JUDGMENT : M. Hidayatullah, C.J.I. 1. This is an appeal by a returned candidate whose election to the Orissa Legislative Assembly from the Rayagada Constituency has been set aside on account of a corrupt practice proved against him. He was ex parte in the High Court and did not appear on the date on which the witnesses were examined. As a result the evidence led in the case has remained unsifted. We shall come to that evidence presently. 2. The election petition was filed by one of the contesting candidates. There were three candidates including the appellant and the respondent. The appellant secured 8641 votes and the respondent 7692 votes. We do not know from the record how many votes the third candidate obtained. There was thus a margin of 949 votes between the successful candidate and his nearest rival. 3. Two contentions were raised in the election petition which received notice from the High Court. They are, as follows: The first ground was that for this constituency, the electoral rules were prepared both in Telugu and in Oriya and the two electoral rolls did not agree between them. There were more names in the Telugu version that in the Oriya version. According to the figures computed in the High Court, as many as 2400 voters were omitted from the Oriya list. The names and other particulars of many voters were also discrepant. The next ground was that the returned candidate was guilty of corrupt practice inasmuch as he gave bribes to the voters to secure their votes. Two paras in the election petition bear upon this fact of bribery and they may be quoted here: "21. That the respondent distributed through his agent Rs. 3000 in villages Kattapada on 19 February, 1967 and paid the villagers of Vira Narayanapur a sum of Rs. 1800 on the same day to secure their support for him in the election. " "22. That further the respondent paid large sum of money to his workers and agents for distribution amongst the voters and his workers distributed Rs. 300 in each of Domb Street, Dobi Street, Ghasi Street and Reli Street of Rayageda to secure the vote of the voters there in his support." The returned candidate appeared at some of the earlier hearings. He filed a written statement in which he referred to these two paras, particularly para 22. 300 in each of Domb Street, Dobi Street, Ghasi Street and Reli Street of Rayageda to secure the vote of the voters there in his support." The returned candidate appeared at some of the earlier hearings. He filed a written statement in which he referred to these two paras, particularly para 22. He characterised the allegations there as false; but did not ask for better particulars for reasons best known to himself. If any case, the parties went to trial on 4 issues of which two issues are not pressed before us. The issue with regard to the electoral roll does not survive, because it was not raised before us. The only issue on which the debate took place in this appeal concerned the payment of bribes as stated in para 22 of the election petition we have quoted earlier. 4. In support of his case, the election petitioner examined only two witnesses. As stated earlier, the respondent was not present at the time of their examination, having earlier sent an application for adjournment saying that he was suffering from Peptic ulcer. The High Court, however, rejected the application for adjournment and proceeded with the trial of the case. If we had been minded to accept the evidence of the two witnesses to prove the corrupt practice, we would have gone a little more closely into the facts of this adjournment, but we think it unnecessary to do so, because we do not accept the evidence of these two witnesses. No doubt, their testimony has gone on cross-examined, but it is uncorroborated and is of a kind on which reliance cannot easily be placed by a court of fact. The High Court no doubt accepted it, but it does not seem to have noticed the inherent flaws in that the evidence and the unsatisfactory character of the witnesses who had come to depose before it. 5. We must express our surprise that even if the party did not appear to cross-examine the witnesses, the High Court did not test the evidence of these witnesses by putting some questions of its own. Under the Evidence Act, the court may ask at any stage of the proceeding and from any witness any question which it is inclined to put to find out the truth (see Section 165 of the Evidence Act). Under the Evidence Act, the court may ask at any stage of the proceeding and from any witness any question which it is inclined to put to find out the truth (see Section 165 of the Evidence Act). The High Court should have at least put a few questions to find out the truth or falsity of the allegations so that the evidence of one witness might have been compared against that of the other. No such attempt was made and the evidence of these two witnesses had been accepted. We shall now consider that evidence. 6. The first witness is P. Appalsawmy PW 8. He is a rikshaw-puller. He stated that he knew one Shyama Rajguru who was canvassing for the appellant during the last General Election, that the appellant and Shyama Rajaguru were together making propaganda for 15 days prior to the date of polling, and in the evening previous to the date of polling, these two persons had approached him and some other persons of his street (Railway Gage Street) and invited them to Dhobi Street. There, they offered Rs. 100 and asked them to vote for the returned candidate the next day. The witness says that Rs. 100 was handed over to him and the money was paid by Shyama Rajaguru in the presence of the returned candidate. The witness added that he heard that similarly money was paid to the people of other streets, although he had not actually seen the actual payment. The last statement was completely hearsay and should not have found a place in the deposition. It would appear that this witness did not even claim to be a voter. He also did not state when and where the money was actually paid and who were the other persons who were present with him. He is just deposing to a fact stated to be within his knowledge and the question is whether his word can be relied upon. As he took a bribe once there is a possibility, he may well take a bribe for a second time to give false evidence. We cannot place much reliance on this witness without some extraneous corroboration either circumstantial or direct. Of such corroboration, there is not an iota in this case. 7. The second witness is one S. Simachalam. He is also a rickshaw puller. We cannot place much reliance on this witness without some extraneous corroboration either circumstantial or direct. Of such corroboration, there is not an iota in this case. 7. The second witness is one S. Simachalam. He is also a rickshaw puller. His evidence is that he had accompanied the previous witness (PW 8) to Dhobi Street and there, the returned candidate and Rajaguru had paid them Rs. 100 for voting for the returned candidate. He added, however, that on the date of poll, he had gone to the polling booth to vote. He supplied with a slip which contained his number in the electoral roll, but as his name was not in the Oriya electoral roll, he was not supplied with a ballot and so he returned home without casting his vote. He added that his name was in the Telugu electoral roll. The evidence is of the same type as that of the previous witness. Neither of the witnesses indicated whether the Rs. 100 was for a single person or for the whole lot of them or for the two of them. No question seems to have been put by the Judge to ascertain this fact. We do not think that a charge of corrupt practice which is in the nature of a criminal complaint can be established by evidence of this type. This is evidence of accomplices who appear to be of despicable character and who take bribes to vote and who may well come forward to give evidence on receiving a similar fee. On the whole, we are satisfied that we should not act on the evidence of these two witnesses. Although the High Court has believed them, we find nothing by way of corroboration which would enable us to hold that they are telling the truth. On the other hand, it appears to us that it is very easy to bring such witnesses. We do not accept their evidence. 8. As there is no other evidence the judgment under appeal cannot be sustained. It will be set aside and the order of the High Court reversed. In the circumstance of this case, we make no order about costs.