given too much importance. The said Ismail in order to give representation and impor-tance to his Mnslim religion, has given in our State nearly 20 seats to Muslims. This is an act of axe to the Hindus. Is it not atrocities of Pakistan, horrible incidents of Bangla Dcsb, murders of Navakhali an insult to the Hindu race and religion for e\[1]er ?"

perusal of the recitals of the pamphlet would clearly reveal the fact that it is couched in most offensive language which is bound not only to hurt and injure the sentiments of the Muslims of the consti-tuency but has also the· effect of inciting one communf!y towards another on purely communal grounds. The allegations made in the pamphlet are sufficient to alienate not oniy the sympathy of the Muslim community completely but also of large number of Hindus who have secular outlook which is the very fundamental feature of our Constitutional set-up. In the first place the evidence led by both the parties clearly disclosed that there was considerable section of Muslim population whose votes could not have been ignored or over-looked by_ any candidate who really wanted to succeed. The first premise to start with, therefore, is whether the appellant could have taken the risk of offending the entire Muslim community and sizable section of the Hindus also by publishing and circulating the pamphlet in question. Secondly, the language of the pamphlet is so strong and conspicuous that it is difficult to believe that the Government officers who were posted on duty in order to prevent any communal propa-ganda by the candidates would have misJed or failed to notice the pamphlet Ext. A-1 if in fact it was published and widely circulated in many villages. Thirdly, we must not forget that the appellant had been declared elected and by succeeding in the election there was strong and compeIJing motive on the part of the unsuccessful candidate to reverse the election of the appellant by any possible means.

Finally, if the pamphlet like Ext. A-1 was really distributed and cir-culated and the contesting respondent had come to know about the same, it is not at all probable to believe that he would have failed to give the names 9f the persons from whom he got the knowledge of the pamphlet in the material particulars which he has set out in support of his allegations in paragraph-39 of the ~l~d1on petition. It is against the background of these admitted facts that we now come to the evidence led by the parties.

So far as the v:'llage Gooty is concerned the contesting respondent has examined only two witnesses to prove that the pamphlet Ext. -l was distributed by the appellant personally. These two witnesses arc P.Ws. 21 & 22. The evidence of P.W. 21 need not detain us because the learned Judge has disbelieved the evidence of this witness and h~s observed as follows : "In my opinion, the evidence of Kulleyappa (P.W. 21) is not trustworthy. I do not, therefore, consider it proper to rely upon the evidence of this witness. I, accordingly reject it."

After having gone through the evidence of this witness, we find our-selves in complete agreement with the opinion of the learned Judge as disclosed above. The only other witness who remains is P.W. 22, who, as we have already pointed out while dealing with the allegation of bribery, is the most interested witness and staunch supporter of the contesting respondent. .Even the learned Judge has commented adver-sely on the interested nature of the evidence of this witness as indicated by us in our judgment while dealing with issue No. 7. It woulJ appear that P.W. 22 was not only supporter of the Congress and of the contesting respondent but was also employed by Sultan in the B.S.S. He acted as the counting agent of Sultan and was partner in firm wilich was the sole agent on Brim Stone Rubber Products company belonging to Sultan. The learned Judge while dealing with the evi-dence of this witness even on this point has clearlv observed that he was prepared to fill in all the missing links in the case put forward bv the contesting respondent. In this connection the learned fodge observed as follows :

"This witness has, no doubt, tried to plug in the loop-holes, or come to the aid of the petitioner, Sultan, whenever there was none to offer the missing links in the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner. Y. Ramachaodraiah was also business partner and an employee of the B.S.S. (Bharat Sevak Samaj). Those facts, in my opinion, show that he is an interested witness."

Having made these comments, the learned Judge has still accepted the evidence of this witness. This would have been sufficient to dislodge the evidence of this witness completely. But even on its intrinsic merits the evidence of this witness does not inspire confidence. To begin with, the witness admits that the appellant had come to his house ~t 8 AM. on Sunday February 27, 1972 and requested him to help the appellant. In the first place it is difficult to believe that the

appellant would of all persons try to enlist the help of P.W. 22 know-ing fully well that he was an old friend and staunch supporter and close and intimate friend of the contesting respondent. P.W. 22 narrates most interesting and incredible story. According to him ' when the appellant went to him and asked for his support the, witness refused and despite his refusal the appellant was foolish enough to give him the pamphlet Ext. A-1 although the witness told him clearly that he was supporting the Congress and that he was an important person of Gooty and, therefore, it was not good for him to ask for the witness's support. Thereafter the appellant is said to have made communal appeai to the witness more or less on the same lines as mentioned in the pamphlet. Thereafter the witness gave sermon to the appellant and advised him not to seek votes on the basis of reli-c gion and caste. Even after all this happened, the appellant is said to have given the pamph,let to the witness. This story appears to us to be wholly improbable and against normal human conduct. Thus, in these circumstances the appellant would not have handed over the best evidence against him to his enemies, namely the pamphlet, knowing fully well that he was staunch supporter of the contesting respon-dent. Lastly the witness states thus :

"On that evening I went to Guntakal, met Sultan and narrated to him what all had transpired between Venkata-reddy and myself. I also showed to Sultan the pamphlet that was given to me by Venkatareddy. I read the pam-phlet carefully and I gave that pamphlet to Sultan."

Indeed if what witness stated was true and the contesting respondent was apprised of the entire story on the evening of February 27, 1972 i.e. about two months before the election petition was filed, would he have failed to mention the name of P.W. 22 and the story reyealed by him in the allegations made in paragrapb-39 of the petition regarding the dis-tribution of the pamphlet ? Even if he had failed to do that, would the contesting respondent not have at least mentioned the name of the wit-ness as also the details narrated by him in the material particulars in support of the allegations in paragraph-39 which were inserted by vir-tue of the application for amendment ? All these facts are completely absent from the averments made in paragraph-39 either before or after the amendment. All this shows that the witness has deposed to cock and bull story which cannot be believed for moment. For these rea-sons, therefore, we are not at all impressed with the evidence of P.W. 22 and we reject the same. P.W. 21 having been disbelieved by the Court below and P.W. 22 by ns there is absolutely no evidence left to prove the allegation that the pamphlet Ext. A-1 was distributed by the appel-lant personally in the village Gooty. Thus the contesting respondent initially fa.iled to discharge the onus which lay on him to prove the distribution of the pamphlet by the appellant to P.Ws. 21 and 22.In the above view of the matter it may not have been necessary to deal with the evidence led by the appellant which is more or less of negative character. Nevertheless we would only refer to the evidence of four respectable witnesses who have been examined by the appellant which throws flood of light on the question.

