JUDGMENT : Ramaswami, J. The appellant filed an election petition in the Patna High Court for setting aside the election of respondent No. 1 to the Lok Sabha from Sitamarhi constituency on the following grounds :- (1) that there was irregularities in the counting of votes by which validly marked ballot papers in favour of the appellant were improperly rejected and invalid ballot papers marked either of respondent No. 1 or other respondents were counted as valid votes of respondent No. 1; and (2) the respondent No. 1 got a false pamphlet defaming the appellant printed and distributed himself and got distributed through his workers at different localities. The respondent No. 1 entered appearance and controverted the allegations made by the appellant. 2. The parliamentary constituency comprised of six assembly constituencies as follows : (i) Sitamarhi Assembly constituency No. 67, (ii) Barhanaha Assembly constituency No. 68, (iii) Shoohar Assembly constituency No. 70, (iv) Majorganj Assembly constituency No. 71, (v) Sonbarsa Assembly constituency No. 72, and (vi) Sursand Assembly constituency No. 73, The dates of poll in the different Assembly constituencies were as follows : Date of poll. Name of Assembly constituency 17th February, 1967 .... Sheohar. 19th February, 1967 .... Sursand and Sitamarhi. 17th February, 1967 .... Majorganj, Senbarsa and Bathanaha Besides, there was repoll on 23rd February, 1967 at booth Nos. 16 and 43 of Bathanaha Assembly constituency. 3. The counting of ballot papers was held in Sitamahri Court premises on three dates as follows : Date of counting. Assembly Constituency 23rd February, 1967 .... Sursand. 24th February, 1967 .... Shoohar. 24th February, 1967 .... Majorganj. 25th February, 1967 .... Sitamarhi. 25th February, 1967 .... Sonbarsa. 25th February, 1967 .... Bathanaha. 4. On 26th February, 1967 the postal ballots, which were four in number, were counted and on the same day the results of the election were declared by the Returning Officer, who was the District Magistrate of Muzaffarpur. Shoohar. 24th February, 1967 .... Majorganj. 25th February, 1967 .... Sitamarhi. 25th February, 1967 .... Sonbarsa. 25th February, 1967 .... Bathanaha. 4. On 26th February, 1967 the postal ballots, which were four in number, were counted and on the same day the results of the election were declared by the Returning Officer, who was the District Magistrate of Muzaffarpur. It was announced that the different candidates had secured the following number of votes :- (i) Thakur Jugal Kishore Sinha (Petitioner) 1,40,820 (ii) Shri Nagendra Prasad Yadav (Respondent No.1) 34,004 - do - (iii) Shri Jai Kishore Narain Singh (Respondent No. 2) 31,469 - do - (iv) Shri Bhagwan Sao (Respondent No. 3) 31,469 - do - (v) Shri Satyanarain Prasad (Respondent No. 4) 12,740 - do - (vi) Shri Satyanarain Sharma (Respondent No. 5) 4,018 - do - Accordingly respondent No. 1 who was found to have secured the majority of valid votes, was declared to have been elected. Immediately, thereafter the appellant who had lost the election by a margin of 517 votes filed a petition for recount of the ballot papers but the petition for recount was rejected. 5. In the course of the trial a petition was filed by the appellant for inspection of the ballot papers. But by his order dated the 23rd April, 1968 the trial Judge rejected the petition. 6. 5. In the course of the trial a petition was filed by the appellant for inspection of the ballot papers. But by his order dated the 23rd April, 1968 the trial Judge rejected the petition. 6. Substantially two issues arose for determination in the case : (1) whether the results of the election in so far as it concerns the returned candidate have been materially affected by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void, and whether the petitioner has received the majority of valid votes; and (2) whether respondent No. 1 or any other person with his consent or any of his agents other than his election agent, acting in his interest, committed a corrupt practice within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which states : "The publication by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent of any statement of fact which is false, and which he either believes to be false, or does not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate, or in relation to the candidature, or withdrawal of any candidate, being a statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's election." 7. Both issues were decided against the appellant by the trial Judge and the election petition was dismissed on 3rd May, 1968. 8. In support of this appeal it was contended in the first place that the trial Judge was not justified in refusing to grant inspection of the ballot papers. It was said that 21 witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellant to prove the irregularities alleged in the election petition. But the oral evidence was rejected by the trial Judge on the ground that no document was produced by the appellant to corroborate the oral evidence. The trial Judge has pointed out that in the absence of any contemporaneous document it was inconceivable that the witnesses should have retained in their memory the serial numbers of booths in respect of which they claimed to have seen particular categories of irregularities. The trial Judge has pointed out that in the absence of any contemporaneous document it was inconceivable that the witnesses should have retained in their memory the serial numbers of booths in respect of which they claimed to have seen particular categories of irregularities. In his petition Exhibit No. 3 to the Assistant Returning Officer the grievance of the appellant was that on account of insufficient light and the continuance of counting till late hours, his counting agents could not attend to the counting properly as they were also feeling sleepy. It was, therefore, improbable that the counting agents of the appellant could have