JUDGMENT : Mitter, J. 1. This is an appeal by an unsuccessful candidate at an election to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from Sangola Constituency, held in February 1967. There was only two candidates at the election. The petitioner was the official candidate supported by the Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee. The respondent was a Candidate of the Sampoorna Maharashtra Samiti. The polling took place on February 15, 1967, the result being declared on February 22, 1967. The petitioner obtained 26,175 votes and the Respondent 26,843. The petitioner appellant before us filed his election petition on April 6, 1967. Therein he charged the respondent with three corrupt practices alleged to have been committed on the day preceding the date for polling. The first head of corrupt practice was the spreading of false statements regarding the candidature of the petitioner on the basis of a circular letter alleged to have come from the Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee Bombay either by showing the same to various persons or by giving currency to the contents thereof to the supporters of the petitioner. The second head of corrupt practice was the display of two blackboards outside the election office of the respondent containing in substance the matter complained of in the circular letter and the third head of corrupt practice was the display of a similar blackboard outside the shop of one I.M. Shaikh who is described in the election petition as a staunch supporter and worker of the respondent in the election. 2. The charges were thus framed in the petition. On 14th February, 1967 the respondent produced a copy of a cyclostyled letter dated January 25, 1967 purported to have been issued from the office of the Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee, Bombay and showed the same to different persons at the shop of Messrs Zabke Chavan and Company in the town of Sangola. The relevant portion of the circular was worded as follows: "In the meeting of the election committee held on January 2, 1967 at Mahableshwar, after discussion, the Congress Party has withdrawn the support to the candidature of the candidates in several constituencies as it is felt that they would not succeed if they contested election on Congress tickets. The Congress election committee in the following constituencies should be abrogated and the candidates should withdraw their candidatures.. 4. The Congress election committee in the following constituencies should be abrogated and the candidates should withdraw their candidatures.. 4. Sangola Bapisaheb Bhimrao Salunkhe." In para 3 of the petition the respondent was charged with having shown the said circular to persons present at the shop of Messrs Zabke Chewon & Co. repeating the contents of the same to persons present there as also to others at Sangola. According to the said paragraph, Chanderasekhar Zabke, the President of the Tuluka Congress Committee was given a telephone call to come to the said shop premises. But when Chanderashekhar Zabke actually went there, the respondent had left but Zabke was informed about the contents of the circular by people who were present. Zabke had met the petitioner the same day and apprised him about the above. At first it was decided between them that a handbill should be issued denying the falsity of the statements in the circular. Copies of a handbill were actually got printed but as the same were received late in the evening these could not be distributed. The petitioner however lodged a complaint with the police regarding the publication of false statements about his candidature. A specific charge was made about the respondent having shown the circular to three persons M.S. Dhole, Bajrang Mahaling Lakhande and Vithan Ramchandra Patne. The petitioner claimed to have himself received a copy of this circular by post along with other persons in Sangola. The case of the petitioner was that the statements in the said circular were false and that the respondent believed them to be false or at least did not believe them to be true: nevertheless the respondent deliberately published the false statement in the relation to the petitioner's candidature and for his withdrawal to prejudice his prospects at the election. 3. The second head of the corrupt practice charged the respondent with having displayed two blackboards outside his election office on February 14, 1967 containing false statements to the same effect as those in the above mentioned circular letter. To strengthen his case, the petitioner also stated that a teacher working in Vidhya Mandir, Sangola had taken photographs of the blackboards on the very same day. 4. The third head of corrupt practice charged was the display of a blackboard containing the above false statements regarding the petitioner outside the shop of one I.M. Shaikh. To strengthen his case, the petitioner also stated that a teacher working in Vidhya Mandir, Sangola had taken photographs of the blackboards on the very same day. 4. The third head of corrupt practice charged was the display of a blackboard containing the above false statements regarding the petitioner outside the shop of one I.M. Shaikh. The petitioner stated in