M. Chenna Reddy v. V. Ramachandra Rao — 1968 DIGILAW 451 (SC)

JUDGMENT : Mitter, J. 1. By this appeal the candidate returned to the Andhra Pradesh legislative assembly from the Tandur Assembly Constituency of that State in 1967 challanges the judgment and order of the High Court setting aside his election on the ground of commission of various corrupt practices thereat. 2. There were three candidates who contested the seat. The appellant secured 29,974 votes against 11, 571 votes polled by the first respondent - the election petitioner, v. Ramachandra Rao and 1526 cast in favour of the second respondent, Siddoramappa. In the election petition filed by the first respondent the appellant was charged with the commission of various corrupt practices all of which were denied by the appellant in his written statement. A large number of issues was framed by the learned trial Judge. For the convenience of the trial, the issues were classified under several broad heads and each act of corrupt practice was the subject-matter of a sub-issue under the classification made by the learned Judge. Some of these sub-issues were decided in favour of the appellant by the learned Judge holding that there was no evidence in support of the grounds urged, while a number of others was so decided on consideration of the evidence adduced. The learned Judge however held that some of the corrupt practices alleged against the appellant had been established as a result of the evidence led. Counsel for the respondent indicated that he would try to support the judgment not only on the issues which had been held against the appellant but also some of those which had been decided in his favour by the learned trial Judge. As the issues are numerous and as the Vol. of evidence adduced at the trial was very considerable, the trial itself spreading over several weeks, we asked learned counsel or the appellant to limit the opening of his appeal to the issues which had been decided against his client and we indicated further that if after hearing counsel for the respondent on these issues we felt inclined to hold that the judgment could not be sustained on the findings on these issues, we would ask learned counsel for the respondent to take up the issues which had been decided in favour of the appellant, leaving it to his counsel to reply thereto to sustain the judgment on those issues. 3. 3. Acting on the above direction, Mr Daphtary, learned counsel for the appellant, argued the appeal only on the issues which had been decided against his client. The issue which he dealt with may, in the words of the learned Judge himself, be stated follows: 1. (f) Did the first respondent by himself or through his agents, commit corruption practice of procuring or obtaining the assistance of persons in the service of Government, as contemplated in Section 123(7) of the Representation of the Pec Act, by acting as mentioned in para 8(e) of the Election Petition filed by organisation, camp at Tandur for free medical aid on 5-2-1967 which resulted in Dr Sudarsan Reddy, President of the branch of the Association, who was in charge of the cam; canvassing for the first respondent? The second of such issues marked in the trial as Issue III was: "Whether the first respondent and his agents committed corrupt practices, as contemplated under Sections 123(2)(a)(ii)(e) and (3-A) of the Representation of the People Act by appealing to Muslim voters at a dinner on 19-1-1967 at Tandur, as alleged in para 6 of the election petition?" Mr Daphtary also addressed us on other issues which had been decided against his client such as Issue II on the question of corrupt practices alleged to have been committed by the appellant by directly or indirectly interfering with the free exercise of electoral right of the voters in various ways as mentioned in different clauses of that issue and by the incurring of expenses and distribution of amounts to various persons as mentioned in para 9 of the election petition and failure to include them in his return of election expenses in violation of Section 123(6) of the Representation of the People Act. 4. After we had heard Dr Singhvi counsel for the respondent on the first two of the above issues set out in extenso, we indicated to Mr Daphtary that we would like to hear him in reply on Issue III before the appeal proceeded further and after hearing him we came to the conclusion that the said issue had been rightly held by the trial Judge against the appellant and in that view of the matter it was not necessary to give our finding on the other issues whether decided for or against the appellant. On November 27, 1968 we indicated that we would dismiss the appeal and would give our reasons later on and we proceed to do so now. 5. Issue 1(f) arises out of the charge made in para 8(e) of the petition replied to in paras 44 to 46 of the written statement. To put briefly the charge was that a free medical aid camp was organised at Tandur on 5th February 1967 by Bichi Reddy, President of the Panchayat Samiti, Tandur and an active supporter of the appellant, with his consent, out of corrupt motives to further the cause of the appellant at the election by impressing upon the people the locality that the camp was arranged for the benefit of the electorate who should all vote for the appellant. It was stated that the association of Gazetted Officers in the employ of Andhra Pradesh Government known as the Andhra Pradesh Civil Surgeons Association was invited to render service to the said camp to treat the patients free of charge. The camp was in charge of Dr Sudarshan Reddy, President of the city branch of the association who actively canvassed for the appellant. The function was inaugurated at 9 a.m. on the date mentioned and the doctors who examined the patients and treated them actively canvassed for the appellant by saying that as free medical aid was provided at the instance of the appellant people should vote for him at the election. There was a further charge in the petition that the workers of the appellant had distributed pamphlets for advertising the holding of the camp and carrying on propaganda by means thereof at the instance of the appellant. 6. According to the written statement it was one of the activities of the above-named association to hold free medical aid camps at various places in the State with the assistance of the Panchayat Samitis. There had been a proposal to hold one such camp at Tandur some months before the election which the appellant had been requested to inaugurate. The function was postponed but the appellant came to learn that invitations had been issued for the holding of the camp on 5th February 1967 at Tandur to be inaugurated by him. It was the further case of the appellant that such invitations had been issued without his consent. The function was postponed but the appellant came to learn that invitations had been issued for the holding of the camp on 5th February 1967 at Tandur to be inaugurated by him. It was the further case of the appellant that such invitations had been issued without his consent. On 5th February 1967 when he was at Tandur there was a request that he should inaugurate the camp but he declined it. The camp had been held without any inaugural function and it had nothing to do with the election. The charge that pamphlets had been distributed by his workers impressing upon the voters that free medical aid was to be rendered at the instance of the appellant to the people of the constituency was false. The allegation of Dr Sudarshan Reddy telling the patients that they should vote in favour of the appellant in return for the services rendered by him was also false. 