noticed such large scale irregularities as alleged and should have retained these irregularities in their memory till the time of drawing up of the election petition. Some of the witnesses like P.W. 5 and P.W. 11 said that they had prepared notes of the irregularities. P.W. 11 also said that he had filed a petition on the 23rd February, 1967 to the Assistant Returning Officer describing the various irregularities noted in the course of counting. But no steps were taken by the appellant to get the alleged petition of P.W. 11 dated the 23rd February, 1967 proved on his behalf in the course of the trial. Similarly P.W. 12 claimed that he had handed over a rough note of the alleged irregularities to the appellant and the appellant also filed a petition before the Returning Officer on the 24th February, 1967 incorporating specific details of the irregularities in the counting of ballot papers. P.W. 18 also gave similar evidence. But the evidence of P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 is not consistent with the evidence of the appellant himself. Another witness P.W. 23 claimed that he had filed not less than six protest petitions before the Assistant Returning Officer at the stage of counting on the 23rd, 24th and 25th February, 1967. But none of these petitions was proved on behalf of the appellant. Written petitions were also claimed to have been filed by P.Ws. 1, 2, 7, 9, 15 and 17 with alleged copies of some of them made as enclosures A, B, C and D to the election petition. But none of them has been exhibited in the case. Several witnesses claimed that they had informed the appellant about the various categories of irregularities in the matter of counting of ballot papers. 1, 2, 7, 9, 15 and 17 with alleged copies of some of them made as enclosures A, B, C and D to the election petition. But none of them has been exhibited in the case. Several witnesses claimed that they had informed the appellant about the various categories of irregularities in the matter of counting of ballot papers. It is not possible to rely upon this evidence because in the petition, Exhibits 2 and 3 dated the 26th February, 1967 and 25th February, 1967 made to the Returning Officer, the appellant had not mentioned details of the irregularities. If the evidence of witnesses was true the appellant would not have omitted to mention in the petition, Exhibit 2, all or most of the particulars which he has mentioned in sub-paragraphs (a) to (h) of paragraph 27 of the election petition. The trial Judge was, therefore, not impressed with the oral evidence of the witnesses examined by the appellant on this part of the case and we see no reason to take a different view. 9. We proceed to consider the next question arising in this appeal, namely, whether the offending pamphlet was published by or on behalf of respondent No. 1 by distributing its copies at the various places mentioned in Schedule VI of the election petition. Eight witnesses were examined by the appellant in support of his case on this point. They are P.Ws. 1, 17, 19, 24 to 28. P.W. 1 has spoken of the distribution at Piprahi, Barharwa and Bairgania. P.Ws. 17 and 25 gave evidence about the distribution at Parihar. P.Ws. 18, 24 and 26, 27 and 28 have spoken about the distribution at Ranjitpur, Akhta, Riga Bazar, Majorganj and Sitamarhi bus stand respectively. No evidence has been adduced to prove the distribution at Sursand or at Damra. It is important to notice that the witnesses have been drawn from three different lists. P.Ws. 1 and 17 belong to the first list of 57 witnesses which appellant filed on 21st November, 1967; P.W. 9 belongs to the second list of 12 witnesses filed on the 28th February, 1968 and P.Ws. 24 to 28 belong to the third list of 14 witnesses filed on the 8th April, 1968. The appellant came out with the third list after 22 out of his 29 witnesses had given their evidence. 24 to 28 belong to the third list of 14 witnesses filed on the 8th April, 1968. The appellant came out with the third list after 22 out of his 29 witnesses had given their evidence. It is obvious that little reliance can be placed on the evidence of the witnesses figuring in the second and third lists. 10. It is true that P.Ws. 1 and 17 appeared in the first list of witnesses filed on the 21st November, 1967 P.W. 1 deposed about the distribution of copies of the offending pamphlet at three different centres Bairgania, Piprahi and Barharwa. In his examination-in-chief P.W. 1 stated that he had seen the pamphlets being distributed among voters by Surendra Prasad Yadav, Yognedra Prasad, Ram Narain Rai Yadav and two clerks of Sitamarhi Cane Grower's Co-operative Union. But the evidence of P.W. 1 is not consistent with the case set out by the appellant in Schedule VI according to which distribution is alleged to have been made out at Barharwa by Chandreshwar Yadav of village Chak Mehila whom P.W. 1 has not named. Admittedly P.W. 1 never made a report to any governmental authority with regard to the distribution of the defamatory pamphlet. The other witness, P.W. 17 said that on the 18th February, 1967 he had seen Yogendra Rai Yadav distributing the offending pamphlet in Parihar Bazar. P.W. 17 is a resident of a village about 25 miles from Parihar. He too conceded that he had made no report to any public authority about the distribution of the offending pamphlet. Again the circumstances that P.W. 29 took no action in connection with the alleged distribution of pamphlet at any time before the filing of the election petition shows that none of his workers had actually seen it being distributed anywhere. The trial Judge found that the witnesses examined by the appellant on this aspect of the case were wholly unreliable. We see no reason to differ from the estimate of the evidence made by the trial Judge. 11. For these reasons we hold that the judgment of the High Court dated the 3rd May, 1968 is correct and this appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.