Judgement In a triangular contest for 45-Songsak (Scheduled Tribe) Constituency, Meghalaya Assembly, out of a total of 4996 electors a mere 1177 turned up on 9-3-1972. the polling date, to exercise their right of franchise. The counting revealed that no less than 84 votes were invalid and that Sri Elwin Sangma, the respondent No. 1 of this election petition, had scored the highest number of votes, viz., 819. The other two candidates, the election petitioner Sri Proiengton Momin and the respondent No. 2 Sri Benjamin Sangma, respectively polled 176 and 98, and both of them forfeited their security deposits. Sri Proiengton Momin having felt aggrieved with the conduct of the successful candidate during the course of election campaign filed the instant petition claiming the double relief, namely, that the election of Sri Elwin Sangma be declared void and that instead he should be declared to have been duly elected from the constituency in question. 2. It may be mentioned at the outset that the petitioner had contested the seat as an independent candidate with "two leaves" as his election symbol and the respondent No. 2 had fought the election also as an independent candidate with "bird" as his election symbol. The successful candidate Elwin Sangma had contested the seat as the candidate of the All Party Hills Leaders Conference, hereinafter briefly referred to as A. P. H. L. C., which admittedly was and is the ruling party in the State of Meghalaya. The election symbol of Elwin Sangma was "flower." By common agreement the people of the constituency are 80 per cent illiterate and as such the election symbols had their obvious importance for educating the electorate. 3. The election of Elwin Sangma is challenged on the specific ground that he had been guilty of committing corrupt practices and the nature of such practices is set out in the paras. 9 and 11 of the petition. It is alleged in the said two paragraphs that Elwin Sangma and/or his party agents, workers and supporters with his consent, knowledge and connivance had got printed, and published, dummy ballot papers throughout the constituency which contained two palpable false statements. Firstly, it was mentioned in those dummy ballot papers that one of the candidates for the seat was "Projengthon Momin" instead of "Projengton Momin", the actual and correct name of the election petitioner. Firstly, it was mentioned in those dummy ballot papers that one of the candidates for the seat was "Projengthon Momin" instead of "Projengton Momin", the actual and correct name of the election petitioner. In the second place, the election symbol shown against the name of Projenthon Momin was "boat" instead of "two leaves", which symbol had been allotted to the election petitioner. In paragraph 11 of the petition it is stated that the distribution of such false dummy ballot papers had been done by Elwin Sangma personally, and also by his agents, workers and supporters with his consent, knowledge and connivance, and that Elwin Sangma and such persons told the electors that the election symbol of "two leaves" allotted to the petitioner had been withdrawn and that the "petitioner was nowhere". It was pleaded further by Projengton Momin that extensive distribution of such false dummy papers amounted to misrepresentation to the electors on whom undue influence was exercised thereby. 4. In paragraph 17 of the petition are detailed specific instances of the distribution, circulation and exhibition of the dummy ballot papers. It was pleaded further by Projengton Momin that extensive distribution of such false dummy papers amounted to misrepresentation to the electors on whom undue influence was exercised thereby. 4. In paragraph 17 of the petition are detailed specific instances of the distribution, circulation and exhibition of the dummy ballot papers. Briefly summarised, the particulars of those instances are as follows :- (i) On the afternoon of 25-2-72 the respondent No. 1 circulated and exhibited dummy ballot papers to the electors in a tea-stall at Bollonggiri and told the electors that the "two leaves" symbol allotted to the petitioner had been withdrawn by the Government and instead he had been allotted the symbol of "boat" and that he was nowhere; (ii) On the morning of 5-3-72 in Dagal Bazar the respondent No. 1 showed the dummy ballot papers while addressing a meeting there and then said that the "two leaves" symbol of the petitioner had been withdrawn by the Government and the petitioner was nowhere; (iii) On the morning of 6-3-72 at Songsak Bazar the respondent No. 1 addressed the electors and exhibited to them the dummy ballot papers and then circulated the same and mentioned to the electors that the symbol of "two leaves" allotted to the petitioner had been withdrawn by the Government and the petitioner was nowhere; (iv) On 7-3-72 one Gatiram, an agent of Elwin Sangma, visited the villages Wagopgiri Norek and Nengsamgiri of Songsak constituency and exhibited the dummy ballot papers, circulated the same to the electors, and apprised the latter that the election symbol of the petitioner had been withdrawn by the Government with the consequence that the petitioner was nowhere. 5. Elwin Sangma, the respondent No. 1, not only controverted by his written statement the allegations of corrupt practices attributed to him but also challenged the assertion of the petitioner that the facts pleaded by the latter amount to corrupt practices. In addition, the respondent No. 1 urged that the allegations made in the election petition are vague and lacking in material particulars and that as such the petition cannot be said to disclose a cause of action. Elwin Sangma however admitted that Sri A. M. Sangma, the Secretary of the Garo Hills District Branch of the A. P. H. L. C. had placed orders with the Thompson Press. Elwin Sangma however admitted that Sri A. M. Sangma, the Secretary of the Garo Hills District Branch of the A. P. H. L. C. had placed orders with the Thompson Press. Tura, for printing dummy ballot papers respecting all the constituencies of Meghalaya in varying numbers, that 500 dummy ballot papers were printed in respect of Songsak (ST) constituency, and that he had collected a packet containing those dummy ballot papers from the Tura office of A. P. H. L. C. at 8.30 A. M, on 25-2-72 when he left Tura in a car for Songsak in connection with the election work of the party. However, the respondent No. 1 pleaded that "he had no occasion to see the contents of the said packet until he opened it later at Songsak." The respondent No. 1 pleaded further that after he had settled down in the P. W. D. Rest House at Songsak on the evening of 25-2-72, he "looked at the papers, e.g., Posters, Pamphlets etc. and in so doing the Respondent for the first time opened and examined the aforesaid packet containing the Dummy Papers when he found that the said Dummy Papers had been incorrectly printed." The dummy papers were thereupon, the respondent No. 1 narrated further, counted when it was found that they were 497 in number besides one pertaining to the Rongrengiri constituency. Instantly, the respondent No. 1 decided, it was alleged, not to publish or circulate the dummy papers and so they were packed and taken back to Tura where order was placed with the Thompson Press at the earliest possible opportunity for the printing of 500 copies of dummy ballot papers showin correctly the name and the symbol of the petitioner besides the printing of a statement "saying that the correct dummy papers .................. were printed immediately after the discovery of the mistakes regarding the earlier Dummy Papers." The correct dummy papers and the printed statement, the respondent No. 1 pleaded, "were distributed among the voters all over the 45-Songsak constituency well ahead of the date of the election, i.e. 9-3-72 which date was printed on the top of the correction slip. 6. The respondent No. 1 specifically denied the correctness of the allegations respecting the four instances of alleged corrupt practices set out in paragraph 17 of the election petition and prayed for dismissal of the election petition. 7. 6. The respondent No. 1 specifically denied the correctness of the allegations respecting the four instances of alleged corrupt practices set out in paragraph 17 of the election petition and prayed for dismissal of the election petition. 