JUDGMENT : Mitter, J. 1. This is an appeal by a returned candidate from an order of the Gujarat High Court setting aside his election on an election petition filed in respect of a Parliamentary constituency being No. 10 - Gandhi Nagar Parliamentary constituency reserved for Scheduled Castes. There were originally four candidates contesting the election but one withdrew from the contest leaving three on the field. The poll was taken on February 21, 1967 and the result was declared on February 24, 1967. In the said election the appellant (the returned candidate) obtained 1,56,148 votes as against the election petitioner's 1,26,208 votes and the second respondent's 50,702 votes. 2. In the election petition filed on 10-4-1967 various grounds were set up for declaring the election of the appellant void. This appeal is concerned only with Grounds 4 and 5. Ground 4 was to the effect that the Respondent 1, his agents and other persons with his consent had committed a corrupt practice of obtaining or procuring or attempting to obtain or procure assistance for the furtherance of the prospects of the first respondent's election from persons in the service of the Government and belonging to category of Gazetted officers, members of the police force, etc. No less than five categories of such persons were specified and several persons belonging to such categories were named in sub-paras (a) to (e) of ground 4. But the only one with whom the learned trial Judge had to deal was one Jethalal B. Jadhav said to be serving in the Income tax Department of the Government of India. The learned Judge did not accept the evidence with regard to the assistance alleged to have been rendered by Jadhav and the point has not been pressed before us in his appeal by counsel for the election petitioner. 3. The learned Judge did not accept the evidence with regard to the assistance alleged to have been rendered by Jadhav and the point has not been pressed before us in his appeal by counsel for the election petitioner. 3. The fifth ground in the petition was to the effect that "the first respondent and his agent, with the consent of Respondent 1, had published false statements which they believed to be false and did not believe to be true in relation to the personal character, conduct and the candidature of the petitioner with a reasonable calculation to prejudice the prospect of the petitioner's election' The main charge under this head was the free distribution throughout the constituency by the first respondent and his workers with his consent of the issue of the 10 February 1967 of a fortnightly paper named Tamanna. This paper was being published and edited by one Jayantibhai Subodh described in the petition as actively working for the first respondent in the election and the person mainly responsible for the propaganda on his behalf. Subodh was also said to have been one of the founders of the Backward Voters Council which had espoused the cause of the first respondent in the election. The publication of this issue by Subodh was said to have been done with the consent of the first respondent. A translation of a portion of the issue of Tamanna dated 10-2-1967 is to be found in the petition. It is not necessary to reproduce the same because there can be no doubt that the allegations made in that issue did reflect seriously on the conduct and character of the petitioner. It was even stated in that issue of the paper that the petitioner who was a candidate of the Republican Party was struggling to get votes by going to the villages and offering sweetmeat packets to Harijan voters. Mr Sen, learned counsel for the appellant tried to convince us though rather half-heartedly, that the references to the conduct of the petitioner in the said issue of "Tamanna" were not made literally but only allegorically. Mr Sen, learned counsel for the appellant tried to convince us though rather half-heartedly, that the references to the conduct of the petitioner in the said issue of "Tamanna" were not made literally but only allegorically. We find ourselves unable to take that view as there were direct references to the petitioner trying to bargain with the Swantantra Party and attempting to get one Ramesh Parmer to withdraw his candidature by offering money to him and pawning the so-called Republican Party with Shri Wadilal Mehta, the seth of the Swatantra Party. 4. The question which the learned Judge had to deal with at the trial of the election petition and which is before us now is, whether the first respondent was responsible for the publication of issue of the "Tamanna" dated 10th February, 1967, and secondly, whether even if he was not responsible for such publication, he was responsible for the distribution of that issue to various persons at different places in Gandhi Nagar Constituency either by himself or through his agents and workers with his consent to the detriment of the petitioner. Quite a large number of witnesses were examined before the trial Judge but only four witnesses were relied on for the purpose of showing that there had been publication of false statements regarding the petitioner by the distribution of impugned issue of the Tamanna at different places and we propose to examine the evidence adduced by these witnesses in the order in which they were examined. 