his petition that on 14th February, 1967 when he was passing by the said shop he found a blackboard outside it with writing to the same effect as the contents of the circular. As a result of the display of the news on this blackboard, there was a tension in the place and the police had to come to the shop and took charge of the blackboard. It was further alleged that the police had thereafter gone to the office of the respondent but by that time the other two blackboards had been removed: the police got the photograph taken of the blackboard displayed outside Shaikh's shop. This Shaikh was described in para 13 of the petition as an active worker of the respondent in his election compaign, and thus an agent of the respondent for the election. The petitioner charged Shaikh with having got the said false statement published on the blackboards not only as an agent of the respondent but with the latter's consent. In para 14 of the petition, a complaint was also made that one N.R. Chandole and one R.G. Pande who were active workers and staunch supporters of the respondent during his election campaign had gone round Sangola and told the voters that Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee had withdrawn its support to the Candidature of the petitioner. 5. In Para 20, the petitioner stated that the corrupt practice committed by the respondent materially affected the result of the election and if these false statements had not been given such wide publicity on the eve of the polling day, the petitioner would have secured more votes than the respondent. 6. In the written statement filed by the respondent a denial was made of the receipt of the circular mentioned in the petition or the spread of any statement alleged to have been published therein. The respondent denied that any blackboards were put up outside his election office containing any false statement about the petitioner. 6. In the written statement filed by the respondent a denial was made of the receipt of the circular mentioned in the petition or the spread of any statement alleged to have been published therein. The respondent denied that any blackboards were put up outside his election office containing any false statement about the petitioner. With regard to the display of the blackboard outside Shaikh's shop, the respondent's case was that he had no personal knowledge of the incident referred to in the petition and further that Shaikh was not an active worker working for him in the election campaign. There was also a denial that any publication by Shaikh on any blackboard was either made as his agent or with his consent, or otherwise. 7. Before examining the evidence of the witnesses called before the Bombay High Court, it is necessary to note some documents which had come into existence even before 15th February, 1967. The first document is Exhibit 29, a panchnama singed by one Maruthi Govind Dhanke and Kashinath Vaidinath Lokhande about the blackboard outside Shaikh's shop. The panchnama is to the effect that the panchas had been requested by the Police Sub Inspector, Sangola to act as such. Their version was that a blackboard was rested against the telephone poll on the north side and standing on the ground opposite the shop of I.M. Shaikh and that a crowd had collected to read what was written thereon. The information contained in the board was that the Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee had withdrawn its support to the candidature of Salunke contesting for the Bombay Legislative Assembly as there was no possibility of his success but that the election would nevertheless take place. The Panchnama goes to recite that Mohd. Shaikh was personally present in the shop and the panchas had witnessed and heard things and according to what they had seen or heard, they were making the panchnama. 8. The second document is the complaint made to the police by one Siddheshwar Mahadev Zabke, a teacher working in the Vidya Mandir High School. This is to the effect that at about 1.15 p.m. a black board was displayed outside the shop of 1. M. Shaikh on which was written by chalk that the Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee had withdrawn its support for the official Congress candidate Shri Bapusaheb Bhimrao Salunkhe. This is to the effect that at about 1.15 p.m. a black board was displayed outside the shop of 1. M. Shaikh on which was written by chalk that the Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee had withdrawn its support for the official Congress candidate Shri Bapusaheb Bhimrao Salunkhe. The writing was ascribed to the people of the Samiti, that is to say, some persons supporting Shri Ganpatrao Annasaheb Deshmukh, the respondent herein. The complaint also stated that Bapu Saheb Salunkhe was going to make a detailed application in respect of the incident. 