R.W. 2 was sub-Inspector of Police at Gooty and states that he h~d accompanied the procession taken out by the appellant. H~ categori-cally states that no pamphlet like Ext. A-1 was .d1~tnbut~d. Ihe v:1tness had made arrangements for the process10n and 1t 1s obvious that 1f any pamphlet like Ext. A-1 had been distributed, the same would have come to his notice. The witness further deposes that many pamphlets were distributed by various contestin[l candidates and all the pamphlets com-ing to his notice were sent to the Superintende~t of Police. 1 he learned J udoe has wmmented on the fact that the witness did not keep an acc;unt of the pamphlets distributed nor were the same called for from the office of the Superintendent of Police to whom they were forwarded. When the witness has categorically stated that no pamphlet like Ext. A-1 ever came to his notice, though he would have come to know of the same because he was making all the arrangements in the procession and was in charge of the election duty, that fact itself lends indirect sup-port to lhe case of the appellant that no such pamphlet was e1er distri-buted. We do not mean to suggest that the evidence of this witness is conclusive but it is an important circumstantial evidence to support the case of the appellant particularly when the contesting respondent has not adduced satisfactory evidence to prove his plea.

R.W. 15 is certified clerk of Shri Kona Venkala Reduy, Advocate of Gooty and was worke_r of the appellant. This witness states that procession was taken out at Gooty in which the appellant had merely asked the public to vote for the Cycle symbol and that the witness along. with others had taken part in the procession. The witness denied that any pamphlet like Ext. A-1 was distributed to any body in the proces-sion. He has been subjected to searching cross-examination but noth-ing of much importance has been elicited. It is true that the witness has denied the knowledge of other pamphlets like A-70 to A-78 but that by itself is not sufficient to throw out his evidence.

The_ next witness is R.W. 22 who is an Advocate practising at Gooty smce 1921. He appears to be respectable witness and does not bear any an~mus against the contesting respondent. He has, however, frankly ~dm1tted that ~e was. working for the appellant and had parti-cipated. m the process10n wluch was taken out at Gooty. The witness categoncally states that the pamphlet like Ext. A-1 was not distributed either during the procession or later on or at any time. Although the witness was no doubt supporter of the appellant, but being an Advo-~ate h.e is ~ respectable witness and there must be strong reasons to rc-1ect his ev~d~nce. In cr<?ss-exami'!ation nothing much of importance has been CHC1ted. The witness demed the suggestion that he was in anv way related to the appellant. ~

;he last witn:ss on this point is R.W. 24 who was Special Branch He1[aacon~table ][with. ][h~adq_ua'.1e~s ][~t. ][Gooty. ]A~cording to him Gooty PoJce Circle. was withm his 1unsd1ct1on. The witness has categorically stated that his duty w~s. to cover P?litical activities, agitations, move-ment~ and s~cret enqumes. The witness further emphasised the fact that 11 was his ~uty to ~oll~t any pamphlets: which related to political matte:s or contamed ob1ect10nable language and pass on the same to his sup.enor officers. The witness was shown Ext. A-! and he has cate gonca!Jy stated that no such pamphlet ever came to his notice either !6-L522SCl/76

during the election or afterwards, nor did any pamphlet distributed i11 Gooty by any candidate come to his notice. This witness is undoub-tedly an independent one and was not at all interested in any particular candidate. 1 he only comment against this witness was that he has not produced the daily reports about the existence of the pamphlet. It is obvious that it no such pamphlet came to his notice there was no oc-casion for mentioning the same in his report. The other comment made by the learned Judge was that although he had forwarded the pamphle\s to his superior oflicers, no attempt was made by the appellant to call for the record from the superior officers. That fact would not by itself falsify the evidence of this witness. We have already observed that the language of the pamphlet was so offensive and hurting that if such pamphlet would have been in circulation, it would be impossible to be-lieve that an olTicer like R.W. 24 who was deputed expressly for the purpose of finding out such pamphlets would not have been able to notice the same or would have missed the pamphlet if the same was distributed in Gooty. This circumstance, therefore, lends support to the case of the appellant that 1io such pamphlet was ever distributed by the appellant in Gooty and reinforces the case of the appellant particu-larly when we have seen that the two witnesses examined by the con-testing respondent in support of his case have been disbelieved as un-worthy of credence.

Thi~ brings us to the other limb of the corrupt practice alleged by the contesting respondent regarding distribution of the pamphlet by the appellant in village Yadiki. The evidence led by the contesting respon-den: io composite one consisting of the witnesses who speak not only about distribution of the pamphlet by the appellant alone but also by his workers. We have already indicated above that due to want of pro-per pleadings the allegations about the pamphlet having been distributed by , the appellant through his workers, agents, supporters and friends has to be completely excluded from consideration. In these circum-stances we would only confine our assessment to that part of the evidence led by the parties which relates to the question of distribu-tion of the pamphlet by the appellant personally.