5. The first witness was one Chhanbhai (PW 4) of Dehgam. He said that the first respondent had come to Dehgam for his election campaign. About six or seven days before the date of the poll, the witness had gone from the Dehgam to Nandol village (3 miles from Dehgam) to attend a meeting of caste panch attended by about 1000 people. The first respondent and his workers including one Jayantibhai Subodh and one Vithalbhai were there and they were distributing handbills and newspapers. He could not recollect the name of the newspaper but said that he would be able to identify it if it was shown to him. On being shown a copy of the issue of `Tamanna' dated 10th February, 1967, he said that copies of this particular issue had been distributed to several persons at that meeting in Nandol. He could not recollect the name of the newspaper but said that he would be able to identify it if it was shown to him. On being shown a copy of the issue of `Tamanna' dated 10th February, 1967, he said that copies of this particular issue had been distributed to several persons at that meeting in Nandol. In cross-examination, he admitted that he did not remember what was written in that particular of the newspaper. When he was shown a copy of the issue dated 25th December, 1966, he said that he was not in a position to say whether this was the issue which he had seen at Nandol. Although he did not need spectacles when he gave evidence in chief he had to use the same during his cross-examination and the trial Judge has commented rather strongly about the use of the spectacles by the witness as going to show that he was not a witness of truth. The witness also said that he talked to Naranbhai Vora, the election agent of the petitioner (PW 19) about the distribution of the newspapers at Nandol. According to him Naranbhai had come to Dehgam about two or three days after the caste Panch meeting at Nandol and it was then that he had told Naranbhai as to what had happened at that meeting. 6. The second witness in this connection was one Jivanlal (PW 8) who stated in his examination-in-chief that he resided at Vijayanagar Housing Society near Kankeria, Ahmedabad. His evidence was that about six or seven days before the polling day, the first respondent, one Jethalal Jadav and Jayantibhai Subodh had come to his housing society, accompanied by about forty other persons. He immediately corrected himself by saying that it was the first respondent who had come with Jayantilal Subodh and Jethalal Jadav and that about forty persons had attended the meeting which was held after their arrival. It was Jayantibhai Subodh who had come to his house to call him for the meeting. According to him the meeting was first addressed by Jayantibhai Subodh, then Jethalal Jadav and lastly by the first respondent, and after the speeches were over, a booklet published by the Backward Classes Voter's Council and some issues of the journal "Tamanna" were distributed amongst those who had attended the meeting. He identified the booklet which was shown to him Ex. He identified the booklet which was shown to him Ex. G. A copy of the "Tamanna" being shown to him, he identified the same and said that he had received a copy of the newspaper from the first respondent. He did not, however, remember whether the speaker at the meeting had said anything about the petitioner. In his cross-examination, the first question he was asked was about the shift duty in which he was engaged at the Rohit Mills, Ahmedabad and his answer was that on the day of the meeting he was working in the day shift which commenced from 7 a.m. and lasted till 3.30 p.m. He did not recollect exactly the date on which the meeting was held but he remembered having spoken to Naranbhai Vora about the meeting about two days prior to the date of the poll telling him that copies of `Tamanna' had been distributed after the speeches. He had not shown any copy of the `Tananna' to Naranbhai nor did he recollect whether he had told Naranbhai about the contents of the different articles in that issue. His cross- examination goes to show as if he had talked to Naranbhai not in his house but at some other place. His definite evidence was that Naranbhai did ask the witness to show him the copy of the issue of `Tamanna' but he did not show that copy to him. He did not have a copy of the `Tamanna' on the date when he came to give his evidence but he remembered that he had brought home a copy of the `Tamanna' from the meeting. There were about 300 houses in Vijaynagar society and copies of `Tamanna' had been distributed to several people residing there. He was positive that a copy of the issue had been given to each person attending the meeting. He was not in a position to say whether there was any meeting in Vijaynagar Society presided over by Khandubhai Desai nor did he recollect any meeting of the Congress Party other than the one spoken to by him. He was sure that it was the first respondent who had distributed copies of the Tamanna to everyone at the meeting. 7. The next witness was one Nanjibhai (PW 9) who is a resident of Dehgam. He was sure that it was the first respondent who had distributed copies of the Tamanna to everyone at the meeting. 