JUDGMENT : M. Hidayatullah, C.J.I. 1. This appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Bombay, September 28/29, 1967, and relates to an election petition filed jointly by one of the candidates and an elector to question the election of the first respondent to the Daryapur Assembly Constituency in Maharashtra. The High Court dismissed the election petition holding that the charges brought against the returned candidate by the election petitioners had not been proved in the case. Some of the charges were the subject of discussion at the bar before us. Before we deal with the points which were brought to our notice we shall state the facts on which the election petition was founded. 2. The notification calling upon the constituency to elect a Member from the Daryapur Assembly Constituency was issued on January 13, 1967. The last date for nomination was the 19th January. The scrutiny was to follow the next day and the date for withdrawal was the day after. The election took place on February 15, 1967 and the counting of the votes and the declaration of the results took place on February 23, 1967. The election petition was filed to question the election of the returned candidate who had succeeded by a majority of 1450 votes over the candidate who is one of election petitioners. These charges contained numerous allegations of fact involving corrupt practices in the furnishing of the election and bribery. As many of the grounds on which the petition was based have not been urged before us, it is not necessary to encumber this judgment with a recital of all the allegations We shall therefore, go straight into the questions which we are required to decide here. 3. The main contention and in fact the one which was pressed with great vigour by the learned counsel for the appellants was that the returned candidate in making his return of expenses had suppressed the hire charge of a taxi MHV 13 and the amount spent on petrol and oil for running it. 3. The main contention and in fact the one which was pressed with great vigour by the learned counsel for the appellants was that the returned candidate in making his return of expenses had suppressed the hire charge of a taxi MHV 13 and the amount spent on petrol and oil for running it. According to the plea in the election petition this taxi was used by one of the workers of the returned candidate by name Fundalikrao Raut of Yeoda who had this taxi at his disposal It was used for three weeks prior to the date of poll in other words in the last week of January and the first fortnight in the month of February. It was alleged that an amount of Rs. 700 on account of petrol etc. and the hire charges calculated at Rs. 50 per day ought to have been included in the return of expenses It was submitted that if this amount were added to the return made the expenses would go beyond the prescribed maximum of Rs. 8000 and therefore would amount to corrupt practice under Section 123(5) read with Section 77(3) of the Representation of People. Act Since this ground, if maintained, would have been sufficient to displace the election, the learned counsel for the appellant put it at the fore-front of his arguments and drew our attention to the total evidence available on this point The other points were either given up or were argued somewhat faintly and we shall come to them in due course after dealing with this point. 4. As stated already the plea of the election petitioner was that the taxi was used in the three weeks preceding the date of poll that is to say, in the last week of January and the first two weeks of February and that it was at he disposal of a worker by name Fundalikrao Raut In the evidence which was brought before the court there was a slight variation inasmuch as evidence was led to prove that the taxi was not only used in these three weeks but also in the three weeks preceding the said period In other words, the evidence disclosed that MHV 13 was used for full six weeks prior to the poll. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that in view of the strict nature of pleadings required to establish a corrupt practice, the evidence relating to the first period of three week should not be considered at all. He also contended that even if that evidence be taken note of, it rather than prove the corrupt practice serves to destroy the case as made out in the plea. 5. Five witnesses were examined by the election petitioners to establish that MHV 13 was used in the manner alleged by them. These witnesses comprise the owner of the taxi, the son of Pundlik Raut two persons from the Esso petrol pump who were alleged to have sold petrol to the returned candidate for use in this taxi and one Mahadeo. The question is one of fact These witnesses were disbelieved by the Court of fact but as this is an appeal both an law and fact we permitted counsel to take us once again to the evidence of these witnesses with a view to appraising this evidence for ourselves and we shall now give our conclusion with regard to the credibility of these witnesses. 