9. The application of the petitioner to the Police Sub Inspector is Exhibit 30. The same may be summarised as follows: At about 1.15 p.m. in the noon in the main square in the Bazarpet at Sangola a blackboard was kept outside the shop of Shri I.M. Shaikh. This was done deliberately to mislead the voters that they should not vote for the petitioner on behalf of the Congress. I.M. Shaikh was the main propagandist and worker of the opposite party and knowing full well that the said publication was false and untrue, he deliberately displayed the said board on a prominent place opposite his own shop to get undue advantage so that respondent should be elected. The respondent Ganpat Rao Deshmukh had encouraged and supported the publication of the said matter. He deliberately and intentionally communicated the false news to the petitioner's workers, Bajrag Mahaling Lokhande and Vithal Ramchandra Patne personally. It had become impossible for the petitioner to counteract the false propaganda as there was a prohibition against taking out a procession carrying on propaganda or holding meetings or using loudspeakers. The complainant requested that cognizance should be taken of this matter followed by suitable action. The matter published on the board was described in the complaint as containing three items of news the summary whereof was that that the Maharashtra Congress Committee had withdrawn its support to the candidature of the petitioner and had done so because they were not sure of the petitioner's success but had given its support to the respondent and that the election would take place. The complaint ended by saying that on the petitioner's supporters protesting to Shaik about the writing on the blackboard, the latter had from time to time made modifications thereto. 10. The petitioner examined no less than 14 witnesses including himself in support of his case. The complaint ended by saying that on the petitioner's supporters protesting to Shaik about the writing on the blackboard, the latter had from time to time made modifications thereto. 10. The petitioner examined no less than 14 witnesses including himself in support of his case. In connection with the corrupt practice of his display of blackboard outside Shaikh 's shop, the witnesses examined were police Sub Inspector, Shivjirao Marutrao Ghaitade, constable Maruti Bhimrao Mohit, the two panchas, Maruti Govind Dhanke and K. V. Lokhande and also other witnesses C. V. Zabke, B.A. Shinde, R.S. Dhole, S.A. Shinde and the petitioner himself. One M.C. Mali was examined to establish that he had taken a photograph of this blackboard. 11. As regards the display of the two blackboards outside the respondent's office, the witnesses examined were M.G. Dhanke K. V. Lokhande and M. V. Ghongade. 12. With regard to the circular letter there was no contest before the trial judge that the circular complained of had actually been received by people at Sangola including the petitioner on 14th February, 1967. The learned trial Judge noted that the respondent did not contest that the contents of the circular were false: neither did he contest that the petitioner was the official candidate of the Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee. The trial Judge decided the petition on the footing that the contents of the circular were false. The dissemination of the circular at Sangola was sought to be proved through the Sub-Postmaster, R.B. Shikalgar. He indentifred three envelopes shown to him and said that another envelope of the same kind addressed to the respondent had been taken away by his peon by window delivery at about 12 noon. He remembered that all these letters had been sent out by the Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee. In cross-examination he had to admit that he had five clerks working under him and that it was the duty of the sorting clerk to sort the letters. He also had to admit that approximately 600 letters used to be delivered daily from his post office. He had no idea about the number of letters delivered to the respondent on February 13 or February 15. When it was suggested to him that it was not the duty of the Postmaster but that of the sorting clerk to sort the letters, he stated that it was the joint responsibility of both of them. He had no idea about the number of letters delivered to the respondent on February 13 or February 15. When it was suggested to him that it was not the duty of the Postmaster but that of the sorting clerk to sort the letters, he stated that it was the joint responsibility of both of them. 13. The corrupt practice by the dissemination of statements contained in the circular may be disposed of shortly. The trial Judge found that no evidence had been led to show that the respondent had showed the letters to R.S. Dhole and K.V. Lokhande. Nor was there any evidence of the respondent having gone round Sangola, calling upon villagers and spreading false statements contained in the circular. Further, there was no evidence of the latter being shown to people at the shop of Messrs Zabke Chavan & Co. The only oral evidence on this point with regard to the circular was that of Chandrashekhar Zabke and V.R. Patne. The evidence of Chandrashekhar Zabke, the President of the Taluka Congress Committee at Sangola, was that on 14th February, 1967 when he had gone to the shop of Messrs Chavan Zabke & Co. the respondent had come there and enquired of him as to what he was going to do in connection with the matter contained in the circular whereof he had received a copy. The respondent had not got the circular letter with him at the time but somebody came and made it over to the respondent who in his turn gave it to Chandrasekhar Zabke to read. Zabke told the respondent that they should get in touch with the Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee by telephone. Vithal Ramchandra Patne, the Secretary of the Taluka Congress Committee, said that while he was passing one Bajrang Lokhande's shop he was called in by the respondent and shown the circular received by the latter through the post and asked to give effect thereto. The witness felt that the circular was a hoax and told as much to many people. He met the petitioner at about 2.45 p.m. and informed him about the activities of the respondent. 