7. The next witness was one Nanjibhai (PW 9) who is a resident of Dehgam. According to his evidence, the first respondent had carried on election propaganda in his village at the time of the last general election and he used to go to that village along with Jayantibhai Subodh and two or four other persons. He saw the first respondent for the first time in connection with the election campaign about 15 or 20 days before the date of the poll, but the first respondent had visited the village afterwards. On one occasion during the election campaign while he was passing by the village library, he was called in by Jayantibhai Subodh who was sitting inside the library in company of other persons and asked to give his name and his place of work. On the witness answering, Jayantibhai told him that he should vote for the Congress party candidate and handed over to him an issue of the copy of `Tamanna' dated 10-2-1967. In cross-examination the witness said that he used to know Jayantibhai Subodh even prior to the date of the above incident. He also said that Naranbhai Vora had come to Dehgam on the third day after Jayantibhai's above visit to Dehgam and after his talk with him he had handed over his copy of the issue of `Tamanna' to Naranbhai. The witness did not recollect the exact date on which he had met Naranbhai but said it was about 6 or 7 days before the date of the poll Naranbhai had come to Dehgam in the company of the petitioner for his election compaign and witness had invited him to tea. When Naranbhai came to his house, he saw the copy of the `Tamanna' dated 10th February, 1967 and asked him how he came to be in possession of that particular issue and the witness told Naranbhai that Jayantibhai Subodh had given him that copy about 6 or 7 days before the date of the poll. According to the witness the second visit of the first respondent to Dehgam in the course of his election campaign took place about 6 or 7 days after his first visit. According to the witness the second visit of the first respondent to Dehgam in the course of his election campaign took place about 6 or 7 days after his first visit. At the time of that second visit, the first respondent had held a meeting at the ginning press at Dehgam which was an open general public meeting. 8. One Mithabhai, who was a member of the Textile Labour Association, Ahmedabad, was examined as PW 13. His evidence in examination-in-chief was that the chawl in which he resided consisted of about 50 buildings and in all nearly 500 persons resided in that chawl. Most of them were Harijans. About seven or eight days prior to the date of the poll the first respondent had come to his chawl for his election propaganda. He was accompanied by Mooldas Vijaydas Vaishya, a former member of Parliament, Himatlal Solanki and several other local workers. The first respondent had gone from house to house in the chawl and requested the residents to vote for the Congress Party; he had also asked one of the local workers to distribute amongst the residents of the chawl copies of the `Tamanna' dated 10th February, 1967. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had not been served with a witness summons in the case but Naranbhai Vora had asked him to come and give evidence there. He had a talk with Naranbhai Vora about a week after the date of the poll about the visit of Respondent 1 to the chawl and about the distribution of copies of `Tamanna' in the chawl at the latter's instance. It was about a fortnight before his examination in court the witness stated that Naranbhai Vora had contacted him and informed him that he had given his name as one of the witnesses in the case. According to the witness, he had seen copies of the `Tamanna' being handed over to about five persons in the chawl and he himself had received one such copy from one of the local workers of the first respondent. He was not in a position to give the names of these five persons to whom he saw copies of `Tamanna' being given although they were all residents of the chawl. He himself did not preserve the copy of that particular issue of `Tamanna' which he had received. 9. He was not in a position to give the names of these five persons to whom he saw copies of `Tamanna' being given although they were all residents of the chawl. He himself did not preserve the copy of that particular issue of `Tamanna' which he had received. 9. Not content with examining these witnesses, the petitioner summoned Jayantibhai Subodh to give evidence. In his examination-in-chief, Jayantibhai said that he was in charge of the printing and publishing of the newspaper Tamanna and he was also the editor of this paper. He admitted that he was the secretary of the Ahmedabad City Backward Classes Voters' Council and Ex. G being a booklet complained of what had been published by that Council. He then stated that Jthabhai B. Yadav, shown as one of the office bearers of the Backward Classes Voters Council, was not serving in the Income Tax Department. At this stage of his examination, counsel for the petitioner asked for leave to cross-examine the witness on the ground that he was not likely to tell the truth and the learned Judge allowed the witness to be cross-examined. We find it difficult to