The contesting respondent has examined P.Ws. 27, 28, 35 and 37 to prove-( 1) that procession was taken out by the appellant in Yadiki on February 28, 1972; and (2) that the appellant personally distributed the pamphlet to various persons in the course of the procession, So far as the appellant is concerned he has denied that he ever took out any procession in Yadiki on February 28, 1972. It was further narrated that February 28, 1972 being Monday was "Shandy Day" on which the village market fair was held and it was, therefore, not possible to take out procession on that day. Appel-lant's further case was that he had merely gone from house to house in the village in order to solicit votes for him. This is undoubtedly permissible under the election law. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the evidence led by the contesting respondent on this point, it is not necessary for us to enter into an arena of controversy regarding the question whether or not the appellant took out procession. Assuming that he did, the sole question is whether the appellant per-sonally distributed any pamphlet to any body at Yadiki on February

28, 1972 as alleged by the contesting respondent. The evidence of PWs. 27 & 28 is almost identical because both of them al!eged to be paid workers of the appellant had participated in the procession and saw the appellant distributing the pamphlet. The appellant however, seriously disputed the fact that these witnesses had ever been hired or engaged by him for doing his election work. On the question of the issue relating to the expenses incurred by the appellant, the learned Judge clearly found that it was not proved that P.Ws. 27 & 28 had been appointed by the appellant. Even, while considering the evidence of these two witnesses on this point, the learned Judge observed thus :

"Since there were discrepancies in the matter of talking of the terms and the place where they were talked over, and the person before whom such terms were talked over, I held that it was unsafe to include the salaries of those persons in the return of election expenses filed by Venkata-redJy, i.e. Ext. A-98. Though P.W. 27 and P.W. 28 did not prove that they were appointed by the 1st respondent, D. Vankatareddy, for the purposes of writing on the walJs of various villages on behalf of respondent No. !."

The learned Judge, however, chose to act on the evidence of these witnesses because according to him P.Ws. 35 & 37 had corroborated the evidence of these witnesses. We will deal with the evidence of P. Ws. 35 & 37 little later, but the fact remains that as the appel-lant has emphatically denied having ever appointed these witnesses as his workers, and the Judge having himself held that this fact was not proved, it was not open to the learned Judge to have still specu-lated that they might have been the workers of the appellant. Thus there can be only two possibilities : either these two witnesses were not employed by the appellant at all in which case there would be absolutely no occasion for their presence in the procession, which according to them was only in their capacity of being workers of the appellant. If this is so then the entire evidence of these witnesses falls to the ground. Assuming, however, that they worked for the appellant, then their evidence appears to be of turn-coat type which is interested and tained and cannot be acted upon without corrobora-tion. While commenting upon the credibility of turn-coat witness this Court in Rahim Khan v. Khurshil Ahmed and others(') observed as follows:

"But more curious is the turn-coat type of witnesses who claimed to be and often were the polling agents or workers of the appellant till the election was over, but, in the post-election period when the Respondent No. l's party had formed Government, quietly shifted their loyalty and 11ave evidence in proof of the averments in the petition. It is conceivable that these persons who had collaborated with the appellant in the malpractices alleged were posses-sed of the urge to unburden their bosoms of the truth of their own evil-doing .and hurried into the witness box to swear veraciously to what took place actually. But the

(l) [1974] 2 s.c.c. 660.

more probable explanation would be that these swivel-chair witnesses with India-rubber consciences came under the infinence of Respondent No. 1 for invisible consideration and spoke dubiously in support of their present patron."

Moreover it seems to us that even on its intrinsic merits the evidence of these two witnesses does not inspire confidence. They have only in general way stated. that they had participated in the procession and that the pamphlet Ext. A-1 was distributed by the appellant and number of other persons. They did not give any details as to whom the pamphlets were distributed and at what place. So far as P.W. 27 is concerned he admits that he is an illiterate person and identifies the • pamphlet only by colour and by alphabets. This is, however, very unconvincing identification and it is not safe to act on the same. P. W. 27 further admits that 8 or 10 clays after the election Sultan had come over to the house of Radhakrishna who had sent for both the P.Ws. 27 & 28 and they were asked to give evidence regarding the work they had clone for the appellant. The witness further stated that he accepted the offer and wrote clown something on the paper. He also admits that Radhakrishna had helped Sultan the contesting respondent in the elections. It is, therefore, clear that both P.Ws. 27 & 28 were procured by P.W. 35 Radhakrishna who was supporter of the contesting respondent in the election. The witness (P.W. 27) had voluntarily worked for the appellant and appears to have readily accepted the offer of the contesting respondent to depose for him against the appellant without having any sense of decorum or decency and appears to have transferred his loyalty to the contesting respon-dent. In these circumstances, the evidence of P.W. 27 is not worthy of credence. The evidence of P.W. 28 also suffers from the same infirmity as that of P.W. 27. Apart from that the evidence of P.W. 28 does not appear to be reliable, because he admits that he was brought to Hyderabad for giving evidence and stayed there for 10 days. He further admits that Sultan the contesting respondent was meeting his expenses. In these circumstances, therefore, it is clear that the witness was fully tutored and then brought to give evidence for the contesting respondent. In these circumstances w~ do not choose to place any reliance on the evidence of P.Ws. 27 & 28. The next witness on the· point is P.W. 35 who is undoubtedly an interested witness inasmuch he is supporter of Sultan who had worked for him in the election and was also his polling and counting agent. This witness states. that procession was taken out by the appellant at Yadiki on February 28, 1972 which was headed by drummers followed by band set. He says in general manner that the appellant and his workers were distributing the pamphlets. He identifies Ext. A-1 as pamphlet given to him. But in cross-examina-tion at P. 561 of the Paper Book (Vol. III) he clearly admits that the pamphlet was given to him by worker of the appellant Venkata. Reddy and not by Venkata Reddy himself. As the evidence regard-ing distribution of the pamphlet by the workers has to be excluded from consideration his evidence clearly shows that the appellant him-self did not give any pamphlet to him. Thus his evidence does not appear to be of any assistance to the contesting respon-dent and we fail to understand how the learned Judge has read the

Btatement of this witness as corroborating the evidenc,.· 1 P.Ws. 27 .and 28 which is the sole ground on which the evidenc. of this wit-ness has been accepted by the learned Judge. It seems to us that the learned Judge has completely overlooked the important admis-sion made by P.W. 35 in his evidence which shatters the case of the contesting respondent regarding distribution of the pamphlet by the appellant to this witness.