7. The respondent No. 2 Benjamin Sangma having failed to put in appearance despite service, he was proceeded against ex parte. 8. The following four issues were settled between the parties on 2-8-72 :- 1. Whether the allegations set out in the election petition and on the basis of which the validity of the return of respondent No. 1 from 45-Songsak (S. T.) Assembly Constituency of Meghalaya Legislative Assembly is challenged constitute corrupt practices within the meaning of Sec. 123 of the Representation of the People Act. 1951? Onus on the election petitioner. 2. If issue No. 1 is decided in the affirmative, whether the corrupt practices alleged in the election petition had been committed by respondent No. 1 and/or his party, agents, workers and supporters with the consent, knowledge and connivance of respondent No. 1? Onus on the election petitioner. 3. If as a result of findings on issues Nos. 1 and 2 the election of respondent No. 1 is set aside, whether on that account alone the petitioner can claim the relief that he should be declared elected? 4. Whether the election petition is vague and lacks in clear and precise statement of material facts, and if so to what effect? Onus on respondent No. 1. "Note: Parties counsel do not claim any other issue." 9. The election petitioner examined 10 witnesses inclusive of himself, besides having placed reliance on a large number of documents, to establish the charge of corrupt practices. The respondent No. 1 examined by way of rebuttal 10 witnesses in Court besides himself and he in addition examined the Chief Minister of Meghalaya on commission. He also placed reliance on a number of documents in support of his defence. Issue No. 1: 10. The various corrupt practices, the commission of either of which will nullify the election of the returned candidate, are set out in Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter called the Act. The number of corrupt practices enumerated in the Section is seven and the corrupt practice on which the petitioners counsel rested his case is the one mentioned in Clause (4) of the Section. The number of corrupt practices enumerated in the Section is seven and the corrupt practice on which the petitioners counsel rested his case is the one mentioned in Clause (4) of the Section. That Clause, as at present reads as under: "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 candidates election." Explanation (1) appended to Section 123 states that for the purpose of this section the expression "agent" includes an election agent, a polling agent and any person who is held to have acted as an agent in connection with the election with the consent of the candidate. Clause (4) shows when analysed, that it is comprised of four ingredients. They are :- (i) Publication by a candidate or his agent or by any other person, with the consent of the candidate or his election agent, of any statement of fact which is false; (ii) that the statement so published, the candidate either believes to be false or does not believe to be true; (iii) that that statement is in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate, or in relation to the candidature, or withdrawal, of any candidate; and (iv) that that statement was one which was "reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidates election." 11. Sri N. M. Lahiri, representing the respondent No. 1, urged that neither of the factors comprising Clause (4) had either been alleged or proved by the election petitioner. He submitted that nothing contained in the dummy ballot paper, of which Ex. 4 is a copy, can be said to be "false", that the petitioner has not pleaded that the respondent No. 1 either believed the statement made in that dummy paper to be false or he did not believe the same to be true, and that no part of the contents of the dummy paper concerns the "candidature" of the petitioner. 4 is a copy, can be said to be "false", that the petitioner has not pleaded that the respondent No. 1 either believed the statement made in that dummy paper to be false or he did not believe the same to be true, and that no part of the contents of the dummy paper concerns the "candidature" of the petitioner. He pointed out that it is not the case of the petitioner that the offending parts of the contents of that paper relate to his personal character or conduct as candidate. The word "calculated" used in the last part of Clause (4). Sri N. M. Lahiri submitted, means "designed" and so mens rea is an essential ingredient of Clause (4) and unless the petitioner had firstly pleaded, which was not done, and had then proved mens rea on the part of the respondent No. 1 the petition must collapse by its own weight, or the lack of it. Sri K. Lahiri , who appeared for the election petitioner, joined issue with his opposite counsel in the entire gamut of the latters submissions just reproduced. Let us examine the merits of the respective contentions. 12. The adjective "false" is not defined in the Act, nor could the parties counsel cite any authority where the exact connotation of that expression was examined or decided. The only proper mode of determining its meaning would therefore be to look up some standard dictionary. In the Blacks Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition, a Dictionary of unquestioned merit, the basic meaning of "false" is mentioned as "not true", and then it is stated that the word "false" also means "artificial assumed or designed to deceive contrary to fact; counterfeit; deceiptful; deliberately and knowingly false; designedly untrue, erroneous , hypocritical, sham; feigned, incorrect, intentionally untrue; not according to truth or reality, not genuine or real; wilful and intentionally untrue." It is in order to mention that the meaning of "false" as given in Blacks Law Dictionary was read in Court by Sri N. M. Lahiri himself. After that reading Sri N. M. Lahiri gave me the impression, if I may say so, that he did not find merit in his submission that the statements attributed to the respondent No. 1. and as brought out by the dummy ballot paper Ext. 4, do not answer the description of term "false". After that reading Sri N. M. Lahiri gave me the impression, if I may say so, that he did not find merit in his submission that the statements attributed to the respondent No. 1. and as brought out by the dummy ballot paper Ext. 4, do not answer the description of term "false". Undeniably, the symbol allotted to the petitioner was of "Two leaves" and he had actively fought the election right to the bitter end. Therefore, the symbol of "boat" shown in the dummy paper against his name, which was also wrongly spelled, and the allegations that the Government had changed the symbol of the petitioner from "Two leaves" to "boat" and that the petitioner "was nowhere" were all false, if only because they are admittedly not true. Therefore, I have no misgivings that the offending statements were false in fact. 13. The next submission of Sri N. M. Lahiri that the alleged false statements do not relate to the "candidature" of the election petitioner requires a little deeper scrutiny. It is for the reason that Sri K. Lahiri stated at the Bar that he had to labour hard to meet the arguments urged by Sri N. M. Lahiri to support his contention. Though the term "candidate" has been defined in Clause (b) of Sec. 79 of the Act. the Parliament in its wisdom has left the term "candidature" undefined. "Candidate", according to Clause (b) of Section 79, means "a person who has been or claims to have been duly nominated as a candidate at any election and any such person shall be deemed to have been a candidate as from the time when, with the election in prospect, he began to hold himself out as a prospective candidate. According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary "candidature" means "standing for election, being candidate". According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary "candidature" means "standing for election, being candidate". In the case of Raghunath v. Kishore Chandra 17 Ele LR 321 : (AIR 1958 Orissa 260), the Orissa High Court observed: "Candidature is described as the bundle of rights and qualifications which entitles a person to stand as a candidate in a particular constituency as well as the factum of his being a candidate." In another part of the same judgment it is