14. The witness felt that the circular was a hoax and told as much to many people. He met the petitioner at about 2.45 p.m. and informed him about the activities of the respondent. 14. The learned Judge found that according to C. V. Zabke he had been called to the shop by other persons and when he went there he came to know of the contents of the circular from these persons but none of these persons with whom the respondent was alleged to have had talks at the shop of Bajrang Lokhande had come to give evidence. The Judge commented on the fact that the incident of the publication of circular by the respondent at the shop as related by C. V. Zabke was on a footing altogether different from the allegation made in the petition. The two complaints by C. V. Zabke and the petitioner himself did not refer to the interview or talks which the respondent is alleged to have had with regard to the publication of the contents of the circular. The Judge further commented on the evidence of C. V. Zabke that his statement that he had proceeded to the shop of M/s. Chavan Zabke & Co. in response to a telephone he had received from an advocate Chandole was contrary to the allegation in para 3 of the petition. 15. In regard to V.R. Patne, the learned Judge rightly commented that he was a wholly unreliable witness. He had been convicted for fabricating false evidence and similar offences under different sections of the Indian Panel Code. The learned Judge further did not accept his statement because he had said that blackboard advertisements and news about meetings and celebration at the Maidan were not put up ordinarily at the Maneri Chowk at Sangola during election period. Summarising the evidence of these witnesses, the view of the trial Judge was that no finding could be made against the respondent on the basis thereof. C. V. Zabke's statement about the oral publication of circular letter was contrary to the allegations in the petition and was not supported by the complaints Exhibits 30 and 32. We see no reason to take a view different from that taken by the learned trial Judge with regard to the circulars. 16. C. V. Zabke's statement about the oral publication of circular letter was contrary to the allegations in the petition and was not supported by the complaints Exhibits 30 and 32. We see no reason to take a view different from that taken by the learned trial Judge with regard to the circulars. 16. We then come to the alleged false propaganda made by publications by writings on the two blackboards placed at the entrance to the office of the respondent as also the platform outside the shop of I.M. Shaikh. The main evidence in this connection is of witnesses M. V. Ghongde, B.A. Shinde and B.B. Salunke supported by the evidence of police Sub Inspector S.M. Ghaitade and constable M.B. Mohite besides M.C. Mali the photographer and Chandrasekhar Zabke and V.P. Patne. The petitioner also had something to say about these publications. The evidence of three witnesses M.G. Dhanke, K. V. Lokhande and B.A. Shinde was to the effect that they had seen N.R. Chandole putting up the board outside the Shaikh's shop, rubbing off the last line and adding "even then the election will take place". Maruti Govind Dhanke stated in his examination-in-chief that he saw advocate Deshmukh the respondent, his clerk Nayku Deshpande, one Ram Pande and advocate Chandole standing outside the shop of I.M. Shaik at about 1 p.m. on February 14. He also saw advocate Deshmukh, Ram Pande and Nayku Deshpande carrying away two blackboards towards the election office of the respondent. One blackboard was set up on the electric post by advocate Chandole, the last line on the blackboard being erased by him and some other words added. Then the police came and witness reaeded from the scene. Thereafter the police dispersed the crowd and called him as also Panch Lokhande to make the panchnama which was written out by Sub Inspector S.M. Ghaitade. The witness did not tell Ghaitade anything about the two advocates and the two persons with them nor of the removal of the two blackboards and the erasure of the last line on the blackboard outside Shaikh's shop. The witness added that he knew the petitioner but he had not discussed about the facts of the case either with the petitioner or anybody else: nor had he told the petitioner what he had seen at Maneri Chowk on February 14, 1967. The witness added that he knew the petitioner but he had not discussed about the facts of the case either with the petitioner or anybody else: nor had he told the petitioner what he had seen at Maneri Chowk