The last witness on the point is P.W. 37. He is also an inter-ested witness and bears an animus against the appellant inasmuch as he is said to have filed complaint against the appellant who is alleged to have beaten him· during the election. It appears that the police did not register any case on the basis of his complaint and according to the witness the matter is still pending in revision. The witness further deposes that he knew the appellant since about 20 to 25 years although he gives his age as only 28 years. This de-monstrates the utter falsity of his statement. He further admits that he was working for Sultan and that the appellant Venkata Reddy saw him working for Sultan even prior to the date when the proces- . sion was taken out at Yadiki. According to the witness, the pamph-let was given to him by the appellant. It is difficult to believe that the appellant after having known that the witness was working for "Sultan would have given such an offensive pamphlet to him and crccte adverse evidence against him. Lastly, the witness admits at pp. 577-578 of the Paper Book (Vol. III) that five or six days after the procession was taken out by the appellant Sultan had come to Yadiki and he had told Sultan about the incident. Thus, according to the witness, Sultan came to know about the distribution of the pamphlet Ext. A-1 to the witness near about the end of Fabruarv and vet it is astounding that he did not make any mention of this fact eiiher in paragraph-39 of his petition or even in the material particulars which he gave by virtue of the amendment. We have already indicated that the evidence discloses that Sultan was informed long before he filed the election petition that the pamphlet was distributed by the appel-lant to the named persons who were known to the appellant and yet this fact was not mentioned in the particulars given by the contesting respondent. This conduct clearly shows that the entire story is pure-ly figment of imagination of the contesting respondent and his sup-porters and has been bolstered upto unseat the appellant. For these reasons, therefore. we are not in position to place implicit reliance on the testimony of this witness also. It would thus appear that ~ven in Y adiki the contesting respondent co·;Jd not get hnlrl r>f any rndependcnt witnes~ to prove the distribution of the pamphlet by the appella1;1t. Aecordmg to the P.Ws. Yadiki is big village and if process10n was taken out by the appellant there must have been l~rge number of persons present in the procession and it is impos-sible to believe that the appellant could not get hold of sin~le person who was in any way unconnected with him to prove that the pamphlet like Ext. A-1 was distributed to any such person. Both ".n the cha_rge. of the offer of bribe as also on the charge of distribu-1JOn of ob.iecllonable pamphlet the contesting respondent has chosen to examine only those witnesses who are in some way or the other totally interested in the contesting respondent or connected with ·him. Thus the evidence of the witnesses referred to above does not satis-

factorily prove that the appellant had distributed the pamphlet Ext. A-1 to any body in Yadiki on February 28, 1972 as alleged by the contesting respondent. The contesting respondent has, therefore, failed to prove this part of his case. In view of this finding it is not necessary to go to the evidence produced by the appellant. Never-theless R. Ws. 11, 16 and 17 have deposed on oath that no procession was taken out in Yadiki and that no pamphlet like Ext. A-1 was ever distributed by the appellant. Even if we ignore the evidence of these witnesses, as the contesting respondent has not proved his allegation on this part of the case he must fail.

We will now deal with the allegation of the contesting respondent regarding distribution of the pamphlet by the appellant in village Gundala on March 5, 1972. On this point the contesting respondent relies on the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7. Here also the evidence of these witnesses is composite one seeking to prove the distribution of the pamphlet not only by the appellant but also by his workers, and we have got to ignore that part of the evidence which relates to the distribution of the pamphlet by the workers of th~ appellant. To begin with, the evidence of P.Ws. l and 3 has been disbelieved by the learned Judge having regard to other items regard-ing payment of the bribe by the appellant to these witnesses and the Judge has held that they were in the nature of accomplices. In this connection the learned Judpe has observed, at pp. 1319-1320 of the Paper Book (Vol. VI) as follows :

"Since P.Ws. 1 and 3 also say that they had actively helped Venkatareddy in the distribution of the offensive pamphlets, and thus they he:ped the l st respondent in com-E mitting corrupt practice under section 123(3) and Section 123 (3-A) of the Representation of the People Act, even in regard to this corrupt practice, P.Ws. 1 and 3 can either be equated to "accomplices" or regarded as person who actively helped Venkatareddy in the commission of cor-rupt practice. Their evidence, even in this behalf, requires corroboration in material particulars by independent testi-F mony.'' Indeed if this is the character and tenor of these witnesses it would be difficult to place any reliance on the evidence of these witnesses on any point. Further more, according to the evidence of these two witnesses they had actively helped the appellant in the election and now they are coming forward against the appellant and in favour '?f the contesting respondent in order to unseat the appellant. Thelf evidence is also of turn-coat type and therefore tainted. In these circumstances no reliance can be placed on the evidence of such witnesses. However. even on merit.;; thev do not aopear to be reli-able witnesses. P.W.1 states that he belongs to Gundala and then ten days prior to the polling the contesting respondent Sultan ha? contacted him in the village and asked him and others to cast t~elf votes in his favour. The witness and others assured the contestmg respondent that they had always been v.oting for the Cong1:ess and they will, therefore. vote for him. After the contestmg respondent had left the village the appellant Venkata Reddy came

to the village in jeep and he asked the witness and other persons to vote for him. But the witness and other persons explained to the appellant that on earlier occasions all of them had voted for the Congress and so this time too they will do the same. Thereupon the appellant is said to have made an appeal on communal grounds say-ing that the Congress is always in the habit of giving tickets to the Muslims and not to Hindus and tried to wean them away from the Congress fold. There was thus an exchange of words between the witness and others and ultimately the appellant paid some money to the witness. This allegation has been disbelieved by the learned Judge. Therefore, to start with the very genesis on the basis of which the witness has deposed disappears, and there was no occasion for the appellant to have given any pamphlet to the witness. The witness proceeds to state that after the exchange of these talks, the appellant gave the pamphlet to the witness and he took the pamphlets to village Ammenapalli and gave the pamphlets to the voters of. that village. We are, however, not concerned here with the distribution of the pamphlets by the workers of the appellant. The witness iden-tifies the pamphlet Ext. A-1 as the one having been given to him. According to the witness the appellant had gone to him ten days be-fore the polling and the witness states thus at p. 125 of the Paper Book (Vol. II) : .