uphold this direction of the learned Judge. Jayantibhai, no doubt, according to the petitioner, was an active supporter of the first respondent but at this stage when he was allowed to be cross-examined, he had not said anything which would lead one to take the view that he was in the witness box with the avowed object of suppressing the truth. In our opinion, the case was not one where leave to cross-examine the witness should have been given on the materials than before the court. Cross-examined by the counsel for the petitioner, witness said that the views expressed in `Tamanna' generally favoured the Congress Party and he himself had been a supporter of the party for about 25 years. With regard to the issue dated 10th February, 1967, he frankly admitted that he wanted the first respondent to succeed against the petitioner and he had therefore written the portion complained of in Ex. E. The materials which he had set out as facts in Ex. E were gathered by him partly from other newspapers partly from what he came to know through correspondence and partly through other sources. E. The materials which he had set out as facts in Ex. E were gathered by him partly from other newspapers partly from what he came to know through correspondence and partly through other sources. He stated, however, that he was not responsible for the distribution of the copies of `Tamanna' in the company of the respondent and the first respondent was not associated with him in printing the allegations set out in Ex. E. He admitted that the first respondent and himself were office-holders in an institution known as the Backward Classes National Congress. The first respondent was the President and he was the Secretary of that body. Cross-examined he said that when he wrote the different portions included in Ex. E, he had not obtained the consent of the first respondent, nor did he do so in consultation with the first respondent or at his instance. He denied that he had gone to Nandol in the company of the first respondent four or five days prior to the date of the poll as alleged or that he had made any speech or distributed any issue of the "Tamanna" to different people. He further denied that he had distributed copies of the issue of `Tamanna' at any meeting held in Vijaynagar Housing Society or that he had called Jiwan Lal to attend any such meeting. His evidence was that he had not attended any meeting in connection with the election campaign of the first respondent at Vijaynagar Society six or seven days prior to the date of the poll. His positive evidence was that on 11-2-1967 a meeting had been held in Vijaynagar Housing Society presided over by one Khemchandbhai Chavda and in which Khandubhai Desai was the Chief guest. He admitted having attended that particular meeting. He did not know the witness Nanjibhai Kalidas Rathod nor had he distributed any copies of "Tamanna" to any person at Dehgam at any time. He also stated that he had not accompanied the first respondent in the course of his campaigns to any place on the outskirts of Ahmedabad city or in the city itself. 10. Naranbhai who was an election agent of the petitioner was the nineteenth witness to be examined on the petitioner's side. He also stated that he had not accompanied the first respondent in the course of his campaigns to any place on the outskirts of Ahmedabad city or in the city itself. 10. Naranbhai who was an election agent of the petitioner was the nineteenth witness to be examined on the petitioner's side. In his cross-examination-in-chief he stated that even after the date of the poll he had moved about in the constituency to collect information for the election petition which the petitioner was then contemplating presenting to the High Court. He had contacted witness Chhanbhai Virbhai Rathod of Dehgam after the election results were out. Chhaganbhai had told him that the first respondent, Jayantibhai Subodh, and Manoharlal Shah, the Swatantra Party candidate from Dehgam constituency had come to Nandol when a meeting of the caste Panch was being held and that Jayantibhai Subodh had distributed copies of the `Tamanna' after the meeting which had been held about a week prior to his talk with Chhanbhai. In the same manner, he had so contacted the witness Jivanlal Sombhai Vaghela at Vijayanagar Housing Society. His evidence was that he had met Jivanlal at his house when Jivanlal told him that the first respondent, Jayantibhai Subodh and others had come to Vijaynagar Society and had addressed a meeting there. According to the witness, Jivanlal also told him that after the meeting the first respondent had given him a copy of "Tamanna" but Jivanlal had not brought with him the copy of Tamanna which he had received. Similarly he had contacted witness Nanjibhai Kalidas Rathod of Dehgam where he had gone a week prior to the date of the poll. Nanjibhai had invited him to his house for a cup of tea and while he was having tea he saw an issue of the `Tamanna' lying on a table. Nanjibhai then told him that two or four days earlier, the first respondent and Jayantibhai Subodh had come to Dehgam for election propaganda work and on that occasion the first respondent had given him the issue of `Tamanna. Mithabhai, PW 13, told him that the