JUDGMENT : Mitter, J. 1. This is an appeal from a judgment and order of the High Court of Orissa allowing an election petition filed by an unsuccessful candidate against a returned candidate. The facts leading up to the election petition are quite short. The election to the Orissa Legislative Assembly from the Nawapara Constituency took place on February 22, 1967. There were two Candidates who were up for election. One of them, the petitioner polled 9829 votes against 10506 votes polled by the other, the respondent in the election petition. The petitioner belong to the Swatantra party while the respondent was a Congress nominee. 2. Several grounds were urged in the election petition to set aside the election of the respondent and for a declaration that the petitioner be declared duly elected to the Orissa Legislative Assembly. The only ground with which we are concerned in this appeal is the commission of a corrupt practice as alleged in para 11 of the petition to the effect that the election agent of the respondent made out "gifts, promises and offers to the electors to vote in favour of the respondent. He sent Rs. 100 to one Kamal Sen alias Singh sometime on or about the 17th of February, 1967 for the purpose of distribution among the villagers of Nawapara and Khariar Road in order to induce them to vote in favour of the respondent and to induce other electors under their control to vote for the respondent. He further held out promises of payment by a letter dated 17th February, 1967 addressed to one Shri Jagat Pal for the purpose of inducing other electors and Jagat Pal to vote for the respondent" : In para 9 of the written statement of the respondent there was a denial of this and of every fact pleaded in para 11 of the election petition. It was denied that B.K. Bose had sent Rs. 100 to Kamal Sen on February 17, 1967 or on any other date for the purpose of distribution among villagers of Nawapara. The promise imputed to B.K. Bose of payment to induce electors by letter d11 7th February, 1967 was also denied and disputed. 3. The learned trial Judge framed three issues of which we are concerned with the first only, namely, whether the respondent resorted to corrupt practices and bribery as alleged in the election petition? 4. The promise imputed to B.K. Bose of payment to induce electors by letter d11 7th February, 1967 was also denied and disputed. 3. The learned trial Judge framed three issues of which we are concerned with the first only, namely, whether the respondent resorted to corrupt practices and bribery as alleged in the election petition? 4. The most important piece of evidence in this case is the letter of February 17, 1967 which was admittedly written by B.K. Bose and addressed to one Jagatpal. It is in these terms: "My dear Jagatpal, I just heard that some grumbling is there between your man and Jagmohan Naik for the non-fulfilment of their promises. Anyway Rs. 100 was paid to Kamal Sen by Jagmohan for distribution among you all. Whether they pay the rest of the amount or not you go on with your work. I am in a hurry. I do not wish that for money the election work should suffer. I may not meet you tomorrow. Please see that there is no further grumbling for money to be paid by Onkar Singh or Jagmohan. Yours sincerely, sd/- .. 17-2-1967. " In order to appreciate the evidence and the circumstances in which the letter was written it is necessary to make a brief reference to the connection of the parties with the witnesses who were examined. As has been noted already the election petitioner was a Swatantra candidate. The only witness to be examined by the petitioner in connection with the letter was one Tejpal Singh. Of the several persons who came to give evidence on behalf of the respondent, those with whom we are concerned in this appeal are five in number. The first is RW 9 Jagmohan Naik, a member of the District Congress Committee as well as of the Provincial Congress Committee who claimed to have been in charge of the entire election on behalf of the respondent, Onkar Singh. The second witness of importance is B.K. Bose, in advocate who worked as the election agent of the respondent. The third witness is one Bhabani Patnaik, a member of Parliament and one of the General Secretaries of the Utkal Pradesh Congress Committee. The fourth witness is RW 5, Kamal Sen intimately connected with the letter referred to above. The second witness of importance is B.K. Bose, in advocate who worked as the election agent of the respondent. The third witness is one Bhabani Patnaik, a member of Parliament and one of the General Secretaries of the Utkal Pradesh Congress Committee. The fourth witness is RW 5, Kamal Sen intimately connected with the letter referred to above. The last witness with whom we have to deal is one O.P. Singh, a registered homeopathic doctor working as an active Congress member. 5. Jagatpal, the addressee of the letter, was not examined in this case. The letter was tendered in evidence through one Tejpal Singh. According to this witness, Jagatpal was his cousin and a registered clerk of B.K. Bose, election agent of the respondent. The letter was given to him by B.K. Bose to be handed over to Jagatpal who was away at that time. His eldest brother, Chandrabhanu, the Secretary of the Swatantra party working at Nawapara knew all about this letter. According to witness, Jagmohan Naik had paid Rs. 100 to Kamal Sen for distribution to workers. There was a quarrel between Kamal Sen alias Kamal Singh, Jagatpal and two other workers of the respondent, namely, Sevakram and Kumudranjan Patnaik regarding the distribution of this sum of money. The dispute was over Kamal Singh's keeping the entire amount for himself and he was asked to get Jagmohan Naik to honour his promise of payment of Rs. 500 to be shared by all of them. At first the witness said that the sum of Rs. 500 was to be paid to the said persons for their personal expenses for food etc. but later on contradicted himself by stating that he did not know the nature of the expenses for which Rs. 500 was earmarked. 