7. The election petitioner examined five witnesses to prove the charge of the commission of corrupt practice while the respondent-appellant examined three. In his examination-in-chief the election petitioner stated that the information about the holding of the camp was extensively publicised all over the constituency through pamphlets and other means, one of such pamphlets being Ex. A-87 printed under the auspices of the Panchayat Samiti of which Bichi Reddy was the chairman. About fifty doctors had attended the camp inaugurated by the appellant in respect of which invitation cards like Ex. A-87 had been issued. In his cross-examination, the petitioner admitted that he was not in Tandur on that date and that the above information had been gathered by him from others. Three persons Sundarabai, PW 63, Mala Bheemappa, PW 65 and G. Narayana Rao, PW 71 were examined on behalf of the petitioner to establish the inauguration of the camp by the appellant and the part played by the doctors in canvassing the appellant's candidature. Sundarabai's version was as follows. She was the wife of a motor driver who lived at Bombay. She was a voter herself and as she was suffering from cold and fever during the time of the election she had gone to the medical camp for treatment. About fifty doctors had come to Tandur 10 or 12 days prior to the election and the appellant had sent for people who needed medical treatment. She was a voter herself and as she was suffering from cold and fever during the time of the election she had gone to the medical camp for treatment. About fifty doctors had come to Tandur 10 or 12 days prior to the election and the appellant had sent for people who needed medical treatment. Bichi Reddy and Chetti Chandrasekhar had gone round the town propagating news about the free medical aid camp. When she went to Tandur school where the camp was opened at 9 a. m. on 5th February, she heard the appellant making a speech to the effect that he had brought many doctors to the town for the benefit of the local people and as he was working for them people should vote for him. This speech was followed by a doctor garlanding the appellant after which the examination of the patients commenced. She herself was examined by a lady doctor who asked her to vote for the appellant was the person responsible for the holding of the camp. She said that she had received a chit from the doctor but she had not preserved it. In cross-examination she admitted that she had been for many years a tenant of a house belonging to Gubba Lingayya, a municipal councillor who was one of the workers of the petitioner. 8. The testimony of Mala Bheemappa, PW 65 was to the same effect. He mentioned the speech by the appellant and his examination by one Dr Sudhan Reddy of Hyderabad afterwards when he was asked to vote for the appellant. 9. G. Narayana Rao, PW 71, was an accountant in a shop at Tandur. He spoke about the publicity given in the town to the free medical aid camp which was being held at the instance of the appellant and the propaganda in his support carried on by Chetti Chandrasekhar, Parvatappa and others by distribution of pamphlets. The speech imputed to the appellant by this witness was practically the same as that given by the others. He produced a chit Ex. A-126 in support of his version that he had attended the camp and was treated there. He too said that the doctor examining him had told him that the appellant was responsible for the holding of the camp and people should vote for him. 10. He produced a chit Ex. A-126 in support of his version that he had attended the camp and was treated there. He too said that the doctor examining him had told him that the appellant was responsible for the holding of the camp and people should vote for him. 10. The most remarkable feature about the statement of these three witnesses is that they all claimed to have reached the school where the camp was held just when the appellant was making his inaugural speech. They all reproduced from memory the speech ascribed to the appellant in the same words as also the appeal by the doctors who examined them that they should vote for the appellant at the election in return for the service which was being rendered to them. 11. The petitioner had also examined one Dr Sayyad Ali Moshin, PW 57 who appeared in the witness box before the witnesses mentioned above on December 1, 1967. He was a medical officer attached to the hospital at Tandur at the time of the elections. It appears that he was called for the purpose of proving certain documents in connection with cases of assault which had taken place at the election time, the patients being taken to the hospital. He was recalled on 22nd December 1967 after the examination of the other witnesses just now mentioned and he was put questions regarding the medical camp at Tandur on 5th February. According to him, the medical camp had commenced at 9 a.m. but there was no inauguration ceremony of the same and the appellant had not attended the function at all. He was emphatic that the appellant never made any speech nor had he been garlanded afterwards nor did any of the doctors, to his knowledge, do any canvassing for the appellant. It is somewhat surprising that the court allowed the witness to be cross-examined by counsel for the petitioner when there was really no occasion for it nor was he ever declared hostile. It was suggested to him that this version was given only for the purpose of helping the appellant and the witness stoutly denied this. He also denied having seen Bichi Reddy that day. 12. It was suggested to him that this version was given only for the purpose of helping the appellant and the witness stoutly denied this. He also denied having seen Bichi Reddy that day. 12. The appellant's version with regard to this camp in his examination-in-chief was that camps like the one at Tandur had been held previously by the association concerned in different places in the District of Hyderabad. He had been requested in December 1966 to inaugurate the camp at Tandur and at his suggestion either 23rd or 24th January 1967 was fixed for the purpose, but the function could not come off on acco of a strike of non-gazetted officers. In cross-examination he said that he had not attended any of such camps although he had been invited to all of them. He admitted having spent the night of 4th February 1967 at Tandur and left for Mehboobnagar s at a distance of 60 miles from Tandur on the morning of 5th February at about 8.30 According to him Mehboobnagar was not in his constituency but he had been invited there by the District Congress Committee. Shown the invitation card to the function A-88 he admitted that one such card had been given to him on the morning of 4th February while he was proceeding to Basheerabad en route to Tandur. It was Bichi Reddy who had given him the invitation card but he had told Bichi Reddy that the programme in Mehboobnagar made it impossible for him to attend the function at Tandur. He was cross-examined at some length over the fixing of the date for the camp with his consent and his acceptance thereof, the suggestion being that but for his acceptance the invitation cards could not have been printed or issued. 13. The evidence of Dr G. Venkatarami Reddy, RW 13 does not throw much light on the subject. In his examination-in-chief, Bichi Reddy, RW 19 admitted that the medical camp had been held at Tandur and that the panchayat samiti had distributed pamphlets publicising the same but it had not been inaugurated by the appellant. In cross examination he gave some details as to how the date 5th February 1967 came to be fixed or the holding of the camp. He admitted that Ex. A-88 was the invitation card used for the occasion and printed at Jagadeeswara Printing Press. In cross examination he gave some details as to how the date 5th February 1967 came to be fixed or the holding of the camp. He admitted that Ex. A-88 was the invitation card used for the occasion and printed at Jagadeeswara Printing Press. He was certain that he was at Tandur on 5th February but he was not present when the camp was formally declared open. He had seen the appellant at the Dak bungalow at Tandur on the morning of 5th February at about 8.30 a.m. when the appellant had left for Mehboobnagar to attend some function. 14. Besides the documents already mentioned, reliance was placed by the petitioner on the police station general diary at Tandur for the 3rd, 4th and 5th February 1967. These show that security arrangements had been made and a posse of guards placed at the travellers' bungalow on the occasion of the Minister's (appellant's) stay there the same being removed at 2 p.m. on the 5th February after the Minister and the Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad District had both left. 15. The learned Judge decided this issue against the appellant and observed that he had no doubt in his mind that the appellant had come forth with a false case of alibi regarding his visit to Mehboobnagar on the morning of 5th February, merely to escape the charge levelled against him. He commented on the fact that while the appellant had in his written statement denied the allegations contained in the petition he had attempted to set up a false case that he had been requested to inaugurate the medical camp only on the 5th February, 1967 and that he had declined to do so and had learnt subsequently that the camp was held without an inaugural function. The learned Judge also observed that there was no reason for the appellant not setting out in his written statement the plea of alibi sought to be made out in the evidence and there was no suggestion about this by his counsel when the petitioner and his witnesses had spoken about the function and the part played by him. The learned