first respondent, Jayantibhai Subodh, and Jethalal Jadav had come to his chawl and had distributed copies of a booklet published by the Backward Classes Voters' Council and of issues of `Tamanna' to several leading workers in that area. 11. Mithabhai, PW 13, told him that the first respondent, Jayantibhai Subodh, and Jethalal Jadav had come to his chawl and had distributed copies of a booklet published by the Backward Classes Voters' Council and of issues of `Tamanna' to several leading workers in that area. 11. On the side of the first respondent only three witnesses were examined including the respondent. The respondent admitted that he had visited Dehgam in the course of his election campaign. The first occasion when he had gone there was on 7th December, 1966. He had not visited Dehgam six or seven days prior to the date of the poll. About twenty or twenty five days prior to the date of the poll, an election meeting was held at the ginning press of Dehgam. He had attended that meeting also. This was his second visit to Dehgam in the course of his election campaign. At the time of his visit to Dehgam in December 1966, he had taken Jayantibhai Subodh with him because he was quite well known there. Apart from this particular visit to Dehgam in the company of Jayantibhai, he had not moved about anywhere else in his constituency in Jayantibhai's company. He was not a subscriber of the Tamanna' although he had been receiving complimentary copies of that paper after his election. He came to know about the impugned matter printed in `Tamanna' against the petitioner only when he received a copy of the election petition. In cross-examination it was put to him that he was on the advisory board of the Tamanna' newspaper and L Ex. being a news item printed in an issue, of that paper was shown to him. In this connection he admitted that he was present at that meeting and he had read messages from different persons received in connection with the convention of the Backward Classes Education and Welfare Society. His definite evidence was that he did not know that he had been appointed as a member of the advisory Board of that paper. The news item `L' shows that he was a Vice- President of the institution and that Jayantibhai Subodh, the editor of `Tamanna' was also there. He disclaimed his connection with the editorial policy of the writings in the Tamanna with particular reference to the issue dated 10th February, 1967. The news item `L' shows that he was a Vice- President of the institution and that Jayantibhai Subodh, the editor of `Tamanna' was also there. He disclaimed his connection with the editorial policy of the writings in the Tamanna with particular reference to the issue dated 10th February, 1967. He said that the same had not been written at his instance or at his suggestion. As regards Jayantibhai Subodh, his evidence was that the latter did not help him in his election campaign nor was he one of his workers but he had acted as one of his counting agents at the election. 12. It is to be noted that in the election petition itself full particulars were not given about the publication of the Tamanna' or the distribution of the issue of 10th February, 1967 to various people at different places. The first respondent had only himself to blame in that he did not ask for further and better particulars in which case it would have been easier for him to have met the allegation or contradicted the evidence of the witnesses who were cited against him by calling other witnesses. We have however to examine the evidence which was brought before the court and to see whether a charge of corrupt practice was established. 13. In examining the evidence it must be borne in mind that the charge of corrupt practice is something very similar to a criminal charge, and must be established by cogent and reliable evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. The person seeking to establish the commission of a corrupt practice against a candidate must bring before the court unimpeachable evidence which would justify the court in coming to the conclusion that a charge of corrupt practice had been proved in such a way that there could be no reasonable doubt about the commission thereof in the mind of any person. It is not possible to lay down any rule as to how many witnesses should be examined to establish the charge of a corrupt practice but in a case like this where it is alleged that there had been free distribution of a newspaper containing defamatory matter about the petitioner throughout the constituency one would expect at least more than one witness to testify to the fact that the leaflet or the newspaper containing the matter complained of had been given to them at the meeting or thereafter by the candidate charged with the corrupt practice or by someone else with his consent. It may be that in a particular case the Judge can rely on the evidence of a solitary witness of un-impeach able character in coming to the conclusion that the charge had been established but the witness must be such that the Judge can safely rely on his testimony. Speaking generally, the evidence of a witness deposing to the fact of distribution of defamatory matter contained in a leaflet not published by the