6. The first witness is Bhimrao (PW 16) the owner of this taxi. Bhimrao was plying MHV 13 as a taxi driving it himself. He stated that at the last general election his taxi was hired by Pundlik Raut of Yeoda for election purposes, the hire charge being Rs. 30 per day from January 2, 1967 to February 14, 1967. According to the witnesses the taxi was kept at Yeoda and was moving from village to village sometimes Pundlikrao Raut set in it and on other occasions his son Sukhdeo used it This was for first three weeks of the period of hire. During this time the taxi was kept at Yeoda. In the second half of the period the taxi was kept at the bungalow of the returned candidate and was moving about in Daryapur area, and was used by persons whose names the witness was unable to give. The witness stated that he had received Rs. 500 as a first payment to buy tyres, Rs. 50 as a second payment for purchasing a battery and on February 16 the final account was made up and Rs. 800 were paid. The witness stated that he had received Rs. 500 as a first payment to buy tyres, Rs. 50 as a second payment for purchasing a battery and on February 16 the final account was made up and Rs. 800 were paid. We are not mention at this stage who made the payments because a great deal of argument was based upon his versions with regard to the payments and therefore we reserve that matter for a future discussion. The witness went on to say that while the taxi was at Yeoda he had to go to Daryapur for purchasing petrol which was bought from the Esso pump. Whenever Pundalikrao Raut was in the taxi he used to give chits for the purchase of petrol. When the taxi was at Daryapur, similar chits were given by one Bajirao who was working at the bunglow of the returned candidate. 7. The evidence in so far as it stands seems to be convincing enough but objections were taken to prove that the evidence was not reliable and several circumstances were brought to our notice by the counsel for the answering respondent to demonstrate that the witness had told a number of clear lies. The first point to notice is that the witness does not know of his own knowledge whether the returned candidate had actually lured his taxi or not. His statement was that it was Pundalikrao Raut who had told him that the taxi was being hired by the returned candidate. Again the witness was positive that the returned candidate never sat in his taxi. In fact he stated quite clearly that he had not met the returned candidate at all This did not square with his statement that on or about the 10th of January the returned candidate had paid him Rs. 500 for the purchase of tyres and another Rs. 50 four or eight days later to purchase a battery and that finally when the accounts were made the returned candidate paid him the last sum of Rs. 800 to discharge the full liability. As these two statements were ex facie contradictory, the witness tried to cover up the second statement by saying something quite different. He stated that he had received Rs. 500 from Pundalikrao Raut. He also stated that he had received Rs. 50 from Bajirao. 800 to discharge the full liability. As these two statements were ex facie contradictory, the witness tried to cover up the second statement by saying something quite different. He stated that he had received Rs. 500 from Pundalikrao Raut. He also stated that he had received Rs. 50 from Bajirao. He was quite clear that they were not received by him from the returned candidate. He admitted that no receipt was passed for the first two amounts but that a final receipt for Rs. 1350 was passed by him and Pundalikrao Raut and Bajirao were the only persons who knew about the receipt. He changed again and stated that Deshmukh was also present at the time but changed again and said that it was not Pundalikrao Raut who had paid the amount when he passed the receipt but he was only present at the time. He also stated that a loudspeaker was installed in his taxi which a Muslim from Daryapur was operating. There was no evidence in the case that any Muslim whether from Daryapur any other place either operated a loudspeaker or even sat in the tax. In fact the total evidence of Bhimrao was that only two persons he knew who sat in the taxi were Pundalikrao Raut and his son. 8. Pundalikrao Raut was cited as a witness by the returned candidate but was given up. The election petitioners did not include Pundalikrao Raut in their list of witnesses. The statement of the owner of the taxi that Pundalikao Raut hired the taxi and used it therefore was not corroborated by the principal witness who could have been only Pundalikrao. The evidence of Bhimrao, in our opinion is not sufficient for us to hold without corroboration that this taxi was hired by the returned candidate and was use on his behalf There is the further fact that the statement of the witness goes much beyond the plea itself. The evidence of Bhimrao, in our opinion is not sufficient for us to hold without corroboration that this taxi was hired by the returned candidate and was use on his behalf There is