Judge's conclusion was that the plea of alibi had been propounded by the appellant for the first time in his cross-examination when his evidence was continued on 21st February 1968, that is to say, nearly two weeks after his examination-in-chief. The learned Judge's conclusion was that the plea of alibi had been propounded by the appellant for the first time in his cross-examination when his evidence was continued on 21st February 1968, that is to say, nearly two weeks after his examination-in-chief. He also relied on Bichi Reddy's evidence that the latter had consulted the appellant even on 29th January, 1967 in the matter of fixing 5th February, 1967 as the date for the inauguration of the camp at Tandur and held that it was only after such consultation that the invitation cards had been printed. He did not accept the evidence of the appellant about his inability to inaugurate the function because there was enough time for him to do so at 9 a.m. and leave for Mehboobnagar immediately afterwards. Having rejected the appellant's testimony the learned Judge examined the evidence of witnesses who spoke about having received treatment at the camp and being told by doctors that they should vote for the appellant. He rejected the evidence of PW 57 in view of the testimony of the other witnesses. His final conclusion was that the petitioner had satisfactorily proved that the appellant had offered free medical aid to the electors within his constituency by procuring the services and assistance of Dr Sudershan Reddy and fifty other doctors for the furtherance of his election prospects. 16. We find ourselves unable to endorse the conclusion of the learned Judge on this issue. The holding of the medical camp is admitted. No one denied the issue of the invitation cards but no one who actually received it and could produce this card in court came to give evidence to substantiate the petitioner case. The appellant's version of his having left for Mehboobnagar at about 8.30 a.m. on 5th February is not corroborated by any evidence, oral or documentary, excepting the testimony of Bichi Reddy. It should not have been difficult for him to lead evidence as to the importance of the meeting at Mehboobnagar and the programme which had been fixed there to give some indication about the time at which he was expected to be there. It should not have been difficult for him to lead evidence as to the importance of the meeting at Mehboobnagar and the programme which had been fixed there to give some indication about the time at which he was expected to be there. Apparently the function at Mehboobnagar was an important one but it was outside his constituency and it is rather strange that the medical camp which he had consented to open in January 1967 should go without his blessing on the 5th February when he was actually present in the town and quite possibly could without much difficulty have spared a few minutes for the function. The station diary is not conclusive on the point of his stay at Tandur till 2 p.m. on February 5, inasmuch as the police guard had been posted not only for the purpose of his security but also for that of the Superintendent of Police and there is no documentary evidence to show when either of them had left the travellers' bungalow. It must however be said that the way the appellant gave his evidence in the witness box did not create a very favourable impression in our minds and the criticism of his testimony by the learned Judge was not entirely unfounded. But even admitting that the appellant was at Tandur on the morning of 5th February and could if he had chosen have inaugurated the function, we find ourselves unable to hold with the learned trial Judge that the function was used as a means of influencing the voter in support of his candidature. The three witnesses who actually spoke about having received free medical aid gave their evidence in such a manner that we are led to the conclusion that it was tutored. They all spoke of having reached the meeting at 9 o'clock and having heard the appellant making a speech, the words of which were the same as related by the different witnesses. We do not doubt that these witnesses were there and had received medical aid but we find ourselves unable to accept their testimony as to the appellant making the speech at the function and the doctor's actively canvassing his candidature. In this connection, we would rather rely on the evidence of Dr Moshin, PW 57 than that of the three witnesses examined by the petitioner. Dr Moshin was a responsible and respectable person. In this connection, we would rather rely on the evidence of Dr Moshin, PW 57 than that of the three witnesses examined by the petitioner. Dr Moshin was a responsible and respectable person. He had no motive in telling a falsehood to support the case of the appellant. When he first came to give evidence he was not asked anything about the camp and as the appellant and his witnesses had not been examined he was called for the second time, there was no reason for his holding back the truth so as to anticipate the evidence which the appellant was going to give afterwards. As we have already said, there was no ground for the learned Judge allowing him to be cross-examined in the manner permitted, but however objectionable that course may have been, we are impressed by his evidence and are of opinion that he spoke the truth. We further find ourselves unable to hold that the doctors who attended the camp to render their service to the stricken and the poor were under such unholy influence of the Finance Minister that they would unashamedly speak in favour of his candidature and tell each and every patient that it was their duty to vote for him at the election. We do not say that the evidence of the three witnesses called by the petitioner should be rejected because they were men belonging to a humble station in life, we reject the same because on the face of it, it was improbable and we would rather rely on the testimony of Dr Moshin that the appellant did not inaugurate the function than that of these three witnesses who spoke to having heard the speech of the appellant at the opening of the programme. If we cannot believe these three witnesses about the inauguration, as we do not, we find ourselves unable to hold that they were speaking the truth about the doctors canvassing in favour of the appellant. It is rather strange that men of position of Tandur town were not called either on behalf of the petitioner or the appellant to give their version of the inauguration of the camp and what took place thereafter, but we have to give our finding on the evidence adduced. On a scrutiny of the entire evidence we hold that the charge levelled in para 8(e) of the petition was not established. On a scrutiny of the entire evidence we hold that the charge levelled in para 8(e) of the petition was not established. Para 6 of the election petition which gave rise to Issue III reads: "Respondent 1 and his agents with his consent violated Section 123 sub-section 2 (a)(ii), 3 and 3(a) of the Representation of the People Act by appealing to the Muslim voters on the grounds of religion and caste. Thus a dinner was arranged in the house of one Adam Khan Forest Contractor at Adam Ghar, Tandur at 8.00 p.m. on 19-1-1967. The Respondent 1 was the chief guest. Those present were mostly Muslims and particularly the Muslim `Gao Khasabs Adam Khan after dinner, in the presence of Respondent 1 addressed those present as under: "You brother Muslims, beware of this Vendematharam Ramchander Rao. He is a viper in the shape of a man. He is an arch enemy of Islam and Muslims. So, if you support him, in the election, mind you will incur the displeasure of Allah and his prophet. There are some Gao Khasabs also present today. I am happy at this. Vendematharam Ramchander Rao wants to rob you of your source of living. He is a leader of anti-cow-slaughter campaign. Vendematharam and his associates are Arya Samajees. There can be no meeting ground between you and the Arya Samajees and the anti-cow-slaughter campaigners. They are your enemies. There arises no question of supporting them. You should be at a perpetual jehad against them. Otherwise, your source of living will be lost and you will be thrown to winds with nothing to subsist on. You must all, therefore, support the Respondent 1 and vote for him. " Respondent 1 praised Adam Khan for his speech and said: " `What Adam has said is true to the very letter. I, therefore, appeal to you to support me and oppose Vandematharam Ramchender Rao.' Thus the Respondent 1 and his said agents with the consent and connivance of Respondent 1 besides appealing for votes on the ground of religion also promoted feeling of