candidate would require some corroboration. In this case only four witnesses were examined to speak about the distribution of the newspaper Tamanna at four different places. The learned trial Judge has discarded the evidence of three but accepted the evidence of one as being sufficient in his opinion to establish the charge. The Judge rejected the evidence of Chhanbhai Virabhai Rathod (PW 4) mainly on the ground that although the witness identified the issue of Tamanna' dated 10th February, 1967, during his examination-in-chief without the use of spectacles in cross- examination he said that he could not read without the assistance of the same. We may add that even in his examination-in-chief the witness could not recollect the name of the newspaper which the first respondent and his workers were said to be distributing but he sought to identify it when it was shown to him. How he could identify it without the spectacles it is difficult to see. In cross-examination he said that he had told Naranbhai about the distribution of the newspaper two or three days after the meeting at Nandol but this was not borne out by the evidence of Naranbhai. According to the latter, Chhanibhai had told him about the distribution of this paper after the election results were out. 14. In cross-examination he said that he had told Naranbhai about the distribution of the newspaper two or three days after the meeting at Nandol but this was not borne out by the evidence of Naranbhai. According to the latter, Chhanibhai had told him about the distribution of this paper after the election results were out. 14. The learned Judge accepted the evidence of Jivanlal Somabhai Veghela. According to the Judge, he was a witness of truth because he was giving his evidence in a straightforward manner and the Judge relied mainly on the demeanour of the witness in the witness box for this purpose. In our opinion, however, the evidence of this witness was not such that it could be held to been conclusive by itself. He contradicted himself almost at the very commencement of his examination-in-chief. He said at first that six or seven days before the polling day in the constituency the first respondent, Jethalal Jadav and Jayantilal Subodh had come to the society accompanied by about forty persons. He corrected himself very soon after wards by saying that forty persons had not accompanied the first respondent but forty was the number of persons present at the meeting which was held at the Housing Society. Besides this, in one important aspect the evidence of this witness was not borne out by Naranbhai, the petitioner's election agent. According to this witness, a copy of the issue of `Tamanna' had been given to him by the first respondent on the day of the meeting. As noted already, his evidence in cross-examination was that he did not meet Naranbhai at his house and had not shown him the copy of the Tamanna although requested to do so but had told him at the first interview with him that he had a copy of the issue of `Tamanna : Naranbhai in his evidence however said that he had met Jivanlal at his house when Jivanlal had told him that the first respondent had given him a copy of the Tamanna. Jivanlal's evidence, as already noted, goes to show that he had not met Naranbhai at his house because he told Naranbhai that he had not brought with him the copy of the Tamanna' which he had received from the first respondent. 15. It is difficult to accept the evidence of Jivanlal for other reasons also. Jivanlal's evidence, as already noted, goes to show that he had not met Naranbhai at his house because he told Naranbhai that he had not brought with him the copy of the Tamanna' which he had received from the first respondent. 15. It is difficult to accept the evidence of Jivanlal for other reasons also. As we have noted before, according to Jayantibhai Subodh, the meeting at Vijaynagar Housing Society had taken place on 11th February, 1967, that is to say, 10 days before the poll and it was presided over by Khemchandbhai Chawda and also attended by Khandubhai Desai. It would have been easy enough for the petitioner to have called witnesses to discredit Jayantibhai, and corroborate Jivanlal to the effect that there had been no meeting at Vijaynagar Society on the 11th February or that as a matter of fact the meeting had been held six or seven days before the date of the poll when the distribution of the Tamanna' of 10th February, 1967 had taken place. According to Jivanlal about forty persons has attended the meeting and it was surprising that no one besides him would be found to come and corroborate his testimony. 