the further fact that the statement of the witness goes much beyond the plea itself. It may be that the taxi was used for a longer time by Pundalikrao Raut than the three weeks mentioned in the election petition and nothing may turn upon this little difference, but we have to be satisfied whether there was any connection between the taxi and the returned candidate and in view of the unsatisfactory evidence of the owner of the taxi on the most important point as to who paid him the money, we find it difficult to believe him. When we come to the examination of the other witnesses we shall find also that there is no proof in the case that Bajirao wrote a chit for the purchase of petrol when the taxi was in Daryapur. There is some evidence to show that Pundalikrao Raut was issuing slips at the time of the Purchase of the petrol and they bore the name of the returned candidate. What inference can be drawn from this circumstance will be seen by us later, but for the present we can only say that if there had been any proof that Bajirao who was admittedly a person working at the bungalow of the returned candidate to have issued requisition for petrol, we might have been persuaded to hold that the taxi was used by the returned candidate. Not a single witness has clearly stated that Bajirao had issued any requisition for petrol for this taxi although according to the evidence it remained at the bungalow of the returned candidate as long as three weeks and was apparently being used daily. 9. It also occurs to us that it must be a very curious fact that the returned candidate should never have sat in this taxi at all. Further it also passes comprehension that the hirer of the taxi, namely, the returned candidate and the owner of the taxi never, came face to face. This is not how the hiring of a taxi for as long a period as six weeks could have gone through without a single meeting between the two. 10. Further it also passes comprehension that the hirer of the taxi, namely, the returned candidate and the owner of the taxi never, came face to face. This is not how the hiring of a taxi for as long a period as six weeks could have gone through without a single meeting between the two. 10. The only support on this part of the case comes from Sukhdeorao (PW 9) who is the son of Pundalikrao Raut. Sukhdeorao stated that there was an office of the returned candidate in some rooms belonging to his father Pundalikrao Raut of Yeoda. He stated that for three works the taxi MHV 13 used to be at the office hired out to the returned candidate and his father used to move about in the taxi for propaganda during the day time. The witness stated that the same taxi was being used by him during the night and he went for propaganda on behalf of the returned candidate to a number of villages which he named. He also stated that in the beginning he used to go in the taxi to the bungalow of the returned candidate and obtain chits for petrol from Bajirao, a clerk of the returned candidate. According to the witness therefore even during the first three weeks while the taxi was at Yeoda and he had occasion to use it, the chits were obtained from Bajirao at Daryapur. The fact that his father had arranged for the taxi and must have been easily available at Daryapur and further that the father himself according to the owner of the taxi was issuing slips, makes it difficult to believe that Sukhdeorao would be required to go all the way to the bungalow of the returned candidate to obtain chits from Bajirao. He could have easily obtained these chits from his father who had been issuing the chits on his own behalf. This story of the use of the taxi by day and by night with only one person driving it all the time appears very unsatisfactory. Why Sukhdeorao should have gone out at night to do the canvassing when his father was doing the canvassing by day appears also to be unconvincing. This story of the use of the taxi by day and by night with only one person driving it all the time appears very unsatisfactory. Why Sukhdeorao should have gone out at night to do the canvassing when his father was doing the canvassing by day appears also to be unconvincing. Sukhdeorao would not go to distant villages which are not connected by motorable roads at night time, and in any case night time would be a very unsuitable time to canvass for votes because people do not wish to be disturbed in their leisure merely to be asked to vote for a particular candidate. The story that Sukhdeorao had to use the taxi by night was devised because no one was coming forward to state that he had ever sat in the taxi. The father Pundalikrao Rani was not called as a witness when he would have been the most proper reason to tell us all about the taxi and the son was asked to give evidence who, being busy by day, had to say that he used the taxi at night. 