mentioned that "The statement to come within the meaning of Section 123 (41 as amounting to a false statement relating to candidature must relate to the rights or the qualifications or the factum of the candidate as such." What is the exact connotation of the term "candidature" was also dealt with by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Kanhaiya Lal v. Shyam Sundar (1958) 15 Ele LR 284 (Madh Pra). The Court observed "In our opinion, the word candidature means the state of his being a candidate." Another observation made by the Court was that the word candidature should not in any event be defined as equivalent to the "candidate" himself, and that it is the candidates status and his quality of being a candidate which is the object of protection given by sub-section (4) of Sec. 123. The Rajasthan High Court held, though without much discussion in AIR 1961 Raj 122 , Inder Lal v. Lal Singh, that the words "in relation to his candidature" occurring in Clause (4) of Section 123 have reference to candidates right or qualification to contest the election to his withdrawal or retirement from contest, or his being a mere stooge of some other person, candidate or party. The parties counsel could rely on no other judicial pronouncement, nor have I been able to lay hand on any, relating to the interpretation of the word "candidature" used in Clause (4). 14. The expressions "candidate" and "candidature" are both, speaking grammatically, nouns, the former being personal noun and the latter abstract, and it is apparent that their attributes are not identical for no two words can have when examined etymologically or otherwise, precisely the same concept. Nevertheless, the word "candidature" is derived from and has its root in the word "candidate" and so the candidature of a person, in my opinion, cannot be visualised apart from the status of that person as a candidate. Nevertheless, the word "candidature" is derived from and has its root in the word "candidate" and so the candidature of a person, in my opinion, cannot be visualised apart from the status of that person as a candidate. In fact the candidature of a person takes birth the very moment he is clothed with the status of a candidate and it lasts until that status remains in being. Even sub-section (4) of Section 123 talks of the candidature "of any candidate". However, the concepts of the two words are distinct and their attributes completely different, despite the fact that one is inseparable from the other in the sense that they stand or/and fall together. An essential import of "candidature", as I understand the word, is the factum of one being a candidate, and this concept of the word alone will meet the requirements of the present case, and so I stop short of elaborating what else is meant by it. 15. The relevant allegations made in the election petition are that in the dummy ballot papers issued by the respondent No. 1 and his agents and party workers, who acted with his knowledge and consent, the name of the election petitioner had been wrongly mentioned, that his symbol was shown as "Boat" instead of "Two leaves", and that the respondent No. 1 had told the electors that the petitioners symbol had been changed from two leaves to boat by the Government and that the petitioner "was nowhere". It is further alleged in the election petition that the respondent No. 1 and his agents and workers had misrepresented to the electors that "the petitioner was nowhere in the election having forfeited and/or lost his election symbol", and that the two leaves symbol of the election petitioner had been withdrawn. This set of statements attributed to respondent No. 1 and his workers and agents, it was not denied at the Bar by Sri N. M. Lahiri, are beyond doubt false though the question whether those statements are rooted in truth does not arise for determination at this stage. That aspect of the matter shall appropriately be examined under issue No. 2. If the statements made are allegedly or actually false, then the first ingredient of sub-section (4) of Section 123 of the Act is satisfied. 16. That aspect of the matter shall appropriately be examined under issue No. 2. If the statements made are allegedly or actually false, then the first ingredient of sub-section (4) of Section 123 of the Act is satisfied. 16. In paragraph 9 of the election petition it is also specifically alleged that the aforementioned false statements are such which "the Respondent No. 1 and/or his party, agents, workers and supporters believed to be false or did not believe to be true in relation to the candidature of the petitioner, with the ulterior motive to cause undue influence and misrepresentation in relation to the candidature of the petitioner and prejudice the petitioners election prospect." These allegations of the petitioner obviously meet the requirements of ingredients (ii) and (iv). The false statements, I have no doubt, relate to the "candidature" of the petitioner inasmuch as if the petitioners name is not mentioned in the dummy ballot paper nor his election symbol, if the petitioner is nowhere and if his election symbol had been withdrawn, then surely the candidature of the petitioner shall have ceased to subsist and his election prospects reduced next to nil. I wonder if there could be any other statement falling more appropriately in the category of "in relation to the candidature of any candidate", to use the words of Clause (iv) of Section 123 of the Act. Hence, I hold that the allegations detailed in the election petition do constitute corrupt practices within the meaning of Section 123 of the Act. The issue is, therefore, decided for the petitioner. Issue No. 2: 17. Before proceeding to discuss the evidence relevant to this issue I would like to set out what is the requirement of law respecting the onus and quantum thereof in the matter of proof of corrupt practice or practices pleaded by an election petitioner. Quite a sizeable time of the Court was taken by the parties counsel in addressing arguments bearing on that point. The matter appears to be concluded by authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Kumara Nand v Brijmohan Lal. AIR 1967 SC 808 . Quite a sizeable time of the Court was taken by the parties counsel in addressing arguments bearing on that point. The matter appears to be concluded by authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Kumara Nand v Brijmohan Lal. AIR 1967 SC 808 . It was held therein that the onus of proving the essential ingredients prescribed by sub-section (4) of Section 123 of the Act is on him who alleges publication of false statements of fact, that the election petitioner has to prove that the impugned statement had been published by the candidate or his agent, or if by any other person then with the consent of the candidate or his election agent, that he has to show that the impugned statement of fact is false, and that the candidate either believed that statement to be false or did not believe it to be true, that he has also to prove, inter alia, that the statement was in relation to the personal character or conduct (or the candidature) of the complaining candidate. Another fact which has to be established by the election petitioner, according to the Supreme Court, is that the publication was reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the election of the complaining candidate. The rest of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the subject I would like to reproduce in the words of Wanchoo, J., who spoke for the Court, to bring out and emphasise its true import. It reads as under: "But though the onus is on the election petitioner to show all these things the main things that the election petitioner has to prove are that such a publication was made of a statement of fact and that that statement is false and is with respect to the personal character or conduct of the election petitioner. The burden of proving that the candidate publishing the statement believed it to be false or did not believe it to be true though on the complaining candidate is very light and would be discharged by the complaining candidate swearing to that effect. Thereafter it would be for the candidate publishing the statement to prove otherwise. The question whether the statement was reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the election