16. With regard to Jivanlal, counsel for the appellant moved an application for the taking of additional evidence which according to him would clinch the matter and demonstrate to the court that Jivanlal could not possibly have attended the meeting six or seven days before the date of the poll in the evening inasmuch as the records of the Rohit Mills where he was working would show that at that time Jivanlal was engaged in the night shift thus excluding the possibility of his presence at any meeting in the evening at Vijaynagar Housing Society. It is to be noted that no attempt to adduce such evidence was made before the trial Judge. It is also to be noted that Jivanlal was examined on 20th October, 1967 and the examination of the witness went on till 6th November 1967. It is to be noted that no attempt to adduce such evidence was made before the trial Judge. It is also to be noted that Jivanlal was examined on 20th October, 1967 and the examination of the witness went on till 6th November 1967. If the respondent was so minded there was ample opportunity for him to have secured evidence from the Rohit Mills before the conclusion of the case and we have no doubt that if an application had been made to the learned trial Judge in between 20-10-67 and 6-11-1967 for recalling Jivanlal for the purpose of contradicting him by the record of the Rohit Mills, the learned judge would have allowed it. That apart, this is not a case where we feel we cannot come to a decision in the absence of evidence now sought to be produced before us. For what has happened, the appellant has himself to blame and in our opinion no case has been made out for the exercise of our jurisdiction under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 17. The learned Judge did not accept the evidence of Nanjibhai Kalidas Rathod (PW 9). We see no reason to take a view different from that of the learned trial Judge with regard to the evidence of this witness. The testimony of this witness is of such a character that we find it extremely difficult to believe it. According to his evidence, he was passing along the road when Jayantibhai Subodh who was sitting inside the library called him in and asked him who he was and where he was working. Then he told him that he should vote for the Congress party and gave him a copy of the `Tamanna' dated 10th February, 1967. If Jayantibhai Subodh and the first respondent were out in an election campaign it was hardly likely that while they were sitting or resting in the library, they would call up people from the street and thrust into their hands a copy of the `Tamanna' which contained matter derogatory to the petitioner. More than that, the way in which Naranbhai came to learn about this witness knowing anything about the distribution of the issue of `Tamanna' is such that it cannot possibly be accepted. More than that, the way in which Naranbhai came to learn about this witness knowing anything about the distribution of the issue of `Tamanna' is such that it cannot possibly be accepted. According to this witness he met Naranbhai six or seven days before the date of the poll and had invited him to tea. It was a strange coincidence that when Naranbhai was having his tea that he saw a copy of the Tamanna' dated 10-2-1967 lying about in the house of the witness and asked the witness how he had come to be in possession of it. The evidence of this witness was to his getting a copy of the Tamanna his coming across Naranbhai and the latter's find of the copy in the house of the witness is so suspicious that we cannot give credence to it. 18. This leaves us with the evidence of Mithabhai Amberam Parmar (PW 13). The learned trial Judge did not accept the evidence of this witness mainly on the ground that he was a partisan witness. The learned Judge thought him to be such because he admitted having joined the petitioner in his companion for breaking open the locks at the Sachivalaya at Ahmedabad. The witness however denied this suggestion. In our opinion, however, there are other circumstances which go against the acceptance of the evidence of this witness. The first thing to note is that he was an unsummoned witness. It was only in the first week of October 1967 that Naranbhai Vora contacted him and requested him to come and give evidence in this case. Another thing to note about this witness is that he said that the first respondent had gone to the chawl accompanied by Mooldas Vijayadas Vaishya but he did not mention Jayantibhai Subodh at all while Narayanbhai in his evidence connects each of the witnesses with Jayantibhai Subodh. For all these reasons, we are not impressed by the evidence of Mithabhai although the learned trial Judge has not discussed his evidence in any detail. 19. In regard to all these witnesses no attempt was made to get their testimony corroborated by others to prove the fact that there was a free distribution of the issue of the newspaper Tamanna. 19. In regard to all these witnesses no attempt was made to get their testimony corroborated by others to prove the fact that there was a free distribution of the issue of the newspaper Tamanna. The testimony of these witnesses taken singly as regards distribution of the Tamanna at different places does not inspire confidence and in the absence of corroboration it is not safe to rely on the same. It must be borne in mind that in a case like this where there can be no doubt or dispute about the defamatory character of a particular document, it would be easy enough to lead evidence to the effect that the document complained of had been distributed to various persons. When the place of distribution and the occasion for distribution is a meeting, one would naturally expect some corroboration of the distribution by more than one witness, unless, of course, as we have already said, the witness is of such a character that no corroboration