enmity and hatred between Arya Samajists and Muslims on the ground of religion for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of Respondent 1 which has pre judicially affected the election petitioner. " The above was controverted by the appellant in para 28 of the written statement as follows: "The allegation in para 6 of the petition that (i) a dinner was arranged in Adam Khan's house on 19-1-1967 at 8.00 p.m. attended by this respondent and Muslims and `Gao Khasabs' and that (ii) speeches were made by Adam Khan and this respondent after dinner and (iii) that in those speeches they appealed for votes on grounds of religion and promoted feelings of enmity and hatred between Arya Samajists and Muslims are false and baseless. " 17. Before discussing the evidence on this issue, it is necessary to take a note of a few facts which have some bearing thereon. The appellant was a sitting Minister of the State. The constituency had a not inconsiderable number of Muslim voters spread in many villages. Tandur itself was a small township with a population of five to six thousand with a percentage of 35 to 40 composed of Muslims. Adam Khan was a forest contractor and was a man of some position in the town. The nomination paper of the appellant had been filed only on the day previous to the date of the dinner i.e. 19th January, 1967. 18. There is no reference in the petition to any document which would support the allegations made in para 6 of the petition. The evidence adduced at the trial went to show that a letter of invitation had been issued by Adam Khan to a large number of persons to attend the dinner at the conclusion whereof a leaflet by way of an appeal to the Muslim electorate to cast their votes in favour of the appellant and against the first respondent on the ground of religion was distributed among the persons who were present. According to the election petitioner, he received a copy of the invitation card marked as Ex. A-85 and a copy of the leaflet marked as Ex. A-86 some time in January 1967 long before he filed his election petition. It was the case of the election petitioner, as unfolded by the witnesses, that there was a large gathering of people - variously put at between 150 to 170 and 150 to 200 - who attended the dinner and were present at the meeting held afterwards. A-86 some time in January 1967 long before he filed his election petition. It was the case of the election petitioner, as unfolded by the witnesses, that there was a large gathering of people - variously put at between 150 to 170 and 150 to 200 - who attended the dinner and were present at the meeting held afterwards. No less than four Muslims were examined by the petitioner to establish that the main object of the meeting was to exhort the Muslims to vote in favour of the appellant while according to the respondent and his witnesses who had attended at Adam Khan's house there was only a small gathering of 10 to 15 persons at an informal dinner and there were no speeches thereat either by Adam Khan appealing to the Muslim electorate to vote in favour of the appellant on the ground of religion and self-interest or any by the appellant himself approving of the speech of Adam Khan. Only one witness came forward on behalf of the election petitioner to say that he had received an invitation card while all the Muslim witnesses deposed to the distribution of the leaflet after the speeches of Adam Khan and the appellant. As a matter of fact one of the witnesses produced a copy of the leaflet on the second day of his examination although he did not bring the same forward on the day his examination-in-chief started. 19. We may now examine the evidence adduced by the respective parties before discussing the merits of the comments made thereon by learned counsel on either side. The first witness who spoke on the subject was one Moulana (PW 47) of Village Nurullapuram examined on 22nd November 1967. He described himself as a cultivator and a patel owning Ac. 40-00 of land. His version as given in the examination-in-chief was as follows. About one month prior to the election he had received an invitation to dinner at Tadur from Adam Khan. He attended the dinner at about 8 p.m. where Adam Khan addressed the Muslims to the effect that the first respondent (election petitioner) was an enemy of the Muslims as he was opposed to cow slaughter and belonged to the Araya Samaj and if Muslims voted for him Allah and the Prophet would be angry with them. It was therefore for the Muslims to vote for the appellant. It was therefore for the Muslims to vote for the appellant. After Adam Khan's speech the appellant told the audience that what Adam Khan had said was true and that they should all vote for him. This was followed by the garlanding of the appellant by Adam Khan and distribution of pamphlets. Ex. A-24 was one such pamphlet. About 100 to 150 people had attended the dinner but the witness knew only the appellant and Adam Khan. He did not know the names of others as he was not a resident of Tandur. He had not received an invitation card but had been orally invited through a messenger. After leaving the meeting he told the Muslim of his village about what had been said by Adam Khan and he requested them not to vote for the election petitioner but to do so in favour of the appellant There were 12 voters in his house and they had all cast their votes. He did not work for anybody in the election and he did not belong to any political party. One Mahaboob Sab had worked for the appellant during the elections in his village but there was no one to do so on behalf of the election petitioner. In his cross- examination he said that his village was at a distance of 12 to 13 miles from Tandur, that he had known Adam Khan since 1962 when he had gone to witness's village in connection with the general election of that year. He had no business dealings with Adam Khan and had never gone to his house before 19-1-1967. He was not told about the occasion for the dinner by the messenger who had gone to invite him nor had he questioned the messenger about it. The dinner had taken place in a room in Adam Khan's house as also in the open space in front of it. Adam Khan had spoken for about 10 to 15 minutes while the first respondent had taken 2 to 3 minutes for his speech. The dinner was over by 9.30 or 10.00 p.m. He felt that what Adam Khan had said was true but he never questioned the latter as to what made him think that the election petitioner was opposed to cow slaughter. He had received the summons for citation as a witness from one Panduranga Reddi. The dinner was over by 9.30 or 10.00 p.m. He felt that what Adam Khan had said was true but he never questioned the latter as to what made him think that the election petitioner was opposed to cow slaughter. He had received the summons for citation as a witness from one Panduranga Reddi. He denied the suggestion that he was giving false evidence at the instance of the first respondent or Panduranga Reddi. He did not remember the name of the person who had distributed the leaflets like Ex. A-24. He had taken a copy of the same to his village but he did not see such a paper with anybody else in that village. He had preserved it in the almirah in his house as it was a matter relating to Muslims. The leaflet was given only to persons who could read. 20. The evidence as recorded does not clearly establish that Ex. A-24 was the document brought in by the witness and tendered in court. Dr Singhvi however showed us from the record that this was a fact and this was accepted by the learned junior of Mr Daphtary who had conducted the case on behalf of the appellant in the High Court. 