"It was for the first time that I came to know Venkata Reddi on the day when he visited our village i.e., ten days prior to the polling date."

This would mean that the appellant had contacted the witness on or about February 20, 1972. But the definite ease made out by the contesting respondent in his petition is that so far as the village Gun-dala is concerned the pamphlet was distributed by the appellant on March 5, 1972 i.e. only four days before the polling. In these cir-cumstances, therefore the evidence of this witness is falsified by the particulars given by the contesting respondent in his petition and on this ground alone his evidence has to be rejected as being contrary to the pleadings. Further more, it appears that the witness is staunch supporter of the Congress and on his own showing he had been voting for the Congress in all the elections. The witness admits at p. 134 of the Paper Book (Vol. II) that in the previous election also the witness had worked for the Congress. In these circumstances, therefore, the evidence of this witness does not appear to be credit-worthy.

The next witness on the point is P.W. 2 who states that the con-testing respondent Sultan had visited the locality and had asked him to vote for him. Thereafter the appellant came to his village and was accompanied by P.W. 1. The witness states that the appellant Venkata Reddy asked him to vote for the Swatantra Party. This knocks the bottom out of the evidence of this witness because it is nobody's case that the appellant was the candidate sponsored by the Swatantra Party and it is the admitted case that the appellant was an independent candidate. This also reveals the falsity of the story narrated by the witness. The witness then states that after having asked the witness to vote for the Swatantra Party the appellant gave

him paper which contained the cycle symbol. On seeing Ext. A-l the witness identified it as the same paper which was given to him. The witness further admits that he is illiterate and it is, therefore, not understandable how he identified the pamphlet Ext. A-1. The witness did not show that paper to any body on that day and later on he showed it and got it read over to him and thereafter he decided to vote for the appellant as the Muslims were bad people. In fact in an unguarded moment he has ~aid that he decided to vote for t)le Congress and then changed his statement as appears from the endor-sement made by the Court. In cross-examination the witness admits that ten days after the elections were over, Sultan had come to his village and asked him why he did not vote for the Congress. There-upon the witness told him that the appellant Venkata Reddy had dis-tributed the pamphlet and asked him to vote for him. The witness further categorically states that he showed the pamphlet given to him by the appellant to Sultan and he was asked by Sultan to preserve !he pamphlet so that it may be used in the Court as and when neces-sary. According to the witness this event took place only ten d'1ys after the election i.e. some time in the middle of March 1972 and well before the election petition was filed. Indeed if what the wit-ness says was absolutely true, then Sultan had come in possession of the most damaging evidence against the appellant long before the petition was filed and yet he did not choose to mention this fact either in his petition before amendment or after. Even the pamphlet was not produced along with the documents as being the pamphlet shown to him by the witness but the appellant rest contented by asking the witness to keep the pamphlet with him. It is not at all understand-able or intelligible as to why the pamphlet was not produced by the witness when he came to the witness-box for his examination-in-chief and it was left only to the question to be put by the Court after lunch break when the pamphlet was produced. Could the contesting res-pondent, having known these facts, take the risk that if the Court did not ask any question then the pamphlet would not be produced bv the witness at all? All this, therefore, shows that the evirlencc of this witness is untrue and is frame-up in order to support the allegation made by the contesting respondent against the appellant. This brings us to the evidence of P.W. 3. The learned Judge has also seriously commented on the credibility of this witness, so far as other allegations were concerned, and therefore to begin with the evidence of this witness is tainted. Further more, the evidence of this witness is of turn-coat type because he is said to have worked for the appellant and after the election he deposed for the contesting respondent: P.W. 3 also gives almost similar story as P.W. I re-garding the communal appeal said to have been made by the appel-lant. He also states that the appellant. paid him Rs. 500/-for working and helping him in the election. This allegation has been disbelieved by the !.earned Judge. Another factor which impairs the credit of this witness is his admission that at the time of the polling he was instrumental in getting the false votes cast. In this connec-tion the witness slates at p. 149 of the Paper Book (Vol. II) thus:

"Boya Nagamma and Venkatappa were residents of my village. They were dead before the polling date. The

D. v. REDDY v. R. SULTAN (Fazal Ali, J.)

yotes were cast in their names. Myself and P.W. 1 got the votes cast in their names. Votes were cast in the names of persons who were not present on the polling date. Myself and P. W. 1 got such votes cast in the names of the villagers who were absent from the village on the polling date." It would thus appear that the witness was of such low morals and characterless as he went to the extent of getting votes cast in the names of persons who were already dead or who were not at all pre-sent at the polling booths. It is difficult to place any reliance on the evidence of witness of such character. For these reasons therefore we arc not in position to place any faith on this witness.

According to P.W. 4 Sultan had come to his village in order to solicit votes in his favour and he was accompanied by P.Ws. 1 & 3 and P.W. 22. In the presence of these witnesses Sultan asked the witness to vote in favour of the Congress and he assured Sultan that all the villagers had decided to vote for , the Congress. It would thus be seen that when Sultan had gone to the witness's residence P. Ws. l & 3 who had been the workers of the appellant had accompanied the adversary of the appellant even at that time. Thereafter according to the witness when Venkata Reddy came to him and asked him to vote for him. and here also the P.Ws. 1 & 3 had accom-panied the appellant. This shows the unreliable character of P.Ws. l & 3. The witness again narrates the same story that the appellant made communal appeal to the witness and asked him on ground of religion to vote for him. Thereafter the appellant give him the pam-phlet. It might be mentioned here that no case has been set out by the contesting respondent either in his petition or in the particulars given by him that the appellant had made any oral appeal of com-munal nature to any person either before or after distributing the pamphlet Ext. A-1. In these circumstances the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 on the point that the appellant had made an oral appeal cannot be accepted as being contrary to the pleadings and thus the most in-tegral part of the evidence of these witnesses falls to the ground. Ac-cording to P. W. 4 the pamphlet was given by the appellant to the witness and thereafter he left. We find it very difficult to believe that if the appellant was really serious in getting the votes of these persons he would just hand over the pamphlet and go away without trying to explain the purpose and the contents of the pamphlet, partienlarly when he knew that P.W. 5 ana others had their inclination towards the Congress. In the first place if he knew that P.W. 4 and other vill-agers had their inclination towards the· Con!!'"ess and had decided to vote for the Congress, he would not risk giving the pamohlets to such persons at all. and even if he did, it is difficult to believe that he will distribute the pamphlets in such casual and cavalier man-ner. Finally P.W. 4, just like other witnesses, also states that ten days after the elections were over, Sultan had come to his village and he was informed by the witness about the distribution of the offensive pamphlet and ihc oral appeal made on communal grounds made by the appellant and yet we do not find the name of any of these witnesses including P.W. 4 in the petition as being the persons to whom the pamphlets were distributed. This appears to be very substantial ground on which the evidence of these witnesses should