of the candidate against whom it was made would generally be a matter of inference. Thereafter it would be for the candidate publishing the statement to prove otherwise. The question whether the statement was reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the election of the candidate against whom it was made would generally be a matter of inference. So the main onus on an election petitioner under Section 123 (4) is to show that a statement of fact was published by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent and also to show that that satement was false and related to his personal character or conduct. Once that is proved and the complaining candidate has sworn as above indicated, the burden shifts to the candidate making the false statement of fact to show what his belief was. The further question as to prejudice to the prospects of election is generally a matter of inference to be arrived at by the tribunal on the facts and circumstances of each case." 18. Sri N. M. Lahiri submitted that the force of this pronouncement of the Supreme Court stands weakened by its subsequent decision in Mangilal v. Krishnaji, AIR 1971 SC 1943 . On going through the whole of the judgment in Mangilals case I have found nothing said therein which doubts the correctness of the principles enunciated in Kumara Nands case AIR 1967 SC 608 . Actually the latter case was not referred to in that judgment and reliance was placed only on the observations made in the case of Dr. Jagjit Singh v. Giani Kartar Singh, AIR 1966 SC 773 , and those observations, it will be noted, were also relied upon and approvingly cited in the case of Kumara Nand. Therefore, the view expressed in Kumara Nands case represents the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the subject. 19. This takes me to the examination of the parties evidence. Briefly put, the corrupt practices of the nature mentioned in the election petition were allegedly committed by the respondent No. 1 himself on 25-2-72 at Bollonggiri, on 5-3-72 at Dagalbazar and on 6-3-72 at Songsak bazar, and by his agent Gatiram on 7-3-72 in the villages Wagopgiri Norek and Nemsanggiri. Sri K. Lahiri very fairly stated at the outset of his arguments that he would not press the corrupt practices alleged to have been committed by Gatiram in Wagopgiri Norek and Nemsanggiri. Sri K. Lahiri very fairly stated at the outset of his arguments that he would not press the corrupt practices alleged to have been committed by Gatiram in Wagopgiri Norek and Nemsanggiri. What led Sri K. Lahiri to adopt that stand was that his client had failed to establish as a matter of fact that by commission of these corrupt practices the result of the election in so far as it concerns Elwin Sangma, had been materially affected, it being the requirement of Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 100 of the Act that if the election is sought to be declared void on the footing that some corrupt practice had been committed in the interests of the returned candidate by an agent other than his election agent, then the petitioner shall have to establish that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns the returned candidate, has been materially affected. With the elimination of corrupt practices outlined in para 17 (iv) of the election petition. I am left to examine the evidence bearing on the alleged commission of corrupt practice by the respondent No. 1 himself at Bollonggiri, Dagal Bazar and Songsak Bazar. 20. Firstly, I take up the evidence relevant to Bollonggiri. P. W. Jangnal Marak and P. W. 8 Willingson Sangma were examined by the election petitioner in that respect, besides making his own statement. Jangnal Marak is the Nokma (Headman) of Songsak Agal. He deposed that both Projengton Momin and Elwin Sangma had visited his village more than once for canvassing votes, that he knew that the official symbol of the former was "Two leaves", and that pamphlets bearing such symbol had been distributed by Projengton Momin in his village. He said further that he and Willingson Sangma happened once to travel in the vehicle of Elwin Sangma the respondent No. 1. from Sewogiri to Bollonggiri tea-stall, and that on reaching the tea-stall, Elwin Sangma firstly entertained them to tea and then showed them some dummy ballot papers bearing the symbols of Flower, Boat and Bird. Those ballot papers, the witness added, were like the one marked Ex. 35. On enquiry by the witness from Elwin Sangma about the absence in the dummy papers of Projengton Momins symbol of two leaves. Those ballot papers, the witness added, were like the one marked Ex. 35. On enquiry by the witness from Elwin Sangma about the absence in the dummy papers of Projengton Momins symbol of two leaves. Elwin Sangma replied, according to the witness, that the ballot oapers he had distributed had been prepared by the Government, and that the symbol of Projengton Momin was Boat, the same having been changed by the Government from the earlier symbol of Two leaves. The witness deposed further that he got one dummy ballot paper out of those distributed by Elwin Sangma, it being Ex. 4, and that he made it over to Projengton Momin on the same day when he met the latter in village Banegiri Wategiri. 21. Willingson Sangma (P. W. 8) testified that Projengton Momin visited his village Songsak 10-15 days before the date of poll, that he distributed leaflets like the one marked Ex. 36 bearing three symbols including that of two leaves, and that four or five days thereafter he (the witness) met Elwin Sangma at the tea-stall of Gatwin in Songsak Bollonggiri when Elwin Sangma gave him one leaflet like Ex. 4. The witness having not found the two leaves symbol of Projengton Momin in that leaflet, he enquired from Elwin Sangma what accounted for its absence. Elwin Sangma told the witness that the Government had cancelled that symbol of Projengton. This representation of Elwin Sangma the witness accepted at face value. The witness stated furtner that after meeting Elwin Sangma at Bollonggiri he left for Banegiri-Wategiri in company with Jangnal Nokma (P. W. 4), that he happened to meet Projengton Momin there in the house of the local Nokma, and that he narrated to Projengton Momin what had happened at Bollonggiri and also made over that leaflet to him which had been given to him earlier by Elwin Sangma. Projengton Momin affirmed as P. W. 3 that on 25-2-72 he received information from Willingson Sangma and Jangnal Marak in village Wategiri that Elwin Sangma had distributed some dummy ballot papers at a tea-stall in Bollonggiri, that Willingson and Jangnal made over to him a copy each of such dummy papers, and that the dummy paper Ex. 35 is the one which he had received from Jangnal on that occasion. 22. 35 is the one which he had received from Jangnal on that occasion. 22. Elwin Sangma admitted in the course of his statement as R. W. 4 that 500 copies of dummy ballot papers like Ex. 4 had been got printed by Sri A. M. Sangma (R. W 2), the Secretary of the Branch of A. P. H. L. C. in the Garo Hills District. To the same effect is the statement of A. M. Sangma. Elwin Sangma deposed that on the morning of 25-2-72, he had collected from the office of the A. P. H. L. C. at Tura a packet containing the dummy ballot papers like Ex. 4, that he placed that packet in his car and then left Tura for Songsak, and that he gave lift in his car on that day to Willinason Sangma P. W. 8 and Jangnal Marak P. W. 4 up to Songsak. However, he (Eiwin Sangma) denied that he had gone to the tea-stall of Gatwin at Bollonggiri on the evening of 25-2-72, or that he had entertained Willingson Sangma and Jangnal Marak to tea at that stall, or that he had distributed the dummy ballot papers near that tea-stall. 