21. The second witness on this issue was one Hazarat Sab (PW 49), a resident of Nagulapalli. His version as given in his examination-in-chief was as follows. There were 70 to 80 Muslims in his village and he along with two persons by the name Mukinda Reddi and Avusula Pandu had worked for the election petitioner in the election. He also gave the names of persons who according to him had worked for the appellant. There were five voters in his house. He was invited to the dinner through one Venkata Reddi, a person who worked under Adam Khan. The witness himself also worked under Adam Khan and that is how Venkata Reddi came to be known to him. He was not the only person of his village who had gone to the dinner but there were two others viz. Darla Patel and Khaja Patel. About 100 to 150 people had attended the dinner where he saw the appellant, Chandrasekhar Korwar, Parvatappa and some others. There was a meeting after the dinner which was first addressed by Adam Khan. He was not the only person of his village who had gone to the dinner but there were two others viz. Darla Patel and Khaja Patel. About 100 to 150 people had attended the dinner where he saw the appellant, Chandrasekhar Korwar, Parvatappa and some others. There was a meeting after the dinner which was first addressed by Adam Khan. The substance of the speech of Adam Khan was the same as that given by Moulana. Adam Khan's speech was approved of by the appellant who requested people present to vote for him. The election petitioner had gone to the witness's village 2 or 3 days after that date when the witness had asked him as to whether he was opposed to the Muslims and on being assured that that was not a fact he had decided to work for the petitioner. In his cross-examination he said that his father aged 60 years was alive, that there were 20 to 30 male Muslims in his village of whom a number of persons including Darla Patel and Khaja Patel were older than himself. He was only 25 years of age. His father did not look after the cultivation. He knew Adam Khan as a person who took contracts of various blocks in his area and he used to assist Adam Khan in providing labour for him. He had known Adam Khan for about 7 or 8 years. He had never before been invited by Adam Khan. The invitation had come a day before the dinner was held. He had come to know of the petitioner about 10 or 12 days before the election when he had gone to the witness's village for propaganda purposes. He also said that apart from Muslims there were about 200 or 250 Hindus present at the dinner in Adam Khan's house. It was suggested to him that he was giving false evidence in the case at the instance of Mukunda Reddi and Bandi Reddi which he denied. 22. The third witness on this issue was one Sharfuddin of village Bant-waram. He was a cultivator owing Ac. 25-00 of land. He had not worked for anybody at the election but he knew that Panduranga Reddi and Lakshmana Reddi had worked for the election petitioner while a number of other persons had worked for the appellant. 22. The third witness on this issue was one Sharfuddin of village Bant-waram. He was a cultivator owing Ac. 25-00 of land. He had not worked for anybody at the election but he knew that Panduranga Reddi and Lakshmana Reddi had worked for the election petitioner while a number of other persons had worked for the appellant. He had received an invitation to the dinner about a month prior to the date of polling. He was the only person to do so from his village. There was a gathering of about 150 to 170 persons in Adam Khan's house. He also spoke about the speeches of Adam Khan and the appellant and the garlanding of the latter after the meeting as also the distribution of the pamphlet. In his cross-examination he said that his father was alive but he was the only son. He could not give the name of the messenger who had invited him to the dinner and he did not know the messenger who was a Muslim from Tandur. Another Muslim by name, Gaffoor was an invitee at the dinner. The witness seemed to be rather weak in figures and could not say whether it was weeks, months or years before the Muharram that he had attended the dinner at Adam Khan's house. He had not asked Adam Khan as to why he had been invited; he did not know what was meant by the word `Arya Samaj' and he had not enquired of anybody about it. He was not literate but nevertheless he had received a copy of the leaflet. He came to know from Panduranga Reddi only two days before he came to give evidence in court that he would have to do so. It was suggested to him that he was a man of no means depending upon Panduranga Reddi and Prabhakar Reddi and he was giving false evidence at their instance. He denied the suggestion and stated that he was not indebted to Prabhakar Reddi. 23. Sayyed Ghouse of Tandur was the next person to be examined in this connection. He stated in his examination-in-chief on November 23, 1967 that he carried on business in vegetables and had a shop in Tarkari Bazar. He denied the suggestion and stated that he was not indebted to Prabhakar Reddi. 23. Sayyed Ghouse of Tandur was the next person to be examined in this connection. He stated in his examination-in-chief on November 23, 1967 that he carried on business in vegetables and had a shop in Tarkari Bazar. He had not worked for anybody at the election but some Muslims whom he described as Gawookasabs, Ibrahim, Yusuf Pahilvan, Mehaboob Pahilvan and others had worked for the appellant at the election. He said that he had received an invitation card of the type shown to him in the witness box. He had attended the dinner at which there was a gathering of 150 to 175 persons including Gawookasabs and other Muslims. The gathering consisted of people from Tandur and other villages at which were present Gaffoor, Lateef Ali. Mehaboob Sab, Irahim Sab and many others of Tandur. He gave an account of the speeches of Adam Khan and the appellant and stated that he had been given a copy of the pamphlet at the meeting. When he came to the witness box again on 27th November 1967 he said that he had found the pamphlet which he had received at the meeting and this was marked as Ex. A-42. He could not however produce the invitation card. In his cross-examination he admitted that he earned only Rs. 2 to Rs. 3 per day and that he had kept the pamphlet in his coat pocket folded up along with some receipts. He did not maintain any accounts and he had preserved the receipts only to see what he had purchased. He gave the names of various persons who according to him had worked for the election petitioner. He stated that he had attended other dinners given by Mahammad Sab, Ahmed Sab and Gaffoor Sab on various occasions in their houses. Mahammad Sab was a vegetable vendor and so were Ahmed Sab and Gaffoor Sab. He had no idea of the means of Adam Khan but he knew that he was in business in a big way. There were 500 to 600 Muslims in Tandur town. He had been invited to dinner by Adam Khan on 2 or 3 occasions before, may be in connection with ceremonies relating to marriages or deaths. He had no idea of the means of Adam Khan but he knew that he was in business in a big way. There were 500 to 600 Muslims in Tandur town. He had been invited to dinner by Adam Khan on 2 or 3 occasions before, may be in connection with ceremonies relating to marriages or deaths. He came to know Adam Khan in connection with the business in seetaphal carried on by the latter with the witness's father who was dead. He discounted the suggestion that he had been bribed to come and give evidence in support of the petition. 24. The petitioner stated in his examination-in-chief that he had received information about the dinner on the very next day from persons who had been present there as also his workers. Ex. A-85 the invitation card produced by him and Ex. A-86 the copy of the leaflet tendered by him had been given to him by Mahboob Patel who had refused to come and give evidence because of a threat held out by Adam Khan. In cross-examination he admitted that he had received the documents on 20th January 1967 from Mahboob Patel. 25. Quite unconnected with the dinner itself and the meeting which followed at which speeches were made is the statement of A. Neelakantappa, PW 67 who admittedly had worked for some time in a printing press at Tandur known as the Jagadeeswara Printing Press owned by one P. Basavaraj who figured as a witness on the side of the appellant. Neelakantappa's version in the examination-in-chief was that at the time of the elections he had been working in the said press and he was responsible for printing the invitation card Ex. A-85. He stated further that he had printed election material for the appellant in the said press including Exs. A-87 and A-119. The charges for printing these material were paid by Bichi Reddi. The card did not contain the name of the press but he was sure that it was he who had printed it and the charge therefore was paid by Adam Khan. He also said that the proprietor of the press had worked for the appellant in the general election. In cross-examination he admitted that he had left his job at the press as a result of some misunderstanding with the proprietor. He could not be sure of the exact date when Ex. He also said that the proprietor of the press had worked for the appellant in the general election. In cross-examination he admitted that he had left his job at the press as a result of some misunderstanding with the proprietor. He could not be sure of the exact date when Ex. A-85 was printed but said it was during the time of election probably in the month of February. He was also not sure of the amount of the bill in respect of the work done in printing the cards. He was personally known to Adam Khan who had a month before the printing of the said card, given an order for printing cards in respect of his Grihapravesam ceremony. 