on February 14, 1967. He also said that he did not know S.M. Ghaitade and did not know what a panchnama was. In cross-examination he said that he had not been served with summons, but his railway fare had been paid by the petitioner and although the petitioner had asked him to come to Bombay to give evidence he did not know in what connection his evidence was required. On further questions being put to him he had to admit that he had acted as a panch in more than one case before and that his earlier statement that he did not know what a panchnama was, was false. The panchnama, according to him, was written out by the Sub-Inspector and it took him one hour or more in doing so. 17. The evidence given by K. V. Lokhande in examination-in-chief was practically identical with that of Dhanke almost in every detail suggestive of both quoting from memory the text of the same prepared statement. Like M G. Dhanke he too had not been served with a witness summons but had his railway fare paid by the petitioner and come by the same train to Bombay on August 15 and lodged in the same hotel. He further stated that he had not met the petitioner after February 14 or told him about his having acted as a panch. The petitioner had never questioned him about his knowledge of the matters referred to in his evidence. He remembered that although S.M. Ghaitade had called him by name to act as a panch he had not done so in the case of M.G. Dhanke. 18. In his examination-in-chief B.A. Shinde gave evidence practically repeating the version of two witnesses just mentioned and his cross-examination revealed that he too had come to Bombay without a witness summons and was putting up at the same hotel with others without any discussion with the petitioner about his knowledge of the facts of the case. The learned Judge commented on his veracity because of his unwillingness to acknowledge that his father had acted as a polling agent of the petitioner. The learned Judge commented on his veracity because of his unwillingness to acknowledge that his father had acted as a polling agent of the petitioner. In our view such comment was fully justified. 19. The next witness in this connection was Rajaram Sadashiv Dhole who had a grocery shop at Maneri Chowk opposite and across the road from I.M. Shaik's shop. According to this witness, he was at his shop at 12.45 p.m. on February 14 when a crowd collected near the shop of I.M Sheikh. On going out he found Chandole writing on the blackboard standing on the plinth and two completely written out blackboards placed nearby. Like the other witness he also said that Chandole was writing to the effect that the petitioner Salunke was not likely to be successful and as such the Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee had withdrawn its support from the candidature. Like them he too repeated the statement that Chandole had scored out the last line and substituted a new line in place thereof. He also spoke of the police arriving on the scene and dispersing the crowd. He admitted that he had acted as the petitioner's polling agent in the election but he did not do any other work for the petitioner's election. His evidence further was that he did not go to the petitioner's office to make enquiries about the writing on the board but had asked President C. V. Zabke in the evening if what was written on the blackboard was correct to which he had received an answer in the negative. He fared very badly in cross-examination and the learned Judge made a note of his demeanour to the effect that the witness had lost control over himself and was unable to answer questions put to him. Like the other witnesses he too had not not been served with a witness summons and was staying at the Empire Hotel. 20. S.M. Ghaitade who was the first witness to be examined stated that in consequence of certain information received he had gone to the shop of I.M. Shaik on 14th February where he found 150 people collected; he also found a blackboard of which he took possession in the presence of panchas under a panchnama. According to him the original panchnama was written by constable Deshmukh and he himself attested the signatures of the panchas. According to him the original panchnama was written by constable Deshmukh and he himself attested the signatures of the panchas. He had gone to the respondent's office with constable M.B. Mohita, and there had asked Ramparsad Pande to ascertain from Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee if the contents of the black board were correct. According to the evidence of this witness, M.P.C.C. office at Bombay was contacted over the telephone. While he was in the office of the respondent, the latter arrived there along with I.M. Shaikh at about 2.30 p.m. According to him, the respondent had nothing to say as to the correctness of the news on the blackboard but had given the witness to understand that he was free to take such action as he thought fit. According to the witness, Siddeshwar Zabke had gone to the police station at about 5.30 p.m. the same day and lodged a complaint about the contents of the blackboard. The cross-examination of this witness went to show that he was over-zealous in the interest of the petitioner and that