be rejected, because it proved the intrinsic falsity of the evidence. There does not appear to be any earthly reason why, after having been informed by P.Ws. 1 to 4 and others whose case has been dis-cussed above, the contesting respondent would not mention these facts in his election petition when the same came to his knowledge well before filing of his election petition. The learned Judge appears to have completely overlooked this aspect of the matter which in-B troduces an intrinsic infirmity in the evidence of the witnesses. For these reasons we reject the evidence of P.W. 4. The last witness on the point is P.W. 8. His evidence is almost identical with that of P.W. 4. According to the witn,ess the contesting respondent Sultan came to the village ten days prior to the date of polling. That would be near about February 28, 1972 and asked the witness to vote for the Congress. The witness assured the contest-ing respondent that he would vote for the Congress. Three days prior to the date of polling the appellant came to the village accom-panied by P.Ws. 1 & 3 and the witness informed him that they had decided to vote for the Congress. Thereupon the aopellant again made communal appeal to them, gave him pamphlet and walked away. Thus the evidence of this witness also suffers from the very same infirmities which we have pointed out in respect of P.W. 4. At p. 231 of the Paper Book (Vol. II) the witness contradicts himself and states that the appellant merely gave him pamphlet and asked him to vote for him. He did not say anything more. Thus the story of an oral appeal is given complete go-by in the later part of his evidence. It is impossible to believe that the appellant would try to procure the vote of the witness knowing fully well that he had decid-E ed to vote for the Congress and quietly parted from the witness after giving him the most damaging evidence against him. For these rea-sons, therefore, we are not in position to place any reliance on the evidence of P.W. 8.

This is all the evidence that the contesting respondent has led in proof of the fact that the appellant had personally distributed the pamphlets in the village Gundala on March 5, 1972. After careful consideration of the evidence produced by the contesting respondent we are clearly of the opinion that the evidence is not worthy of cre-dence and the contesting respondent has failed to prove by clear and cogent evidence that the pamphlets were distributed by the appellant personally to any person in Gundala or for that matter to P. Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8. In view of our finding that the evidence led by the contesting respondent on this point is unsatisfactory, it is not neces-G sary for us to refer to the evidence given in rebuttal by the appellant which is necessarily of negative nature.

The last limb of the case comprises the alleged distribution of the pamphlet Ext. A-1 by the appellant to persons in village Guntakal on February 22, 1972. P.W. 24 is Thirupathi Rao registered medical practitioner Guntakal. To start with the witness admits that he wor-ked for the Congress. The witness goes on to state that the appellant had come to his dispensary and had asked for his support, but P.W. 24 told him that he belonged to the Congress. and therefore he could not help others. Thereafter the appellant is said to have given him the pam-

phlct Ext. A-1 and th~ witness-pointed o?t that the pamphlet was very 1 offensive. Thereupon the appellant is said to have made some sort of communal appeal to the witness and having left the pamphlet with him walked away. The witness has categorically stated that after the oral communal appeal was made by the appellan!:, the witness told him that ~ he saw no difference of religion, caste, creed and that he could not sup-port him. It is impossible to believe that the appellant know!~g full well that the witness was an educated person and Doctor pracusmg at ; Guntakal and not mere illiterate voter would make any communal appeal to him, much less when he was told in plain terms by the witness that he was Congress worker. In these circumstances, would the appel-lant still have given the pamphlet to this witness and created an unim' peachable evidence against him. There is no doubt that the witness is not an independent witness but is an interested one, because not only he was Congress worker but also acted as counting agent for Sultan as he admitted in his evidence. Further more, the oral appeal said to have )- been made by the appellant is not at all mentioned in the election peti-tion. Apart from being Congress worker he held an important position in the CoHgress party being the Vice-President of the Town Congress Committee right from 1967. The witness further admitted that being the Vice-Pres;dent of the Town Congress Committee he was an important member of the Congress ~arty at Guntakal. The witness further states that when Sultan came to Guntakal he· showed the pamphlet to him and this happened even before the date of the polling. In fact he showed the pamphlet to Sultan five or six days before the date of the polling. It surpasses our imagination that if an important congressman like P.W. 24 would have informed Sultan four or five days before the polling that an offensive pamphlet like Ext. A-I was given to him by the ap-pellant, the contesting respondent would take it lying down and would t" refrain from taking any action in the matter. We have already pointed out that Sultan was not of quiet type of men but had made several complaints to the police officers and it is impossible to believe that if he had known Irr.on such an important source like P.W. 24 that an offen-sive pamphlet was being distributed during the election he would have taken no action against the appellant by moving the authorities concern-ed or in informing the police and the congress circles. Far from it he ~id not eve~ mention this fact either in his _election petition or in the par-ticulars which he gave thereafter. We fail to understand how the con-testin~ respondent could have failed to mention such an important inci-dent in his' pleadings at any stage. This clearly shows that the evidence of P.W. 24 is not correct. The apoellant who appears to be responsi-hl~ man would not have been so foolish as to have left in the hands of P.W. 24 the P"mphlet in ouestion knmving full well his strong views in .t th~ matter. The w_itnes_s further admitted that he was deposing to this po•nt for the first lime m the Court and he !pd not told this fact to any one else. How can we believe that P.W. 24 holding such an important post in tl1e Cong1ess oroanisation would have failed to draw the attention • of the authorWes in the Congress Partv regarding the distribution of an <>ffensive pamphlet by the appelfant which mav have seri<>nslv impaired the election J?rospects of the candidate of the Congress. For tliese rea-sons. therefore. we are not in position to place any reliance on the evidence of this witness.