26. As against the above the evidence tendered on behalf of the appellant was that of the oral testimony of the appellant himself and of P. Anantha Reddy, RW 15, M. Manika Rao, RW 17, and K. Bichi Reddy, RW 19. P. Basava Raj, RW 32, was examined to give a lie to the statement of Neelakanthappa. It is to be noted that para 28 of the written statement does not indicate that the appellant was admitting having attended a dinner in the house of Adam Khan on 19th January 1967 at which he was the chief guest. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the suggestion in the election petition being that a corrupt practice was committed by means of the speeches at the dinner, the denial in the written statement "that at a dinner so arranged in Adam Khan's house attended by him and Muslims and Gawookasabs speeches were made appealing for votes on the ground of religion and promoting feelings of enmity and hatred" was a sufficient denial of the relevant averments in the petition. Although this plea was put forward by counsel in carefully chosen words, we find it difficult to hold that the draftsman of the written statement did not intend to deny the factum of the giving of dinner where the appellant was the chief guest. We have examined carefully the cross- examination of the appellant on this point and all that we need say is that he cut a very sorry figure in trying to explain away the deficiency in his plea in para 28 of the written statement. We have examined carefully the cross- examination of the appellant on this point and all that we need say is that he cut a very sorry figure in trying to explain away the deficiency in his plea in para 28 of the written statement. It must be said at the same time that in his examination-in-chief he admitted that Adam Khan had given a dinner in his house on 19th January 1967. According to him only 15 or 16 persons were present including Manikyarao, Bichi Reddi, Parvathappa Kurvar and Narayana Rao who were his important workers in Tandur town. It was merely an informal dinner where no speeches were made nor any pamphlets distributed. Two or three Muslims of Tandur town were present but none of the Muslim witnesses who had deposed to having attended the dinner were there. He also stated that he did not know Ibrahim Pahelvan, Mahboob Pahelvan and Mohammad Sab of Tandur mentioned by the witnesses of the election petitioner and after having made an enquiry into the matter he was sure that they had not worked for him in the election. He however admitted that Adam Khan had done so. In cross-examination he said that he had attended several dinners during January and February 1967 at Tandur but he did not remember the dates of all of them. Neither was he prepared to admit that the dinners were arranged with his consent, his case being that these dinners were all casual affairs, being arranged a few hours before the gathering if he happened to be present in town and was free to take a meal. At all such dinners there would be only a small gathering of 15 to 20 people who were available in the town itself. Invitation cards were never printed for such occasions. He was prepared to admit that Adam Khan was a prominent Muslim of Tandur. Neither was he prepared to make any admission about his status but said that he had some timber business. He admitted however that the population of the town was between 15,000 to 16,000 of which 35 to 40 per cent was composed of Muslims. He had some important supporters in that community, namely, Gulam Hyder, Adam Khan, Hafif and Latif. Latif was a municipal commissioner and had worked for him in the election. He admitted however that the population of the town was between 15,000 to 16,000 of which 35 to 40 per cent was composed of Muslims. He had some important supporters in that community, namely, Gulam Hyder, Adam Khan, Hafif and Latif. Latif was a municipal commissioner and had worked for him in the election. He was not prepared to admit that he had planned to have the services of Adam Khan with a view to secure the Muslim votes of Tandur town. Neither was he prepared to accept that through the dinner he had planned to get the support of the Muslim voters of the surrounding villages. This particular dinner was accepted by him on the morning of 19th January when he was asked in that behalf by Adam Khan. Shown Ex. A-85 which purported to be a card inviting persons to dinner in his honour he said that it was only an informal affair arranged on the morning of the 19th. To a specific question put to him suggesting the presence of not only Bichi Reddy, Chandrasekhar, Parvathappa Kurvar but Ibrahim Pahilvan, Yusuf Pehilvan, Mahboob Pahilvan, Lateef Ali, a few Gawookhasabs or cowbutchers of Tandur, the witnesses examined on behalf of the election petitioner, he admitted that Bichi Reddy, Chandrasekhar, Parvathappa Kurvar and Latheef All were present at the dinner. He was definite that no speeches had been made although he was not sure of the garlanding. He was further positive that the dinner was not attended by a large number of Muslims numbering about 150. 27. Although not named by the appellant as one of the persons who had attended the dinner, RW 15, P. Anantha Reddy, stated in his examination-in-chief that Adam Khan had given an informal dinner on the 19th January attended by about 10 or 15 persons including the appellant but there were no speeches delivered on the occasion nor was there any talk about the elections. In cross-examination he stated that he had known Adam Khan, a forest contractor for about 10 or 12 years and that the latter had a business in seethaphal. He was not aware that Adan Khan wielded great influence over cow butchers of Tandur and other Muslims. In cross-examination he stated that he had known Adam Khan, a forest contractor for about 10 or 12 years and that the latter had a business in seethaphal. He was not aware that Adan Khan wielded great influence over cow butchers of Tandur and other Muslims. In answer to a question suggesting that the dinner was attended among others by Bichi Reddy, Chetti Chandrasekhar, Parvathappa Kurvar, Ibrahim Pahilvan, Mahboob Pahilvan, Latif All and other Muslims he said that the statement was not correct. The trend of his cross-examination was to show that the witness was not present at the dinner in person. It is certainly strange that the witness did not even admit the presence of persons like Bichi Reddy, Chetti Chandrasekhar. Parvathappa Kurwar and Latif All at the dinner which was spoken to by the appellant himself. Apart from this, there was enough material on record to doubt his veracity. In his cross-examination he was charged with having made a false complaint against one Mohamed Khasim involving the latter in a theft case to the effect that he had removed zinc sheets from his shop. His version was that Khasim had committed a theft and therefore he had to make a complaint and give evidence thereof. The finding of the Magistrate to the effect that he was uttering falsehood simply to involve the accused in the case was shown to him and he was asked as to whether he had gone through the same. His answer was in the negative. He said further that he had not either filed a revision petition or an appeal from the order of the Magistrate, under the advice of lawyers. To our mind this is sufficient to discredit the witness apart from contradiction of his testimony by that of the appellant himself with regard to the presence of various persons at the dinner. 28. The witness to speak about the dinner was M. Manikya Rao (RW 17) who had been an election agent of the appellant in the 1962 election and appears to have taken a not insignificant part in the 1967 election also. In his examination-in-chief he stated that he knew Adam Khan who was a forest contractor, that there was a dinner at his house on the 19th January attended by about 20 to 25 persons including himself, Anantha Reddy, Patti Siddappa and other important local persons. In his examination-in-chief he stated that he knew Adam Khan who was a forest contractor, that there was a dinner at his house on the 19th January attended by about 20 to 25 persons including himself, Anantha Reddy, Patti Siddappa and other important local persons. Neither Gawookasabs nor Muslims in large number had attended the dinner. In cross-examination he said he had known Adam Khan for 8 or 9 years and that the latter was a small forest contractor who had worked against the appellant in 1962 elections. According to him, the prominent Muslims at Tandur included one Isab Saheb, a retired Circle Inspector, Ahmed Khan, a municipal councillor and Gaffar, another municipal councillor. The said persons other than Gaffar had worked for the appellant in the last election. He admitted that the appellant was the chief guest at the dinner which had been arranged in his honour. The witness had been invited to the dinner orally through a Muslim messenger and had not received any invitation card like Ex. A-85. 