23. The problem that is thrown up by the statements of the petitioner and his two witnesses P. Ws. 4 and 8 on one hand and the testimony of Elwin Sangma on the other is, which version is credible and proved. The expression "proved" is defined in Section 3 of the Evidence Act. A fact is said to be proved, according to that definition, when, after considering the matter before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought under the circumstances ot the particular case to act upon the supposition that it exists. After carefully examining the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, I have reached the conclusion that the version given by the election petitioner and his two witnesses has the ring of credibility when examined with the aid of yardstick furnished by the definition of the expression "Proved". The two versions are at one on the points that Elwin Sangma had gone to Songsak on the evening of 25th February, 1972, and that he had carried in his vehicle up to Songsak both Jangnal Marak and Willingson Sangma. The two versions are at one on the points that Elwin Sangma had gone to Songsak on the evening of 25th February, 1972, and that he had carried in his vehicle up to Songsak both Jangnal Marak and Willingson Sangma. We have the firm statement of Elwin Sangma that he had carried the packet containing the dummy ballot papers like Ex. 4 from Tura to Songsak on the 25th February, 1972, and that he had done so "for the purpose of distribution amongst my electors". If the packet had been carried for the purpose admitted by Elwin Sangma, then it is normal to expect that he had distributed the same during the course of the day. Another two highly significant facts conceded by him are that he had halted at a number of villages on his way from Tura to Songsak and that there are quite a few villages falling within Songsak Constituency en route. It took him nine long hours from 8.30 A. M. to 5.30 P. M; in traversing a distance of about 65 Kms. between Tura and Songsak in a car. That fact per se indicates that canvassing was done during the course of the journey and so there is high measure of probability that the dummy ballot papers were distributed for it was the purpose for which the packet containing dummies had been carried in the car to quote the words of Elwin Sangma himself. 24. The stage is now reached for detailing the circumstances under which Elwin Sangma would have the Court believe that he had not distributed any dummy ballot papers either on the 25th or at any time thereafter for he had found them to be wrongly printed when he saw them for the first time in the P. W. D. Rest House at Songsak. He said during the course of his examination-in-chief that he reached Songsak at about sunset time and on dropping Willingson Sangma and Jangnal Marak near the P. W. D. Check Gate at Songsak he himself proceeded straight to the P. W. D. Rest House at that station. After unloading the luggage in the Rest House and dropping there his personal employee Constant Marak R. W. 8. he himself left in the car for Napek from where he returned to the Rest House at about 9/10 P. M. on the same day. After unloading the luggage in the Rest House and dropping there his personal employee Constant Marak R. W. 8. he himself left in the car for Napek from where he returned to the Rest House at about 9/10 P. M. on the same day. After taking his dinner in the Rest House, Elwin Sangma told Constant Marak to keep those papers ready which he had brought from Tura. Constant Marak reported to him instantly that "the packets containing the dummy ballot papers were lying loose on the table in the hall of the Rest House." Getting that information, Elwin Sangma asked Constant Marak to pack the papers since he had to leave the Rest House next morning for another station. A short while after, Eiwin Sangma said further, Constant Marak brought "the packet containing the dummy ballot papers when he (the witness) found that those dummy papers "where actually wrong inasmuch as the election symbol of the election petitioner had been wrongly given as boat instead of two leaves." The witness then directed Constant Marak to repack the dummy ballot papers on recounting them. Constant Marak found them on recount to be only 497 besides one relating to Rangrenggiri constituency. On the next morning, 26-2-72, Elwin Sangma paid another visit to Napek and after spending the night between 26th and 27th at that station he returned to Tura later in the evening of 27th. By then the party office having been closed, he returned the packet of dummy ballot papers to the office on the morning of 28th, when Binsing Marak, A. P. H. L. C. leader, happened to be there besides others. A decision was taken by the party leaders including the Chief Minister Capt. Williamson Sangma that "a correction statement should be issued to the public ," and such a statement was got printed in the form Ex. E and thereafter distributed. 25. Sri K. Lahiri challenged the veracity of the long statement made by Elwin Sangma in regard to what had happened between 25th and 28th February 1972. He brought to the notice of the Court the provisions of Section 127-A of the Act relating to the restrictions on the printing of pamphlets, posters etc. E and thereafter distributed. 25. Sri K. Lahiri challenged the veracity of the long statement made by Elwin Sangma in regard to what had happened between 25th and 28th February 1972. He brought to the notice of the Court the provisions of Section 127-A of the Act relating to the restrictions on the printing of pamphlets, posters etc. Sub-section (1) of that section enjoins that no person shall print or publish, or cause to be printed or published, any election pamphlet or poster which does not bear on its face the names and addresses of the printer and the publisher thereof. Sub-section (2) provides, inter alia, that no person shall print or cause to be printed any election pamphlet or poster unless a declaration as to the identity of the publisher thereof, signed by him and attested by two persons to whom he is personally known, is delivered by him to the printer in duplicate, and unless, within a reasonable time after the printing of the document, one copy of the declaration is sent by the printer, together with one copy of the document, to the District Magistrate of the district in which it is printed. Elwin Sangma made an attempt to establish that the printing of wrong dummy ballot papers like Ex. 4 and of the correction statement Ex. E had been done in compliance with the provisions of Section 127-A. The witnesses whom he examined in this respect are A. M. Sangma R. W. 2 and K. Thomas R. W. 3. The last mentioned witness was the owner of the Thompson Press, Tura, in which the two varieties of documents just mentioned were, according to Elwin Sangma, printed. K. Thomas testified that be had printed 500 copies of dummy papers like Ex. 4 and that Ex. F is the declaration which he had received respecting the printing of the correction statement Ex. E. It is the firm case of Elwin Sangma that the order for printing of correction statement was placed on 29th February. Ex. F undoubtedly in its present shape bears the date "29th" February. However, the digit "9" and the letters "th" of the figure "29th" are overwritten, the respective original writing being "2 and "nd". The overwritings and the original writings are both visible to the naked eye. Ex. F undoubtedly in its present shape bears the date "29th" February. However, the digit "9" and the letters "th" of the figure "29th" are overwritten, the respective original writing being "2 and "nd". The overwritings and the original writings are both visible to the naked eye. A. M. Sangma admitted in his cross-examination that the digit "9" as also the letters "th" are overwritings though he denied that the original date was 22nd. That denial is obviously wrong. It may be mentioned that not only the original date was 22nd but the overwriting appears to have been made with a different other than the one used in making the original writing. As such, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of A. M. Sangma, or Elwin Sangma, or, for that matter, on the statement of any other witness, to the effect that the order for printing of the correction statement Ex. E had been placed with the press on 29th February, 1972. 