he was making investigations and taking statements which the law did not require him to do. He had seen the petitioner for the first time on February 14, 1967 at about 10 p.m. at night after the receipt of the complaint at 9 p.m. After reading the writing on the blackboard at 1 p.m. he had gone to the respondent's office but had taken no steps in connection therewith by making enquiries at the petitioner's office. He did not find I.M. Shaikh in his shop when he had gone there in the office of the respondent and was therefore positive that the respondent was at Sangola at that hour. 21. The constable M.B. Mohite gave evidence to the effect that he had been asked by S.M. Ghaitade to go to Maned Chowk on February 14 and disperse the crowd. S.M. Ghaitade who came to the scene soon afterwards made enquiries about the writing on the blackboard and whether there had been confirmation from the office of M.P.C.C. in respect thereof. He did not know what conversation had taken place between Ghaitade and the respondent at the latter's office. S.M. Ghaitade who came to the scene soon afterwards made enquiries about the writing on the blackboard and whether there had been confirmation from the office of M.P.C.C. in respect thereof. He did not know what conversation had taken place between Ghaitade and the respondent at the latter's office. He admitted that he belonged to the same village as the petitioner and that although there were 40 constables attached to the police station at Sangola he was chosen for the purpose of dispersing the crowed at Maneri Chowk on February 14. According to him, constable Deshmukh was not present at the police station. Neither did he remember having seen Deshmukh that day. He stated however that on February 14 after 5 p.m. he had seen the petitioner along with Zabke, President, Taluka Congress Committee, Sangola coming to the police station and that Ghaitade was at the police station from 11 a.m. to 8 p.m. 22. Chandrashekhar Vishwanath Zabke, President of the Taluka Congress Committee at Sangola, gave evidence to the effect that on February 14, 1967 while he was proceeding to the shop of M/s. Chavan Zabke and Co. of which his father was a petner he saw a blackboard supported against a telegraph post near I.M. Shaikh's shop. The purport of the writing on the blackboard was that the M.P.C.C. had withdrawn its support from the Congress candidate, Bapusaheb Salunke and was instead supporting his opponent. The latter had come to his shop and asked him what he was going to do about the matter. The respondent had not got the circular letter with him at the time, but someone had brought it and given it to him which was latter made over to the witness for him to read. The witness suspected mischief as the letter was dated 25th January. The respondent went away and Zabke went to see the petitioner. He admitted in cross- examination that the newspapers Sakal Vishal Sahyadri and Tarun Bharat which were circulated at Sangola and copies whereof had been received at Sangola at 11.30 a.m. contained the news which was mentioned in the circular letter. The respondent went away and Zabke went to see the petitioner. He admitted in cross- examination that the newspapers Sakal Vishal Sahyadri and Tarun Bharat which were circulated at Sangola and copies whereof had been received at Sangola at 11.30 a.m. contained the news which was mentioned in the circular letter. He further admitted that Siddeshwar Zabke who had made the complaint to the police at 5.30 p.m. On February 14, 1967 was related to him but he did not remember whether he had seen Siddeswar Zabke on that day: neither did Siddeswar Zabke tell him anything about the complaint made to the police by him. 23. Vithal Ramchandra Patne, Secretary of the Taluka Congress Committee at Sangola, gave evidence to the effect that at 12.45 p.m., while he was passing Bajrang Lokhande's shop near Maneri Chowk, the respondent was sitting inside the shop and advocate Chandole was sitting next to the respondent. Ram Pande, I.M. Shaikh and Bajrang Lokhande were also present there. The respondent showed the circular to him as having been received from the office of the M. P. C. C. withdrawing its support to the candidature of the petitioner. The witness felt that the circular was a hoax. According to the witness, the respondent had said that they should act in terms of the circular. Witness thereafter met the petitioner at Dr Patil's place at about 2.45 p.m and informed him about his meeting and conversing with the respondent. He proceeded to the petitioner's office and told everybody he met on the way that the statements in the circular and the blackboards were false. In cross-examination he admitted that he had been convicted previously in connection with fabricating false evidence and similar offences in municipal matters and had been sentenced to a term of simple imprisonment. 