11. It was argued by the learned counsel for the election petitioners that since the other side had named Pundalikrao Raut as their witness they were not required to examine him at all and that a presumption arose from the fact that the returned candidate having cited Pundalikrao Raut, gave him up. We think the burden lay upon the election petitioners to show the use of the car and it was for them to have examined persons who sat in the taxi and not for returned candidate to bring evidence to disprove the use of the taxi. If the evidence of Bhimrau, the owner of the taxi, had been at all satisfactory we might have questioned the move of the returned candidate in first citing Pundalikrao Raut and then giving him up. But regard being had to the fact that the evidence was unsatisfactory, we must require the election petitioners to give either other or corroborative evidence and the evidence of Sukhdeorau to our mind is not of sufficient credibility to supply that omission. 12. Then there is the evidence of PW 10 Mahadeo. He is a member of the Shetkari Kamkari Paksha from the year 1952. He was a supporter of one of the election petitioners in this election. 12. Then there is the evidence of PW 10 Mahadeo. He is a member of the Shetkari Kamkari Paksha from the year 1952. He was a supporter of one of the election petitioners in this election. He stated that he had seen MHV 13 moving about in the village for about two weeks for propaganda in favour of the returned candidate. He made a statement which makes his evidence suspect at the very start. He said that he had seen the returned candidate moving about in this taxi for his own propaganda at different villages. It will be recalled that neither the owner of the taxi who drove it nor Sukhdeorau the only other witness about the use of the taxi stated that the returned candidate had ever sat in the taxi. It seems that Mahadeo overshot the mark when he stated that the returned candidate was using the taxi and moving about in it. The witness is related distantly to the owner of the taxi. He said that he remembered the number of taxi used in the election because it was in the village for about three week and also because he had occasion to sit in it during that time. It seems to us that he did not need to sit in the taxi or to see it moving about in the villages to know its number. As a relative of the owner of the taxi, he would, in any case, have known the number of taxi belonging to the family and this statement of his therefore is also suspect because it tries to show his disinterestedness in the entire matter and seeks to place his evidence on the basis of observations made by him about the use of the taxi. Since the witness goes much further than the driver of the taxi cared to go, we think his evidence cannot be accepted at all. 13. This brings us to the purchase of petrol at the Esso Pump. Two witnesses were examined in this connection. The first is Omprakash who owned the pump. He was a young lad of 18 years. He admitted frankly that he seldom went to the pump and that his father who was not examined in the case looked after the affairs of the pump. He was, however, very correct in what ever he said. The first is Omprakash who owned the pump. He was a young lad of 18 years. He admitted frankly that he seldom went to the pump and that his father who was not examined in the case looked after the affairs of the pump. He was, however, very correct in what ever he said. His evidence, when it is read, impresses one by its candeur. The only difficulty in the way of the election petitioners is that it does not advance their case to the extent necessary for holding that MHV 13 was used by the returned candidate. He did speak of some chits being brought to him for purchase of petrol. He identified some credit slips on which he had signed and in which MHV 13 was mentioned. These credit slips do show the name of the returned candidate as the purchaser of the petrol. They do raise some kind of inference that petrol was bought on behalf of the returned candidate, but since the returned candidate was not proved to have ever used the taxi himself nor was any person except Pundalikrao Raut or his son ever shown to have moved in it, it the connection necessary to hold that the taxi was being employed in the service of the returned candidate at that time. Since Pundalikrao has not come to the witness box we do not know how the name of the returned candidate came to be noted in the slips. We have had occasion to see other cases in the series of election appeals we have been dealing with for a long time in this Court and we have reason to suspect such entries in some cases. It is the easiest thing to buy petrol for a taxi and to get the name of one of the candidates recorded in the petrol dealer's record. We cannot make it too easy for the election petitioners to bring a charge on such flimsy evidence and succeed thereby. We must be satisfied that the evidence stands all scrutiny and cannot bear the stigma of having been manipulated. In elections, as in war, everything seems fair and we had to be astute all the time to see that there had not been foul practice. We must be satisfied that the evidence stands all scrutiny and cannot bear the stigma of having been manipulated. In elections, as in war, everything seems fair and we had to be astute all the time to see that there had not been foul practice. Therefore being warned in this behalf, we went into this question in this case extremely carefully to see to what extent the evidence went which came from the petrol dealer. 