26. The other infirmities which the respondents stand respecting the printing of correction statement Ex. E suffers from are that neither the proceedings of the party leaders to get such a statement printed and circulated were produced in the Court nor the account books of the partys office at Tura or of the Thompson Press. It was not the contention of the respondent No. 1, nor of any of his witnesses, that 500 copies of Ex. E were printed by the Press gratis. The fact that such basic and vital evidence was withheld from the Court gives rise to very legitimate presumption that the stand taken by respondent No. 1 is not credible. A. M. Sangma the then Secretary of A. P. H. L. C. for the Garo Hills District, admitted in his statement that he had got printed for the election purposes of respondent No. 1 materials like "Ex. 4. Ex. E. some posters and an appeal addressed to the voters." This statement brings out that a minimum of four varieties of election material were got printed for the purposes of respondent No. 1. However, the Deputy Commissioner, Garo Hills, Tura, could send only three declarations submitted to him in terms of Section 127 (2) (a) of the Act. They are marked Exts. 37, 38 and F. Actually, all the three declarations are dated 22nd February, 1972 though as discussed above, the one marked Ex. However, the Deputy Commissioner, Garo Hills, Tura, could send only three declarations submitted to him in terms of Section 127 (2) (a) of the Act. They are marked Exts. 37, 38 and F. Actually, all the three declarations are dated 22nd February, 1972 though as discussed above, the one marked Ex. F has been tampered with to show that it is dated 29th February. Obviously, the fourth declaration is lacking and that circumstance alone can knock out the contention that 500 copies of the statement Ex. E had been got printed pursuant to an order dated 29th February. 27. The statement of Sri W. A. Sangma, the Chief Minister of Meghalaya, who was examined on commission, merits solemn and serious consideration matching the status of the deponent. I have read through it three times, but I have not been able to persuade myself in reaching the conclusion that it helps in holding that the order for printing of Ex. E was either placed with the Press on 29th February, or that copies of it were widely distributed. The substance of the statement made by the witness during examination-in-chief was that on 28-2-1972 Elwin Sangma reported to him about the mistake in the matter of printing the symbols in the pamphlets like Ex. 4, that he immediately summoned a meeting of the party members available rent ink and probably with the aid of a at his residence in Tura for discussion, and that after the necessary discussion he directed that the correction statement should be issued. The witness affirmed further that a draft of correction statement was placed before him and that after he had approved of the same, he gave it back for printing and circulation in the constituency. The witness did not go further to state that an order for printing of correction statement was placed on the 29th February, or that the printed copies were secured from the Press on 1st March, or that such copies were distributed in the constituency. However, the witness averred, towards the close of his examination-in-chief, that Elwin Sangma had brought to him a bundle of pamphlets with incorrect symbol and he had found that they numbered a few short of 500. However, the witness averred, towards the close of his examination-in-chief, that Elwin Sangma had brought to him a bundle of pamphlets with incorrect symbol and he had found that they numbered a few short of 500. It will be noticed that in these averments the witness did not mention the date on which the bundle of pamphlets with incorrect symbol had been brought to him or that that bundle of 500 minus a few was of the variety Ex. 4. If the respondent No. 1 or his counsel want the Court to presume that the witness meant that the bundle had been brought to him on 28th February and that that bundle contained pamphlets of the nature of Ex. 4 then it would be difficult for me to take the averments of the witness at their face value. I now list my reasons for saying so. In his cross-examination the witness said that he had entered the date 28th February 1972 in his note book as it related to an important matter, but he wiped out the value of that statement by making an unconvincing statement in the next breath that he had destroyed that note book as it is customary with him to preserve such books only for a year. I believe what he meant by the expression "only for a year" is the year to which the particular note book relates. This statement of the witness, to say the least, is fantastic. Entries in the note books are made to serve some future purpose, and I fail to see how that objective ran be achieved, if the note book, say for the year 1972, is destroyed at the tick of clock ushering the year 1973. The importance of the matter having been admitted and the value of the entry made by the witness in the note book being evident, it would be straining the credulity of the court to aver that such a note book could have been destroyed by the witness within three weeks of the expiry of the year 1972. His statement, it is to be emphasised, was recorded on 22nd January, 1973, but an application for his examination had been made much earlier in the year 1972. His statement, it is to be emphasised, was recorded on 22nd January, 1973, but an application for his examination had been made much earlier in the year 1972. Therefore, I cannot take Shri W. A. Sangma at his word when he says that he had made any entry in his note book that the decision about the printing of correction statement was reached on 28th February. 28. Sri W. A. Sangma is the Chief of A. P. H. L. C. and he admittedly is the founder member of the Garo National Council which Council according to him is a constituent of the A. P. H. L. C. The respondent No. 1 is the present President of the Garo National Council and we have his own statement that the Chief Minister had helped him in the matter of his election, though he added that that help was on line with the help rendered by the Chief Minister to the other candidates sponsored by A. P. H. L. C. In the background of all these undisputed facts I have to examine, sift and assess the statement of the Chief Minister with a little more than normal care and caution before either accepting it in its totality or any part of it or rejecting it wholly or in part. It is after making assessment of that nature that I hold that the witness dad not affirm explicitly that the bundle of pamphlets of Ex. 4 variety had been brought to him by Elwin Sangma on the 28th February, or that he had found the number of such pamphlets to be 500 short by a few, or that the correction statement was printed by 1st of March and circulated in the constituency. And if the Chief Minister had actually meant to say so then it is difficult to take him at his word for the reasons that the factum of placing an order for printing of correction statement on 29th February, or taking delivery of the printed pamphlets containing that statement on 1st March, is not established by any dependable evidence, nor there is any such evidence showing the distribution of the correction statement in the constituency. The only witness examined to prove the distribution of the correction statement is Gatiram Sangma R. W. 6. He is an altogether unreliable witness. The only witness examined to prove the distribution of the correction statement is Gatiram Sangma R. W. 6. He is an altogether unreliable witness. He has been suspended, according to his own admission, from his office as Laskar if not dismissed therefrom as contended on behalf of the petitioner. He was admittedly once the Secretary of the Co-operative Society of Songsak but he is not holding that office at present. He affirmed that he had relinquished that office but the suggestion put to him in cross-examination was that he had been removed from that office because he had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 237/-. The stand of the witness respecting that amount is that he had borrowed it from the society though admittedly he has not yet repaid the same. Laskars are appointed by the District Council and the respondent No. 1 is at present the President of the Garo Hills District Council. All this data respecting Gatiram cannot be placed aside while adjudging the worth of his Court statement. He affirms having worked for respondent No. 1 in the Songsak constituency for about two months during the last election and he happened to make the tall claim that he had visited all the villages in Songsak area in that connection. However, he could not furnish the name of any single village visited by him. He was unable to mention how many days before the polling he had received the pamphlets like Ex. E, nor did he give the names of the villages where he had made the distribution of such pamphlets, or the dates on which he did so. The only positive statement made by the witness was that he "had occasion to see pamphlets like Ex. E and actually I distributed such pamphlets before the poll." This bare statement shorn of particulars, such as the place at or village in or the date on which they were distributed, does not inspire confidence or constitute proof of the fact that such pamphlets were distributed by the witness. 