24. The petitioner who was the last witness to be examined on his side stated that he had received the circular at about 12.30 p.m. in his office on February 14, 1967. Upon reading the same he had felt disturbed and had gone to Dr Patil's house. On the way he saw that a crowd had collected near the shop of I.M. Shaikh and a blackboard was being displayed outside his shop. Upon reading the same he had felt disturbed and had gone to Dr Patil's house. On the way he saw that a crowd had collected near the shop of I.M. Shaikh and a blackboard was being displayed outside his shop. The writing thereon was to the effect that as the petitioner was not likely to be successful in the election the M.P.C.C. had withdrawn its support from his candidature. He sent for Baba Zabke and after contacting him decided to make a complaint about the matter to the Assistant Returning Officer and the police. His complaint was written out by one Shivling Ghongade: one copy whereof was sent to the Returning Officer, a second to the police and the third for being kept in his records. At that time Chandrasekhar Zabke had arrived and informed the petitioner that he had read the blackboard near I.M. Shaikh's shop and about its contents. Zabke also informed the petitioner about his talk with the respondent at the shop. The witness along with Chandrasekhar Zabke and Vithalrao Patne had gone to see the Deputy Superintendent of Police and had talks with him about what had happened and the latter promised to investigate into the matter. He had gone to the police station at about 5.30 p.m. At about 9.30 p.m. he was sent for from the police station and after reaching there he gave his statement to Ghaitade. As regards Shaikh, he said that the latter was ordinarily canvassing for the respondent and used to be in his company and had also acted as the counting agent of the respondent. 25. The learned trial Judge meticulously examined the evidence of the witnesses. According to him some of them were entirely unreliable and some were partisan witnesses. The learned Judge noted, as we do, that in the petition the particulars about the manner and method of the preparation of the two blackboards was not given. As regards the display of the blackboard outside I.M. Shaikh's shop, the allegation in para 13 of the petition was that Shaikh had got the said false statements published by the writing on the blackboard. In our view, the learned Judge was right in testing the evidence of the evidence of the witnesses in the light of the two complaints to the police made on February 14. In our view, the learned Judge was right in testing the evidence of the evidence of the witnesses in the light of the two complaints to the police made on February 14. With regard to the police witnesses it is enough to say that they were out to help the petitioner in a situation in which hardly called for their intervention. The evidence already noted shows that the complaint by the petitioner was not made at mid-day but was handed over at the police station at about 9 p.m. at night after the petitioner had met Chandole and Zabke and had heard about the spread of the false statements contained in the circular letter. It is surprising that there should be no mention of the circular letter or of any false statements by way of propaganda against the petitioner in his complaint to the police. The only complaint made was with regard to the display of the blackboard outside the shop of I.M. Shaikh. The specific case made in the complaint was that Shaikh deliberately displayed the board on a prominent place outside his shop to gain undue advantage to the respondent who had encouraged and supported the said publication. The respondent was further charged in the complaint with having deliberately and intentionally spread the false news to Bajrang Lokhande and Vithal Ramchandra Patne. There was no reference to Chandole preparing the blackboards or writing thereon nor was there any mention of two blackboards being taken from outside I.M. Shaikh's shop to the respondent's election office. The earlier complaint made by Sidheswar Zabke also referred to the display of the blackboard outside I.M. Shaikh's shop. If it had been a fact that the respondent was dismissing false statements about the petitioner with the help of the circular letter received by him or that he was making a propaganda against the petitioner by display of two blackboards outside his office it is surprising that no mention should be made of either of these two matters in the complaint to the police. It has come out in the evidence that the respondent's office was situated at a distance of only 10-15 paces from the shop of I.M. Shaikh. The crowd of 150 people supposed to have collected outside I.M. Shaikh's shop could hardly fail to see the two blackboards outside the respondent's office. It has come out in the evidence that the respondent's office was situated at a distance of only 10-15 paces from the shop of I.M. Shaikh. The crowd of 150 people supposed to have collected outside I.M. Shaikh's shop could hardly fail to see the two blackboards outside the respondent's office. We cannot further lose sight of the fact that the election petition was presented on April 6, 1967 and it would be surprising if it was a fact that the petitioner had not contacted any of the persons who had come to give evidence in his favour without receiving a witness summons telling him as to what they had seen or heard on February 14. If the statements of the witnesses to the effect that Chandole was responsible for the preparation of the blackboards