29. The statement of K. Bichi Reddy, RW 19, President of the Tandur Panchayat Samiti in examination-in-chief was that at the dinner at Adam Khan's house on 19th January the appellant was the chief guest there being only 15 to 20 invitees. There were no speeches at the dinner nor distribution of any pamphlets. In cross-examination he said that he had known Adam Khan for the last 7 or 8 years and that he was one of the prominent Muslims of Tandur. It will be noted that he is the only witness on the side of the appellant to make an admission of this fact. He stated further that besides himself, Chetti Chendrasekhar, Parvatappa Kurvar, Anantha Reddi and Lathif All had attended the dinner for which no invitation cards had been issued. 30. P. Basavaraj, RW 32, proprietor of Jagadeeswara Printing Press had nothing to say with regard to the dinner itself in his examination-in-chief. Apparently he was called to prove the incurring of certain expenditure by the appellant as charges for printing different material for the election. In answer to the very first question put to him in cross-examination he said that he did not know the appellant but that he had printed election material for him not only in the 1967 election but also in the one held in 1962. In answer to the very first question put to him in cross-examination he said that he did not know the appellant but that he had printed election material for him not only in the 1967 election but also in the one held in 1962. He was a man of Tandur and Bichi Reddi, Manikyarao, Parvatappa Kurvar, Anantha Reddy and others had worked for the appellant in the 1967 election. He admitted that although he had printed Ex. A-251 in his press he had made no charges therefor. According to him this was because Basavaraj, the sarpanch of Agnoor who got the material printed was his relation. He had to admit that Ex. A-251 was printed in connection with the election campaign of the appellant and that it was not connected with any personal use of his said relative. With regard to Ex. A-85 he was sure that it was not printed in his press because the kind of type used for the card were not available at his place. Three other cards were shown to him admittedly printed by him. He sought to strengthen his denial with regard to Ex. A-85 by saying that he was the compositor in his press and the composition of Ex. A-85 was not done by him. He admitted however that there was a boy by the name of Sekhar who also used to do some composing work. 31. Once the fact of the giving of the dinner by Adam Khan is admitted, the issue of invitation cards loses its importance in connection with the question before us except to show that it was not an informal affair and that the felicitation of the appellant by Adam Khan immediately after the filing of the nomination paper had something to do with the forthcoming election. The evidence of P. Basavaraj, RW 32 would have been acceptable to us but for the fact that he tried to disown having known the appellant. He might not have known the appellant intimately but it is difficult to accept that he did not know him at all when the appellant was frequently visiting Tandur during the election campaign. The evidence of P. Basavaraj, RW 32 would have been acceptable to us but for the fact that he tried to disown having known the appellant. He might not have known the appellant intimately but it is difficult to accept that he did not know him at all when the appellant was frequently visiting Tandur during the election campaign. Our belief is further strengthened by the fact that he had printed election material for him not only in the last election but also in the previous one and that he had gone to the length of doing printing work to help the appellant's cause by printing 500 forms free of cost at the request of his relative, Basavaraj of Agnoor. No invitee at the dinner produced an invitation card and we find it impossible to believe that it was a forged document manufactured only for the purpose of supporting the factum of the giving of dinner. If that was so, the witnesses examined would have come and produced copies of the cards. All the witnesses on the side of the appellant wanted the court to believe that the dinner was an informal affair arranged at a few hour's notice; at least two of them admitted that the dinner was given in honour of the appellant and he was the chief guest thereat. This last admission lends support to the respondent case that the dinner was not as informal a matter as the appellant wanted us to believe. In our view the learned trial Judge was right in holding that invitation cards had been issued and normally the printing of the cards would go to show that the number of invitees might not be very small. 32. We next come to the speeches which were said to have been made after the dinner. No less than four Muslims coming from different villages were examined in support of the allegation of commission of this corrupt practice. Normally it would be difficult to accept the oral testimony of persons with regard to the exact words used in speeches of others made several months before they are examined in court. In this case however there is more than the oral evidence of the witnesses to support the making of the speeches and the text thereof. We refer to the Urdu leaflet Ex. A-24. 33. In this case however there is more than the oral evidence of the witnesses to support the making of the speeches and the text thereof. We refer to the Urdu leaflet Ex. A-24. 33. The oral evidence of the four witnesses with regard to the speeches was on the same lines as that contained in the text of the leaflet which was purported to have been issued over the signature of Adam Khan and Lathif Ali. Once the distribution of the pamphlets after the dinner in the presence of the appellant is accepted, the commission of the corrupt practice is established beyond any shadow of doubt. Two of the witnesses produced copies of the leaflet. The actual record of the case contains another copy thereof. The Muslim witnesses who came to depose with regard to the dinner and the speeches may be men of humble origin and of little or no education. But there is a substantial ring of truth in the testimony of each one of them. They were not all men from the same village and three of them stated that they had been invited to the dinner orally. Invitation cards in English would have meant little to them. No cogent reason nor ground has been shown as to why their testimony should not be accepted. The suggestion made to two of them that they had come at the instance of Panduranga Reddi really had no basis. All of them gave a consistent version of the dinner followed by the meeting and the speeches. There is nothing in their testimony which would lead one to hold that the dinner being attended by a very large number of persons was a fiction. PW 49, Hazaratsab no doubt contradicted himself about the number of persons attending in his cross-examination by saying that there were 200 to 250 Hindus present at the meeting when he had said earlier in chief-examination that only 100 to 150 persons had attended the dinner. Leaving out of account this contradiction, little fault can be found with the rest of his testimony or that of the other witnesses. PW 47 Moulana was a patel and a cultivator owning Ac. 40.00 of land with several votes in his house. Leaving out of account this contradiction, little fault can be found with the rest of his testimony or that of the other witnesses. PW 47 Moulana was a patel and a cultivator owning Ac. 40.00 of land with several votes in his house. No doubt he said that he knew only Adam Khan and the appellant but his testimony that he attended the dinner meeting cannot be disbelieved merely because of this. He admitted that he had never before gone to Adam Khan's house for a dinner. This would not be unbelievable because the meeting was according to the election petitioner, not a social gathering but with the avowed object of whipping up the support of Muslims in favour of the appellant. PW 49 also hailed from a village which had a certain percentage of Muslim voters. He had occasion to know Adam Khan as he had worked for the latter. The mere fact that he was young in age compared to other persons like Daria Patel and Khaja Patel of his village who were invited to the dinner does not impel us to reject his testimony for after all a man's influence on members of his community does not always