29. It would be convenient to take up at this stage the statements of Gatwin Sangma R. W. 7. the tea-stall holder at Bollonggiri, which is only about two furlongs from Songsak Bazar, and of R. W. 8 Constant Marak, the personal employee of respondent No. 1 during the days of election. 29. It would be convenient to take up at this stage the statements of Gatwin Sangma R. W. 7. the tea-stall holder at Bollonggiri, which is only about two furlongs from Songsak Bazar, and of R. W. 8 Constant Marak, the personal employee of respondent No. 1 during the days of election. Gatwin Marak denied that Elwin Sangma had fed tea to Jangnal Marak P. W. 4 and Willingson Sangma P. W. 8 or any other person on the evening of 25th February, 1972, or that Elwin Sangma had distributed pamphlets like Ex. 4 on that evening. He said further that "he saw and received pamphlets like Ex. E" and that he had one such pamphlet in his possession, which however he did not care to produce in Court. The witness admitted in his cross-examination that he is a member of the Garp National Council of which, as stated earlier, the respondent No. 1 is at present the President. I agree as contended by Sri N. M. Lahiri that the statement of Gatwin Sangma cannot be thrown overboard only for the reason that he is a member of the Garo National Council. However, the statement of a witness cannot be taken at its face value unless it inspires the confidence of the Court. The statement of Gatwin Sangma in my appraisement, fails to come up to that standard. Although he affirmed that he had seen and receive pamphlets like Ex. E he did not clarify as to from whom, when and how many he had received, and what was the occasion when he got them. Again, the witness candidly conceded that he could not furnish the names of the customers who happened to visit his tea-stall on 25th February, 1972, or for that matter on any other day. He admitted that during the election days a large number of people used to visit his tea-stall and enjoyed tea there. It will not, therefore be surprising if Elwin Sangma had gone there on 25th February and yet the witness may not have been able to retain in his memory that. Elwin Sangma had come there or fed tea to certain electors. It will not, therefore be surprising if Elwin Sangma had gone there on 25th February and yet the witness may not have been able to retain in his memory that. Elwin Sangma had come there or fed tea to certain electors. Further, the testimony of Jangnal and Willingson, who are altogether unattached persons, gives direct lie to the colourless statement of Gatwin who obviously must have some bias in favour of Elwin Sangma because of their common membership of Garo National Council. 30. Constant Marak R. W. 8 denied in the first instance that he had any particular connection with Elwin Sangma except that they were neighbours. Elwin Sangma himself also had denied earlier in his statement as R. W. 4 that he was connected with Constant Marak in any manner. However, since Constant Marak testified that he had worked with Elwin Sangma for a period of one month during the election days without any remunerations, I felt it appropriate to put a few questions to him to still my doubts about the veracity of the witness. The witness ultimately came out with the positive statement in reply to Court questions that his cousin sister is married to Elwin Sangma. The denial by Elwin Sangma, of any connection with the witness and the halting manner in which the latter came out with the statement that Eiwin Sangma is none other than his brother-in-law, do not reflect credit on either of them, and as such the Court has to be rather wary in assessing the testimony of the witness and circumspect in accepting the same. 31. There is in addition palpable discrepancy between the statements of Constant Marak and Elwin Sangma about what allegedly happened in the Rest House at Songsak on the 25th February Constant Marak deposed that after Elwin Sangma had returned from Napek on the evening of 25th February he told him to keep his papers ready and he abided. He then affirmed that pamphlets like Ex. 4 were contained in a bundle which, lay loose on the table, that he brought that fact to the notice of Eiwin Sangma, who, on seeing the pamphlets, remarked that they were wrongly printed, and that thereupon Elwin Sangma enquired from him how the bundle had gone loose. He then affirmed that pamphlets like Ex. 4 were contained in a bundle which, lay loose on the table, that he brought that fact to the notice of Eiwin Sangma, who, on seeing the pamphlets, remarked that they were wrongly printed, and that thereupon Elwin Sangma enquired from him how the bundle had gone loose. The witness did not attempt a reply in his deposition to the last mentioned question of Elwin Sangma and concluded the statement by affirming that he repacked the papers at the instance of Elwin Sangma. The witness testified further that he was directed by Elwin Sangma to count the pamphlets. However, once again ho stopped short and did not reveal to the Court whether he had counted the pamphlets and if so what their number was. 32. Elwin Sangma said during his examination-in-chief that after he had taken dinner in the Rest House he asked Constant Marak to keep his papers ready which he had brought from Tura, that Constant Marak then reported that the pamphlets were lying loose on the table of the hall of the Rest House, that he directed Constant Marak to pack the papers and that a short while thereafter when Constant Marak brought the packet containing the dummy papers to him, he found that they were wrongly printed since the symbol of the petitioner was shown as boat instead of two leaves. After Elwin Sangma had mused over the fact of wrong printing of petitioners symbol, he told the Court, he asked Constant to repack the dummy ballot papers on recounting them. Constant Marak did the job and reported that they numbered 497. In the course of his cross-examination Elwin Sangma said that it was Constant Marak who told him that the packet was lying loose on the table of the Rest House, that he himself then repaired to that table and saw the packet in loose condition, that the string binding the bundle he found loose, that Constant Marak "opened the bundle and I saw that the pamphlets were wrongly printed". It will be noticed that these details furnished during cross-examination are at variance with what this witness affirmed during examination-in-chief and are also at odds with the picture that emerges from the evidence of Constant Marak. It will be noticed that these details furnished during cross-examination are at variance with what this witness affirmed during examination-in-chief and are also at odds with the picture that emerges from the evidence of Constant Marak. Nor the facts deposed to by Elwin Sangma and Constant Marak from the witness box fit in with the pleadings adopted by the former. In paragraph 8 of his written statement he happened to allege that "he had no occasion to see the contents of the said packet until he opened it latter at Songsak". In the next paragraph 9 of the written statement the relevant allegations read: "In the evening of 25-2-1972, the Respondent after he had settled down in the said Songsak Public Works Department Rest House, looked at the papers, e. g., Posters, Pamphlets etc. and in so doing the Respondent for the first time opened and examined the aforesaid packet containing the Dummy Papers when he found such Dummy Papers had been incorrectly printed." The underlined words of paragraphs 8 and 9 give direct lie to the Court statements of the two witnesses. It is germane to mention that the name of Constant Marak is conspicuous by its absence from the written statement. It is for the reason of all these peculiarities, which cast doubt on the credibility of both Elwin Sangma and Constant Marak, and not for the mere fact that Constant Marak is related to respondent No. 1, that I have not been able to, and indeed cannot, place reliance on his testimony. 