of his testimony was called for. 20. Although four witnesses have been examined to establish the case of distribution of the matter complained of at four different places, we cannot take the view that the evidence is sufficient to lay the commission of corrupt practice fairly and squarely at the door of the first respondent. In his written statement, the first respondent disclaimed having anything to do with the publication of the newspaper or of any distribution of the paper by him or by his agents with his consent. In these circumstances, it was certainly necessary for the petitions to have come forward with better evidence than he has done in this case. It cannot be said that he was feeling shy of calling a number of witnesses as he has examined no less than 19 witnesses but no two witnesses speak on the same subject. 21. Mr Chari for the respondent also contended that there was enough material on the record to show that the printing of the `Tamanna' dated 10-2-1967 was with the consent of the appellant and according to Jayantibhai Subodh the paper had a wide circulation. The very fact that the printing was with the consent of the appellant, if established, would go to prove his case of commission of corrupt practice. The circumstances from which Mr Chari wanted us to come to this conclusion were as follows: 1. The very fact that the printing was with the consent of the appellant, if established, would go to prove his case of commission of corrupt practice. The circumstances from which Mr Chari wanted us to come to this conclusion were as follows: 1. The first respondent was on the Advisory Board of the `Tamanna 2. Jayantibhai Subodh was not merely supporting the Congress Party in general but he was supporting the appellant in particular as he admitted in his evidence. 3. The issue of the Tamanna' dated 10-2-67 contained an article directly dealing with the election and the editorial policy of the paper must be laid at the door of the Advisory Board consisting of the first respondent and other persons. 4. Jayantibhai Subodh accompanied the appellant in his election campaign, if not to different places he had accompanied certain persons who had gone for the election campaign in favour of the first respondent. 5. Jayantibhai was a counting agent of the first respondent. 22. This argument appears to have been made before the learned trial Judge. His view however was that it was possible for Jayantibhai Subodh himself on his own responsibility and in his enthusiasm to support the cause of the Congress Party and published the impugned passages in the issue of the Tamanna' dated 10-2-1967 and not as the agent of the first respondent. In our opinion, the learned Judge was justified in coming to that conclusion. Although the first respondent stated in his evidence that he did not know that his name had been included in the Advisory Board of the paper, we can take it that his name was there but there is nothing in the record to show that he had ever taken any part in laying down the editorial policy of this paper. Ex. `L' to which we have already referred, was a document of 1963, nearly four years before the date of election, and even if the first respondent had been on the Advisory Board in 1963, there is nothing to show that he was taking any active interest in the policy of that paper at or about the time of the election or at any time in between 1963 and the date of the election. The first respondent admitted having taken the help of Jayantibhai Subodh when he visited Dehgam but apart from this, there is no evidence which would justify us in holding that Jayantibhai Subodh was accompanying the first respondent in his election campaign to different places. Jayantibhai has stated clearly that besides going to Dehgam with the first respondent he had not taken part in his election campaign at all and as we have already stated, this statement of Jayantibhai Subodh could have been falsified by calling other witnesses. Although Jayantibhai Subodh was a counting agent of the first respondent and although he admitted having leaning towards the first respondent in the election, the evidence brought before the court does not lead to the conclusion that the publishing of the defamatory matter in the `Tamanna' issue dated 10-2-1967 by him was with the consent of the appellant or even to his knowledge. 23. Although the learned Judge has gone into the question as to whether the first respondent has been guilty of taking assistance from a Government servant, namely, Jethabhai B. Yadav, in his election campaign at some length he did not accept the evidence and Mr Chari did not press this point before us. In the result, we must hold that the learned trial Judge was not right in coming to the conclusion that the first respondent had been guilty of the commission of the corrupt practice as raised in issue No. 6 of the issues settled on 29th August 1967, namely, that the first respondent and his agents had with the consent of the first respondent published false statements believing them to be false or not believing them to be true in relation to the personal character, conduct and candidature of the petitioner. 24. In the result, the appeal must be accepted and it is accordingly allowed with costs.