6. The respondent's case was that he had paid no money to influence any person to vote for him: the workers for the purpose of election were selected either by Jagmohan Naik or by himself and Jagmohan Naik had spent no money in the election for him and Jagmohan Naik told him that no money had been paid to Jagatpal. 7. B.K. Bose's evidence was to the following effect. He was a close neighbour of Chandrabhanu Singh and his brothers who formed a joint family along with their cousin, Jagatpal Singh. 7. B.K. Bose's evidence was to the following effect. He was a close neighbour of Chandrabhanu Singh and his brothers who formed a joint family along with their cousin, Jagatpal Singh. Chandrabhanu Singh and his brothers were prominent workers of the Swatantra party and Jagat Pal Singh also belonged to that party. The Congress party wanted the support of Jagatpal. Kamal Sen and Jagmohan Naik had told him that Jagatpal demanded Rs. 100 towards expenses of himself and his workers to start with and some more money subsequently. He had written Ext. 2, the letter already referred to, to Jagatpal Singh intimating that Rs. 100 had been given to Kamal Sen for payment to him. He however added that he had not witnessed the payment of Rs. 100 by Jagmohan to Kamal Sen and later on came to learn from Jagmohan that the sum of Rs. 100 had not been paid to Kamal Sen. Jagmohan had also told him that Jagatpal was not a dependable person. According to B.K. Bose all that he meant to convey by the letter was that even if no further payments were made to Jagatpal and his workers, they should work for the Congress and the money would be paid later on. 8. Bhabani Charan Patnaik's evidence was to the effect that Jagmohan Naik, Chairman of the Nawapara Panchayat Samithi, had told him that some of the workers of the Swatantra party were prepared to work for the Congress if they were paid. He did not accept the proposal and no money was paid to any of the voters or to any worker to procure voters. In cross-examination he said that Jagmohan had asked about payment of money to Jagatpal in his house at Nawapara some 5 or 6 days before the date of polling. Jagatpal and his brother were working against the Congress in favour of the Swatantra Party. The witness did not pay any money although he was asked for money for payment to Jagatpal. According to witness, his impression was that Jagptpal would not be of any use to the Congress party, but about this he had no talk either with the respondent or his election agent, B.K. Bose. 9. Kamal Sen's evidence was that Jagatpal was working for Swatantra party and Jagmohan Naik did not give him any money for payment to Jagaipal. According to witness, his impression was that Jagptpal would not be of any use to the Congress party, but about this he had no talk either with the respondent or his election agent, B.K. Bose. 9. Kamal Sen's evidence was that Jagatpal was working for Swatantra party and Jagmohan Naik did not give him any money for payment to Jagaipal. He had no talk regarding the latter's working for the Congress party; neither did he have any idea if there had been any talk that Jagatpal should be approached to work for the Congress. He denied the suggestion that a promise had been made to Jagatpal and his co-workers that Rs. 500 should be given for the purpose of securing voters. He had no knowledge of B.K. Bose's letter of February 17. 10. Jagmohan Naik, a member of the District Congress Committee claimed to have been in charge of the entire election on behalf of the respondent. His positive evidence was that he had paid no money to Kamal Sen in connection with the election. Jagatpal a member of the Swatantra party was playing with the Congress and was asking for money, but in fact, no money was paid- to him and Jagatpal's proposal was not accepted. Jagatpal was demanding Rs. 500. The witness did not have any talk with B. K. Bose in this connection. 11. The last witness in this connection was O.P. Singh who also said that Jagatpal was working for the Swatantra party at the election. He had a talk with Jagatpal who was a friend of the witness and the latter had said that he would be prepared to work for the Congress party if Rs. 400 or Rs. 500 was given to him. The witness had discussion on the matter with B.K. Bose who had said that he had nothing to do with it and that he should broach the matter to Jagmohan Naik. When he spoke to Jagmohan about it the latter rejected the proposal out of hand. According to the witness he had told Jagatpal that as the Congress had a difficult task in Nawapara area, it would be better to get hold of Jagatpal but Jagmohan's answer was that money could not be paid to Jagatpal straightaway as no confidence can be reposed in him. Jagmohan however agreed to give Rs. According to the witness he had told Jagatpal that as the Congress had a difficult task in Nawapara area, it would be better to get hold of Jagatpal but Jagmohan's answer was that money could not be paid to Jagatpal straightaway as no confidence can be reposed in him. Jagmohan however agreed to give Rs. 100 to Kamal Sen who would pay it to Jagatpal for his expenses after watching his activity. Two days afterwards he spoke about the matter to B.K. Bose and the latter approved the proposal. Thereafter the matter was broached to Bhabani Charan Patnaik who discountenanced the idea. No money was paid either to Kamal Sen or to Jagatpal. Jagatpal never worked for the Congress party during the election. 12. The learned trial Judge found himself unable to accept the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent with regard to the payment of money mentioned in the letter. He held that Rs. 100 must have been paid by Jagmohan Naik to Kamal Sen and rejecting the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent he came to the conclusion that the payment and the promise mentioned in the letter were both with the object of directly or indirectly inducing the electors to vote in favour of the respondent and to refrain from voting in favour of the petitioner at the election. Jagatpal and RW 5, Kamal Sen were both electors. They were thus directly induced to cast their votes and to wield their influence with other voters. The learned Judge observed: "The payment and the promise of payment were not for expenses bona fide incurred at the election and could not be so incurred in view of the defence taken. " According to the learned Judge "the object of the payment and promise to pay was obviously to directly or indirectly induce the electors in the matter of exercising their right of franchise". On this reasoning he held in favour of the election petitioner and set aside the election of the respondent who has come up in appeal before us. 13. It is to be noted that Jagatpal did not come and give evidence. Tejpal was merely called to get the letter exhibited. If his evidence is to be accepted the quarrel really was about the sum of Rs. 100, and Kamal Sen's misappropriation of it instead of distributing it among the workers. 