depend on his seniority in age. Nor were we shown any special reason for rejecting the evidence of Sharfuddin, PW 52. Strong comment was made with regard to the testimony of PW 53 because of the humble situation occupied by him. In our opinion that fact by itself is not enough to reject his testimony. He mentioned several persons of Tandur who according to him were as humble in status as himself and who had attended the dinner and we can see no reason to disbelieve his evidence for although a man of no special importance he might be important on the occasion of an election because of his influence over persons of similar status and means. What impressed us most with regard to his evidence was the way in which he produced a copy of the pamphlet on the second day of his examination. If he was a suborned witness who had come to court with falsehood on his lips he would have produced the copy of the pamphlet on the very first day. What impressed us most with regard to his evidence was the way in which he produced a copy of the pamphlet on the second day of his examination. If he was a suborned witness who had come to court with falsehood on his lips he would have produced the copy of the pamphlet on the very first day. We cannot also lose sight of the fact that he gave a rational explanation as to how he came to know Adam Khan, namely, that Adam Khan used to carry on business in sithaphal with his father. Nor do we see any reason to reject his testimony that Adam Khan had invited him to dinner on two or three previous occasions. 34. Once the testimony of these witnesses regarding their presence at the dinner is accepted, it would not be difficult to hold that the dinner meeting had a purpose, namely, to do some propaganda work on behalf of the appellant. Here we have a dinner for which invitation cards were printed attended by several Muslims some of them speaking about the presence of others at the meeting. With the election in the offing it is not difficult to hold that the object of the meeting was to canvass the support of Muslims. The dinner party is thrown by a prominent Muslim of Tandur at which a Minister of the State i.e. the Finance Minister for the time being is the chief guest; in the circumstances, it would be cogent and reasonable to infer in the absence of acceptable evidence to the contrary, that the meeting was for furthering the candidature of the Minister at the coming election. Exactly how the canvassing was done is clear from the leaflet itself, the substance of which was given by each of the four witnesses. No suggestion was ever made that the leaflet was a forgery; it purports to have been issued over the signatures of Adam Khan and Lathif Ali both of them working in the cause of the appellant at the election. Neither Adam Khan nor Lathif Ali was examined to show that although there was a dinner party it was a small affair and that there were no speeches of the kind attributed to Adam Khan nor was there any distribution of leaflets of which they were imputed to be the authors. Neither Adam Khan nor Lathif Ali was examined to show that although there was a dinner party it was a small affair and that there were no speeches of the kind attributed to Adam Khan nor was there any distribution of leaflets of which they were imputed to be the authors. The appellant's version with regard to the dinner loses much of its force because of his denial in the written statement and the evasive answers regarding the same given in his cross-examination. Adam Khan, Lathif Ali, Mahaboob Ali and Ibrahim Pahilvan all figured as witnesses in the list submitted on behalf of the appellant. Two of them were admitted to have worked for the appellant in the election. Adam Khan was the host at the dinner and the person who was alleged to have made the speech in contravention of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act. Adam Khan would have been the best person to have come and given evidence to the effect that although he had given a dinner party, no speeches to which exception could be taken were made and no pamphlets distributed. Lathif Ali should also have been called. It is significant that not one of the Muslims who were alleged to have attended the meeting was called on behalf of the appellant. The only reasonable inference to draw therefrom is that if they had come they would not have supported the appellant. Much was sought to be made of the fact that the petitioner had not examined any prominent Muslim of Tandur and that Mahaboob Ali who was supposed to have given the copy of the invitation card and the pamphlet to the election petitioner as early as 20th January was not examined. Strong comment was also made on the conduct and testimony of the petitioner that although he had in his possession the pamphlet Ex. A-24 before filing the election petition he had made no mention of it therein as the mere distribution of the pamphlet would have been an act of corrupt practice quite apart from the speeches which were made at the meeting. There are certainly infirmities and lacunae in the case of the election petitioner the most important being the absence of any mention of the distribution of the pamphlet in the petition itself. There are certainly infirmities and lacunae in the case of the election petitioner the most important being the absence of any mention of the distribution of the pamphlet in the petition itself. But we cannot also lose sight of similar infirmity and defects in the case of the appellant, the most important being the absence of any Muslim from the witness box including Adam Khan. This Court has held in a number of cases that the trial of an election petition on the charge of the commission of a corrupt practice partakes of the nature of a criminal trial in that the finding must be based not on the balance of probabilities but on direct and cogent evidence to support it. In this connection, the inherent difference between the trial of an election petition and a criminal trial may also be noted. At a criminal trial the accused need not lead any evidence and ordinarily he does not do so unless his case is to be established by positive evidence on his side, namely, his insanity or his acting in self defence to protect himself or a plea of alibi to show that he could not have committed the crime with which he was charged. The trial of an election petition on the charge of commission of corrupt practice is somewhat different. More often than not proof of such corrupt practices depends on the oral testimony of witnesses. The candidate charged with such corrupt practice invariably leads evidence to prove his denial; it becomes the duty of the court to weigh the two versions and come to a conclusion as to whether notwithstanding the denial and the evidence in rebuttal, a reasonable person can form the opinion that on the evidence the charge is satisfactorily established. We cannot also lose sight of the fact that quite apart from the nature of the charge the trial itself goes on as if the issues in a civil suit were being investigated into. The petitioner has to give particulars of the corrupt practice with details in default whereof the allegations may be ignored; the petitioner has to ask for certain declarations and the procedure before the High Court is to be in accordance with that applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure to the trial of suits with the aid of the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. Inferences can therefore be drawn against a party who does not call evidence which should be available in support of his version. 35. Normally in hearing an election appeal our practice is to call upon a party who attacks a finding of fact by the High Court to show how and where the High Court has erred in the appreciation of the evidence. In this case Mr Daphtary argued that the whole approach of the learned trial Judge on the various issues was wrong and that he had failed to notice the infirmities and the weaknesses in the case of the election petitioner and had come to conclusions not warranted by the facts. It was for this reason that we have sifted the evidence ourselves and set out the relevant portions thereof in extenso and notwithstanding the infirmities pointed out by counsel for the appellant, we hold, on a scrutiny of the entire record on this issue, that the learned trial Judge had come to a correct conclusion. 36. Although our finding on Issue 1(f) is in favour of the appellant, we uphold the judgment of the High Court on Issue III and in that view of the matter, it is not necessary to go into the other issues. The charge of commission of corrupt practice in Issue III has been satisfactorily established and the appeal must be dismissed with costs.