or that he had scored out the last line of the blackboard displayed outside Shaikh's shop and written something in substitution thereof be true, some mention should have been made of it in the complaints to the police and in the election petition. The learned trial Judge has criticised all the witnesses with cogent reasons for disbelieving them with regard to the publication of the news alleged to have been contained in the circular letter and of the display of the two blackboards and we are in entire agreement with him. According to the learned Judge the story of publication of false statements by the two blackboards was an improvement on the case originally contained in the complaint. Further improvement was sought to be made on the case set out in the petition by the evidence of witnesses called at the hearing. The Judge further remarked that neither the petitioner nor Chandrashekhar Zabke had said anything about the blackboards outside the respondent's office. The panch witnesses were disbelieved by the learned Judge and for very good reasons. One of them was described as a stooge of the police and though the words used may be harsh the description seems to be accurate. The learned Judge noted that the police Sub Inspector Ghaitade had gone out of his way in the cause of the petitioner and the constable M. B. Mohite was not a reliable witness and in our opinion the learned Judge's comments were perfectly justified. 26. The learned Judge noted that the police Sub Inspector Ghaitade had gone out of his way in the cause of the petitioner and the constable M. B. Mohite was not a reliable witness and in our opinion the learned Judge's comments were perfectly justified. 26. The evidence taken as a whole establishes that the blackboard containing objectional matter about the petitioner was displayed out side I.M. Shaikh's shop. The question remains as to whether I.M. Shaikh was an agent of the respondent or was acting with his consent within the meaning of Section 123 sub-section (4). According to the said provision "the publication by a candidate or his agent or by any other person, with the consent of a candidate or his election agent, of any statement of fact which is false, and which he either believes to be false or does not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate, or in relation to the candidature, or withdrawal, of any candidate, being a statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's election shall be deemed to be corrupt practice for the 1 purpose of the Act". The first Explanation to this section reads: "In this section the expression `agent' includes an election agent, a polling agent and any person who is held to have acted as an agent in connection with the election with the consent of the candidate. " 27. It is to be noted that the Explanation does not include a "counting agent" although counting agents are mentioned in Section 47 of the Act. Ordinarily the work of a counting agent is only connected with the day of the counting. He need not have anything to do with the support of the candidate for whom he acts as a counting agent before the election. In this case on the evidence one may say that Shaikh was supporting the respondent, but that by itself would not make him an agent of the respondent within the meaning of Section 123. Further, the evidence in our opinion does not establish that the display of the blackboard by I.M. Shaikh was done with the consent of the respondent. We are unable to accept the evidence that Chandole was responsible for the writing on the blackboards outside I.M. Shaikh's shop, while the respondent and I. M. Shaikh were standing by his side. Further, the evidence in our opinion does not establish that the display of the blackboard by I.M. Shaikh was done with the consent of the respondent. We are unable to accept the evidence that Chandole was responsible for the writing on the blackboards outside I.M. Shaikh's shop, while the respondent and I. M. Shaikh were standing by his side. The learned trial Judge has given cogent reasons for negativing this case and we are in agreement with him. It is well known that many people support a candidate at an election without the candidate knowing anything about it. In such a case one cannot come to the conclusion that what the supporter was doing was necessarily with the consent of the candidate. If it was possible to hold that what Shaikh did was done with the consent of the respondent, then the petitioner would have gone a long way in establishing his charge of corrupt practice against the respondent but the evidence falls far short of such a case. 28. We are not also satisfied that the petitioner has been able to establish any case under Section 100 (i)(d) under which a petitioner must be able to show that the result of the election in so far as it concerned a returned candidate had been materially affected by any corrupt practice committed in the interest of the returned candidate by an agent other than his election agent. We have not been able to accept the case of I.M. Shaikh acting as an agent of the respondent and consequently no finding can be made against the respondent under this sub-section. 29. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.