13. It is to be noted that Jagatpal did not come and give evidence. Tejpal was merely called to get the letter exhibited. If his evidence is to be accepted the quarrel really was about the sum of Rs. 100, and Kamal Sen's misappropriation of it instead of distributing it among the workers. His definite evidence was that the sum of Rs. 500 was to be paid for the personal expenses for food etc. while canvassing. If that was the only issue in the case and the respondent had called no evidence there can be no doubt that the petitioner's evidence fell far short of establishing the commission of a corrupt practice because the letter which has been quoted in existence contains no suggestion at all that any sum of money was to be spent or distributed amongst the voters. Whether the sum of Rs. 100 was paid or not it is clear that the object of B.K. Bose in writing this letter to Jagatpal was that there should be no quarrel among the workers before the election which was to come off within a few days, that the addresses and his co-workers should not let the election work suffer and that if any money had been promissed the same would ultimately be paid by Onkar Singh or Jagmohan. This letter in our opinion directly contradicts the case that any money was to be paid or distributed among the voters in which case the money should have been put into the hands of the worker before the date of the election. The workers could not very well be expected to make payments out of their own pockets and then look to the candidate for re-payment as the candidate would have no interest in the matter if he did not succeed. The letter to our mind clearly shows that Jagatpal and his co-workers were to put in their best efforts for the propaganda in favour of the appellant before us. 14. The question then arises, as to whether the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent establishes the case that even if no money was to be distributed amongst the voters at least Jagatpal who was a voter was being paid or promised money to ensure his voting in favour of the appellant. This is to our mind is a very far-fetched proposition. This is to our mind is a very far-fetched proposition. If we are to hold that the offer or payment of any money simpliciter to a worker who is also a voter for his expenses is not to be related solely to the purpose of doing propaganda work but also to make sure of his vote, it would be difficult for a candidate to secure workers inasmuch as he would have to be sure that the workers were not electors in the constituency. This is a proposition which is so impracticable on the face of it that it can be rejected off hand. Any payment to a worker even if it be for his expenses or for his salary is an expense incurred so that he can wield his influence with the electors, but that by itself, cannot amount to bribery within the meaning of Section 123(5) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The difference lies in this: a convassar carries out work of propaganda on behalf an election candidate and puts forward his efforts to persuade electors to vote for a particular candidate. In selecting a worker or paying money to him for his expenses the candidate only thanks of the benefit to accrue to him by the powers of persuasion of the worker. He does not pay the money or promise any payment to secure the single vote of the worker. So long as the payment is made to a worker only for his expenses it will not fall within the mischief of Section 123(5) of the Act. 15. In our opinion, the learned Judge went wrong in accepting the case of the election petitioner merely because he found that the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent suffered from many defects and that there were many contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses already noted. B.K. Bose went to the length of saying that no money had been paid and this was the version of most of the witnesses. The evidence on this head was far from satisfactory and the learned Judge did not accept it. But the rejection of the story that no money was paid does not lead to the conclusion that the money was being paid not only for election expenses but also for the purpose of securing the vote of the worker. The evidence on this head was far from satisfactory and the learned Judge did not accept it. But the rejection of the story that no money was paid does not lead to the conclusion that the money was being paid not only for election expenses but also for the purpose of securing the vote of the worker. No such implication arises from the letter of February 17 and no such suggestion was made to any of the witnesses of the respondent. 16. The charge of a corrupt practice is in the nature of a criminal charge and must be established by cogent and reliable evidence without any reasonable doubt relating thereto. It cannot be held to be proved on a consideration of the probabilities of the case. In this case, the evidence falls far short of the standard of proof required. There was no evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner to establish the case set out in para 11 of the petition. Merely because the evidence of the respondent's witnesses was unacceptable to the learned trial Judge, we would not be justified in upholding his finding that the commission of corrupt practice set out in para 11 of the election petition was proved against the appellant. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs here and of the High Court.