14. In so far as Om Prakash is concerned he said in his statement that the amount for the petrol used in all the cars including MHV 13 was paid by the returned candidate but he admitted that he had no knowledge of the matter because he was speaking only from the entries in the books of account and they showed the name of the the returned candidate. He admitted however that there was a Khata in the name of the returned candidate in the account books, but this petrol was not shown therein. It may be that a person may keep this as a suspense item and instruct the petrol dealer not to show the amount in his regular khata because this would be the best evidence to prove the purchase of of the petrol. But when we find that no khata was maintained even in the name of Pundalikrao Raut, some room for suspicion exists. In any case the witness stated that the money was never paid in his presence and therefore his statement that the amounts were paid by the returned candidate does not lead anywhere. There was, however, one statement which gave us some trouble. It reads as follows: "The witness saw the countefoils in the bill book which, according to Paturkar, bore his (Omprakash's) signature as detailed in the table 125, 12" 128 and 133 to 136 filed by Paturkar. All these counter-foils except No. 128 in book No. 54 for Rs. 19 dated 11.2.1967 as mentioned in Ex. 58 bear my signatures. However, this receipt No. 128 dated 11.2.67 for Rs. 19 from book No. 54 as shown in Ex. 138 is not in my hand or signature but. is in the handwriting of Sadasheo who has signed it. All these counter-foils except No. 128 in book No. 54 for Rs. 19 dated 11.2.1967 as mentioned in Ex. 58 bear my signatures. However, this receipt No. 128 dated 11.2.67 for Rs. 19 from book No. 54 as shown in Ex. 138 is not in my hand or signature but. is in the handwriting of Sadasheo who has signed it. The bills which bear my signatures as stated above are of petrol supplied by myself to the drivers of the cars who had brought the requisition slips signed by Pundalikrao Raut The aforesaid bills were made out in the name of respondent Deshmukh because the requisition slip therefore contained the name of respondent Deshmukh though they were signed either by Pundalikrao or Bajirao Gulani." The last sentence seems to suggest that Bajirao Gulani was also issuing requisition slips for buying petrol for this taxi but the earlier sentence in this deposition speaks of `cars' and `drivers' in the plural. Now it is an admitted fact that other cars were legitimately used by the returned candidate and expenses have also been shown in the statement account. The returned candidate used to buy petrol from the same pump and there were requisition signed by Bajirao. The last sentence to which attention is capable of double meaning. It may refer only to MHV 13 or it may refer to all the motor vehicles without making a distinction between the slips issued for the other vehicles and the slips issued for MHV 13. If we read the testimony in two parts, that is to say, relating to the other cars for which the slips were issued by Bajirao Gulani and in relation to MHV 13 as slips issued by Pundalikrao Raut, the sentence also makes sense. We think that this reading is the more appropriate for the reason which we shall give now. 15. Petrol was sold by Paturkar (PW 27) at the petrol pump. No doubt in the book of sales maintained by him (Ex. 126) the name of the returned candidate figures in the sales of petrol for MHV 13. To begin with, if the returned candidate was going to suppress the purchases of petrol and the charges for hire of this taxi, he would have been astute enough to see that his name did not figure in the books. 126) the name of the returned candidate figures in the sales of petrol for MHV 13. To begin with, if the returned candidate was going to suppress the purchases of petrol and the charges for hire of this taxi, he would have been astute enough to see that his name did not figure in the books. The fact that his name is shown with MHV 13 and is repeated in many entries puts us on enquiry as to whether this was not done consciously and deliberately. If Paturkar had stated that a single chit was seen by him from Bajirao relating to MHV 13 and if we could have believed the witness, we would have had no difficulty in reaching the conclusion that the taxi was used by the returned candidate and the expenses of the taxi were suppressed by him. However the evidence of Paturkar, detailed though it is, does not refer to this fact all. One sentence in his testimony was also brought to our notice which the learned counsel for the petitioners contended indicated this. But it suffers from the same defect, namely, that it clubs together all the cars, that is those for