The next witness is P.W. 25. This witness admits that he voted for the O}ngress candidate Sultan and supported his candidature during the election. According to him fifteen days prior to the date of polling he \ along with Sultan and others were moving in the ward canvassing for votes in favour of Sultan. Eight days prior to the date of polling, which would mean near about th" !st March the appellant Vankata Reddy along with others came to the house of the witness in jeep and Ram-chandra Gaud who was supporter of the appellant told the witness to help Vcnkata Reddy. The witness, however, explained to them that he had always been supporting the Congress and stood committed to Sultan and therefore he could not support the appellant. Thereafter Ram-chandra Gaud threatened the witness that he would destroy the partner-ship business in which he was partner if he did not help the appellant. In view of the threat given by Ramchandrn Gaud the witness decided to work for the appellant. Thereafter the appellant gave bundle of pam-phlets containing the cycle symbol to be distributed to various persons. That is how, according to the witness, the pamphlet came in his pos-session. In order to prove that he was worker of the appellant he ,. producd Ext. A-40 which is polling agent form assigned by the appel-lant. To begin with this witness also appears to be of turn-coat type and his evidence is tainted and cannot be accepted without any corrobo-0 ration. It is difficult to believe the story that it was because of duress that he agreed to work for the appellant because if that was so, then the partnership which is still continuing while the threat remains, the witness would not have dared to depose against the appellant in order to help Sultan and yet he has done it. The witness has clearly admitted that the partnership is still continuing and therefore the danger with which the witness was faced and which made him work for the appellant still continues and it is not understandable how the witness could sudden-ly change colours. Further more the witness admits at p. 474 of the ~l. Paper Book (Vol. III) that the appellant had given the pamphlet to the witness eight days prior to the date of polling which would mean near about February 28 or March 1, 1972, but according to the material particulars given by the contesting respondent in the election petition as amended the date of distribution of the pamphlet at Guntakal is men-F tioned as February 22,. 1972. Thus the evidence of this witness being contrary to the pleadings must be disregarded. In these circumstances, therefore we are not in position to place any reliance on the evidence of this type.

This bring us to the evidence of P.W. 33. We have fullv discussed the evidence of this witness on issue No. 7 on the allegation of bribery and ha'.'C disbelieved him. We have also pointed out that P.W. 33 was staunch supporter of the contesting respondent and appears to be an omnibus witness so as to support the contesting respondent on all points and suoolv the missing links. The witness states that P.W. 18 and Ven-kata Reddy the appellant went from house to house in the ward solicit-ing votes. Both these persons came to the house of the witness while he was standing in front of his house. Both of them distributed Pamph- • lets and went away. The witness being staunch supporter of the con-testing respondent it is most unlikely that the appellant would distribute the pamphlet of all persons, to him. Further more, the witness only de-posed in very general manner that both P.W. 18 and the appellant

gave the pampWet to him. The witness admits that he had read the pamphlet and yet he states that he did not complain to the police that I the pamphlet may lead to communal trouble, particular.y when the pamp-hlet was distribnted, according to the witness, abont fourteen or fifteen days prior to the date of polling. The witness further admits that four or five days prior to the date of polling Sultan had come to Guntakal a~d ~ the witness had informed him about the pamphlet and yet Sultan also did not mention this fact in the material particulars given in his election petition after the amendment. For ~hese reasons therefore, V'.e are satis-• [lied that this witness bas merely tned to obl:ge the tontestmg respon-]dent being his intimate friend and staunch supporter.

The last witness on this point is P.W. 36 Abdul Jabbar. Having re-gard to the offensive contents of the pamphlet Ext. A-1 it is impossible to believe that the appellant, even as person of ordinary prudence, would have distributed the pamphlet to Muslim and person who had also worked for Sultan. By distributing such pamphlet to ~ [a ][MUslim ][he would not only hurt the feelings of such Mus-]lim but would alienate the entire sympathy of the Muslim community, Only mad person can do thing like that or take such suicidal step. According to this witness, the appellant had come to Guntakal where the witness stayed, gave him the pamphlet and went away. Thus the very short and summary manner in which the appellant handed over the pamphlet and went away clearly shows that the story of the distribution of the pamphlet by the appellant is complete myth. According to the witness he was illiterate and he showed the pamphlet to P.W. 24 Thiru-pati Rao who read it out to him. P.W. 24 does not say that P.W. 36 Abdul Jabbar had come to him with the pamphlet or that he had read out its contents and explained the same to the witness. It was suggested by Mr. Shiv Shankar for the contesting respondent that it is possible that the appellant may not have known th.at the witness was a! Muslim. We are, however, unable to accept this contention because according to the witness he was an Ayurvedic Medical Practitioner and an important per-son in Guntakal. It is also difficult to believe that the appellant would distribute pamphlets indiscriminately without trying to find out whether the persons to whom the pamphlets were given were Muslims or not. P.W. 36 is also staunch supporter of the contesting respondent. Thus the evidence of this witness does not appear to be worthy of credence.