which the accounts have been properly submitted and also MHV 13. The sentence on which the learned counsel relied reads as follows: "The requisition slips for supply of petrol as detailed in the tables Exs. 125, 127, 128 and 133 to 138 were all in the name U.N. Desmukh and some of them were signed Bajirao Gulani while some others were signed by Balasaheb Deshmukh. " Now the requisition slips described in the tables refer not only to MHV 13 but also to the other cars and the witness's statement that some slips were signed by Bajirao Gulani and some others by the returned candidate does not take the matter to the region of proof; because the cars which the returned candidate admitted, he was using, would require slips for petrol. Whether these slips referred only to those cars is the question. Whether these slips referred only to those cars is the question. Since the witness stated that some of them only were signed by Bajirao Gulani and the returned candidate we think that we must give due regard to the fact that the other slips might not have been signed by them at all and those might have referred to MHV 13, In other words, on the strength of this part of the testimony it is quite easy to hold that for MHV 13 the slips might have been signed by Pundalikrao Raut and for the other cars by Bajirao Gulani and the returned candidate, and the statement refers to the slips which were issued for the other cars and not for MHV 13. 16. Since this is the total evidence on this point we find ourselves unable to disagree with the reasoned judgment of the learned Judge who tried the case and who found the evidence of these witnesses to be inconclusive to hold that MHV 13 was employed on election work by the returned candidate and the expenses were suppressed by him from his return of expenses. We, therefore, hold this point has not been satisfactorily established by the election petitioners. 17. Now we may advert to some of the other points which were raised in the case. It was stated that petrol for 9 vehicles and their hire charges had not been shown. A man from the Burmah Shell Pump Anjangaon was cited and he is Nathmal Gandhi (PW 17). The amount of this petrol is not large enough to make the attack fatal. Even if the total amount were added to the return of expenses they do not pass the mark. It would therefore be futile for us to go into this question because even if this evidence be accepted in full, it would not make any difference to the election of the returned candidate. 18. Certain other grounds were raised in the election petition to establish that there was an appeal to religion, caste or community etc. in certain pamphletes, one of which were brought to our notice. It was found by us to be harmless. Another pamphlet was within the range of the law, because it charged one of the candidates with conduct which might be said to bear upon his character. It charged him with drunkenness and with defalcation of public funds. in certain pamphletes, one of which were brought to our notice. It was found by us to be harmless. Another pamphlet was within the range of the law, because it charged one of the candidates with conduct which might be said to bear upon his character. It charged him with drunkenness and with defalcation of public funds. No attempt, however, was made to prove that this pamphlet was got printed and published by the candidate himself or by his election agent or some one with their consent. On the other hand attempt was made to show that it was distributed on his behalf either by the returned candidate or by persons connected with him and we shall touch upon the evidence of the witnesses in brief. 19. The author of this pamphlet (Ex. 67) was one Ganpat Baliram Pranjale but his connection with the returned candidate was not established. One witness Gurusiddha (PW 23) was examined to prove the printing of 10,000 copies of the pamphlet. He stated that Ganpat Baliram Pranjale of Daryapur or a person who described himself as such had brought the manuscript of the pumphlet to him for printing. In other words, the person who got it printed was one Pranjale or a person who described himself as Pranjale. There is nothing oral or in writing to show that the order was placed on behalf of the returned candidate or that he paid the changes for printing. Therefore the authorship of the Pamphlet remains unproved. Even the existence of this Pranjale is in doubt because no Pranjale was examined in the case. 20. As to the distribution there are a number of witnesses who stated that the pamphlet was distributed in their presence. One Bobde (PW 25) said that he had seen the workers of Congress distributing this pamphlet and that he had himself seen the pamphlet, a copy of which was given to him by one Akbar All (PW 12) who was a `loud- speaker dealer. He stated that this distribution was taking place at a time when a meeting was being held at which one Suresh) Dave was speaking for the returned candidate and the congress candidates in general. He stated that this distribution was taking place at a time