Thus on consideration of the evidence of the witnesses mentioned above, w~ are satisfied that the contesting respondent has not proved that any pamphlet was distributed by the appellant personally to P.Ws. 24, 25, 33 & 36 in Guntakal or to any other oerson for that matter. In view of our findi'!g .that the contesting respondent has failed to prove this part of the case 1t 1s not necessary to refer to the evidence led by the appel-la'!t which is of negativ.e character. Reference may be made to the evidence of R.W. 28 who 1s Labour Leader and whose evidence shows that no such pamphlet was ever distributed by the appellant. The wit-• Southe:n Ra!lway and [ness states !hat he ][is ][~ ]1s [senior stenographer attached to the D.M.O., ]also the Assistant General Secretary of one of the ~ruons of the Ra!lway employees a.t Guntak~l. The witness on being sho\\n the pamphlet Ext. A-1 empha!Ically derued that any ·such pam-phlet was given to him or was distributed by or ou behalf of the appel-

!ant in the whole of the railway colony which consists ot as many as 6000 to 8000 voters. Indeed if the appellant had distributed the pamph-lets with view to secure votes on communal grounds, he would not have missed to distribute the pamphlets to the voters in the Railway colony and if this was done the witness would have undoubtedly come to know about it. This is undoubtedly an intrinsic circumstance which supports the case of the appellant that no pamphlet of the type of Ext. A-1 was ever distributed in Guntakal.

Apart from this, we may overemphasize even at the risk of repeti-tion that there are two important infirmities appearing in the evidence led by the contesting respondent on the charge of distributing the pam-phlet Ext. A-1 at various places which arc sufficient to prove the falsity of the charge. In the first place the evidence of P. Ws. I to 4, 8, 22, 24, 33 and other witnesses discussed above clearly discloses that the con-testing respondent had come to know not only during the election but even few days before polling that such pamphlet like Ext. A- I was in existence and was also shown to the contesting respondent by the wit-nesses mentioned above and he was also plainly told that this pamphlet was distributed by the appellant personally. In spite of this neither the contesting respondent mentioned these facts in his petition giving the full details nor in the material particulars nor did he take any action against the appellant by reporting the matter abont the pamphlet to the authorities concerned. He did not disclose this fact even to his own Congress organization although this was matter which on his own showing ruined his election prospects and in all probability the Congress should have been informed about this fact. Mr. Shiv Shankar appear-ing for the contesting respondent realized the weight of this circumstance which went to falsify the case of the contesting respondent and sucmit-ted that the inaction on the part of Sultan was due to the fact that he was advised by his lawyers not to take any action in the mat,er. Sultan has no doubt deposed to this effect in his evidence. Indeed if this was fact then we should have expected that the r.ontesting respondent should have given this explanation in his election petition or should have examined the lawyer who had given him such an advice. Secondly, even if this explanation be accepted there does not appear to be any reason why the contesting respondent should not have mentioned the names of the persons who had told him that an offensive pamphlet had been distributed to them by the appellant, in his petition or in the material particulars when Sultan was definitely informed of those facts. These two infirmities, apart from other defects, are sufficient to dis-lodge the case of the contesting respondent on issue No. 26, and lead us to the inevitable inference that these facts were not true and were clearly an after-thought· and had been introduced for the first time in the evidence through the aid and support of purely partisan \Vitnesses.

Lastly it was also urged by Mr. Shiv Shankar learned counsel for the contesting respondent that the evidence of P. W. 11 clearlv shows that the pamphlet in question was in existence during the election. The learned Judge has disbelieved the evidence of this witness as bein• based on hearsay. The witness alleges to have received the pamphlet from his wife who was not examined as witness. Thus the very

source from which he is said to have got the pamphlet disappears and that being an integral part of his evidence we find it extremely unsafe to rely on the evidence of this witness and fully agree with the reasons given by the learned Judge for disbelieving this witness.

Mr. Shiv Shankar learned counsel for the contesting respondent submitted that the evidence shows that pamphlets like Exts. A-70 to A-78 were undoubtedly printed by the contesting respondent and they contain the name of the Printing Press. He argued that if the con-testing respondent would have printed the pamphlet Ext. A-1 then he would have mentioned the name of the Press. We cannot accept this argument because the pamphlet is so offensive in nature that any person who printed the same would never try to disclose publicly the name of the Press lest aCtion in law may be taken against the Press. It was then contended that the contesting respondent being Mus-lim is not likely to say such offensive and communal things against his own community. This is also matter of pure speculation. Various persons react to different circumstances in different ways and if person is motivated or animated by particular purpose he can go to any length to achieve his end. Therefore the mere fact that the contesting respondent belonged to the Muslim community cannot by itself exclude the possibility of his having circulated the pamphlet Ext. A-1 and printing it so as to use it as powerful instrument against the appellant by putting the blame on him. The contesting respondent undoubtedly owns Press and if he wanted to do such thing there was nothing to prevent him from achieving his object. These arc speculative matters and in the view we take of the evidence led by the parties in this case, it is not necessary for us to give clear finding as to who printed the pamphlet in question. All that is necessary to be determined in view of the pleadings of the parties was whether the pamphlet in question was printed by the appellant or distributed by him personally. The contesting respondent has not adduced any satisfactory evidence on this point whereas the appellant has through his evidence which is of negative character shown that the probabi-lities were that the appellant had not distributed this pamphlet Ext. A-1.

On careful consideration of the entire evidence and circumstan-ces of the case, whether we apply the standard of proof by virtue of the benefit of doubt or that of prepondercnce of probabilities the con-clusion is inescapable that the contesting respondent has failed to prove his allegations regarding the payment of bribe contained in issue No. 7 and the distribution of the pamphlet by the appellant personally comprised in issue No. 26. The learned Judge in accepting the case of the contesting respondent overlooked certain fundamental features, inherent improbabilities, intrinsic infirmities, the weak and interested nature of the evidence and other facts, which we have fully elaborated in our judgment. We, therefore, hold that the appella!lt Venkata Reddy was not guilty of any corrupt practices as alle~ged by the contesting respondent. In these circumstances we are not in position to allow the judgment of the High Court to stand.

The appeal is accordingly allowed and the order of the single Judge declaring the election of the appellant Venkata Reddy void and setting aside the same is hereby quashed. The appellant would be entitled to his costs throughout. \ V.P.S. Appeal allowed •