when a meeting was being held at which one Suresh) Dave was speaking for the returned candidate and the congress candidates in general. The witness admitted that he had no knowledge whether the returned candidate was in the vicinity or not or whether he was present at the meeting although he stated that the meeting had been called by the returned candidate. Akbar Ali, however, did not support him in his statement that a copy of the pamphlet was given by Akbar Ali to him. No such copy was brought before the court and it is doubtful whether we can go by evidence of this kind. We do not think that we can rely upon it when the judge who heard the witnesses has not placed any faith in the word of the witnesses. Five other witnesses were further examined. One Wadatkar (PW 34) stated that the returned candidate had gone to his village on February 13 and had asked two persons by name Ramkrishna and Uttam Mittal to distribute the pamphlet from two bundles which were taken out of the car. Ramkrishna gave the pamphlet from the two bundles to the witness and to the other persons. This witness, however, was not quite an independent witness. He admitted that he had gone the previous evening without any summons to Nagpur. He stated that one of the petitioners had told him at Daryapur 15 or 20 days before his evidence that he should go to Nagpur for evidence. He admitted that he had incurred expenses for going to Nagpur and that he had not told the election petitioner that he was going to depose in coin that day. It appears that this unsummoned witness who spent his own money to go to Nagpur was sufficiently interested in seeing that the returned candidate should fail. We therefore do not rely upon his testimony. Tulsi Ram (PW 26) was another witness who had seen the distribution of the pamphlets. He Stated that he had seen Ramkrishna distributing the pamphlet at Ramtirth. No connection between Ramkrishna and the returned candidate was established. We therefore do not rely upon his testimony. Tulsi Ram (PW 26) was another witness who had seen the distribution of the pamphlets. He Stated that he had seen Ramkrishna distributing the pamphlet at Ramtirth. No connection between Ramkrishna and the returned candidate was established. The law requires that the corrupt practice of this type should be committed either by the returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of the returned candidate or his election agent On the second part of the requirement of the law, there is no evidence whatever. 21. The evidence of Gujar (PW 29) was that one Tawale distributed the pamphlets in the Pan Bazar at Surji Anjangaon. He stated quite frankly that he did not know for whom Tawale was making the propaganda. There was no other evidence to show who this Tawale was. Therefore, for the reasons which we gave for discarding the evidence of Tulsi Ram we cannot rely upon the testimony of this witness. 22. One of the remaining two witnesses is Sukhdev Rao, the son of Pundalikrao Raut to whom we have referred largely in an earlier part of this judgment. His statement was that he had seen bundles of pamphlets in the office of the returned candidate at Yeoda. There is no corroboration to this and in view of the fact that his testimony in regard to the use of the taxi was found to be worthless, we are not inclined to place any further reliance upon him. Anvarul Haque (PW 33) said that one Janrao Ugale, a congress worker distributed the copies of the pamphlets. He is a close neighbour of Pundalikrao Raut, but again here there is nothing to connect Janrao Ugale with the returned candidate and the law requires that this kind of corrupt practice should be with the consent of the returned candidate or his election agent. There is nothing in regard to this matter and therefore the evidence is not of much consequence. 23. This sums up the entire appeal as it was presented before us. Charges of bribery were given up in the arguments before us as also the case that expenditure on account of loud-speakers was suppressed. We, therefore, do not refer to this part of the election petition. 24. The election petition was therefore rightly dismissed by the High Court. 23. This sums up the entire appeal as it was presented before us. Charges of bribery were given up in the arguments before us as also the case that expenditure on account of loud-speakers was suppressed. We, therefore, do not refer to this part of the election petition. 24. The election petition was therefore rightly dismissed by the High Court. We see no reason to differ from the conclusions of the learned Judge who tried the case and who wrote a very considered and long judgment in repelling the charges of corrupt practice put at the door of the returned candidate. The appeal therefore is dismissed with costs. As regards the costs in the High Court, we do not make any change except one, namely, that counsel's fee should be allowed and taxed only if it is certified by the counsel concerned. This modification will be made in the schedule of costs prepared in the High Court.