33. There is a piece of direct cum-circumstantial evidence available on the record which lends weight to the testimony of Jangnal Marak, Willingson Sangma and Projengton Momin, the petitioner, on the point that pamphlets like Ex. 4 had been distributed on 25th February. On 26-2-1972 the petitioner filed the complaint Ex. 3 with the Returning Officer, Garo Hills, Tura, stating that though his symbol was two leaves, certain pamphlets had been issued wherein his symbol had been represented to be boat. The petitioner appended the pamphlet Ex. 4 to that complaint and that pamphlet admittedly is one out of the 500 which A. M. Sangma had got printed for the election purposes of Elwin Sangma. I may point out that A. M. Sangma, K. Thomas, the then proprietor of the Thompson Press. Tura and respondent No. 1 accepted the position that Ex. 4 to that complaint and that pamphlet admittedly is one out of the 500 which A. M. Sangma had got printed for the election purposes of Elwin Sangma. I may point out that A. M. Sangma, K. Thomas, the then proprietor of the Thompson Press. Tura and respondent No. 1 accepted the position that Ex. 4 is one of the aforementioned 500 pamphlets. If the respondent No. 1 had not distributed any pamphlets out of 500 on the evening of 25th February or at any time thereafter, it passes comprehension how Ex. 4 could come into the hands of the election petitioner by the 26th February when he made the complaint Ex. 3. This apparently baffling situation, from the standpoint of Elwin Sangma, is explained fully by the testimony of Jangnal Marak, Willingson Sangma and the election petitioner which I have already reproduced above. It can bear repetition to state that Jangnal Marak and Willingson Sangma affirmed that Elwin Sangma had distributed such pamphlets in Bollonggiri on the evening of 25th February, that each of them collected one such pamphlet and then went to Banegiri Wategiri where they met Projengton Momin, that they narrated the occurrence to him, and that they made over to him (Projengton Momin) the copies of the pamphlets collected by them. Sri N. M. Lahiri was unable to offer any alternative plausible explanation about how a few pamphlets including Ex. 4 had come into the hands of other persons. During the course of his reply to the arguments of Sri K. Lahiri, however, he suggested for the first time that probably Jangnal Marak and Willingson Sangma had pilferred a few pamphlets out of the bundle when they happened to travel in the car of Elwin Sangma up to Songsak, or that it may be that Willingson Sangma had purloined a few of them from the Rest House when he happened to cook the food for Elwin Sangma on the evening of 25th February. Neither of these two explanations belatedly made by Sri N. M Lahiri has the merit of even plausibility and so I need not comment on them more before rejecting them out of hand. Such suggestions, suffice to say, were not even put to the witnesses during the course of searching and extensive cross-examination done on them. 34. The resume of the conclusions reached above may now be set out. Such suggestions, suffice to say, were not even put to the witnesses during the course of searching and extensive cross-examination done on them. 34. The resume of the conclusions reached above may now be set out. It is proved beyond doubt that Elwin Sangma had left Tura on the morning of 25th February in a car for Songsak with the bundle containing 500 pamphlets like Ex. 4 that he had undertaken that tour for election purposes, that he halted at a number of stations enroute, that he gave lift to Jangnal Marak and Willingson Sangma over a short distance up to Songsak, that when he returned from Songsak tour he did not have all the 500 copies of pamphlets with him, that the leaders of A. P. H. L. C. including the Chief Minister found it expedient to issue a correction statement like Ex. E when Elwin Sangma, reported that there was wrong printing of the petitioners symbol, and that there is no credible evidence that the correction statement was got printed on 1st March or that it was circulated in the constituency. I have also concluded above that Elwin Sangma had addressed a meeting at Bollonggiri near the tea-stall of Gatwin, that he distributed pamphlets like Ex. 4 at that time and that Jangnal Marak and Willingson Sangma had each collected one such pamphlet, or, to put at the minimum, one pamphlet Ex. 4 did come to their hands. This pamphlet they made over to Projengton Momin on the same evening in Banegiri Wategiri and on the next day, the 26th February, Projengton Momin appended that pamphlet to the complaint Ex. 3 which he lodged with the Returning Officer at Tura. All these facts leave no room for doubt that a false statement respecting the candidature of Projengton Momin had been published. We have the statement of the respondent No. 1 himself, as also the testimony of his witnesses including the Chief Minister, that pamphlets like Ex. 4 do contain wrong statement respecting the symbol officially allotted to the petitioner. Therefore, the first three ingredients of Clause (4) of S. 123 stand proved by unimpeachable evidence. We have the statement of the respondent No. 1 himself, as also the testimony of his witnesses including the Chief Minister, that pamphlets like Ex. 4 do contain wrong statement respecting the symbol officially allotted to the petitioner. Therefore, the first three ingredients of Clause (4) of S. 123 stand proved by unimpeachable evidence. The Supreme Court held in the case of Kumara Nand AIR 1967 SC 808 that "The further question as to prejudice to the prospects of election is generally a matter of inference to be arrived at by the tribunal on the facts and circumstances of each case." The obvious inference which the facts summarised in this paragraph yield is that the election prospect of the petitioner had suffered a prejudice, rather of a serious nature, by the publication of false statement. It may appositely be pointed out that the respondent No. 1 is a resident of the Songsak constituency and that he is the President of the Garo National Council, the jurisdiction of which embraces Songsak, while the election petitioner does not put up in the Songsak constituency and as such had not much of influence of his own. It is not therefore surprising that the respondent No. 1 gambled by deliberately issuing the pamphlets containing wrong symbol of the petitioner with the object of confounding the electorate no less than 80 per cent of whom, to cite the statement of none other than the Chief Minister are illiterate. The election symbol in such a constituency has obviously vital importance and the confusion created by wrongly printed symbol in pamphlets like Ex. 4 could have worked to the serious prejudice of the petitioner with corresponding advantage to the respondent No. 1. That gamble, it is not inconceivable earned some dividend to the respondent No. 1 at the cost of the petitioner, but the sanctity of elections suffered a grievous damage in the process. The purity of the entire process of elections has to be jealously guarded and any violation of it sternly looked at and adequately punished. The Parliament has made its intention unequivocally clear by stating in Section 100 of the Act that any corrupt practice committed by a returned candidate or his election agent, or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his election agent. shall nullify the election of the returned candidate. 35. The Parliament has made its intention unequivocally clear by stating in Section 100 of the Act that any corrupt practice committed by a returned candidate or his election agent, or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his election agent. shall nullify the election of the returned candidate. 35. Before proceeding with the discussion of the evidence relevant to the incidents at Daga Bazar and Songsak Bazar, I would like to dispose of one legal point which though not raised by any of the counsel for the parties, was brought by me to their notice during the course of arguments. The respondent No. 1 tried to establish that he had taken urgent measures to wipe out the consequences of publication of the false statement evidenced by pamphlets like Ex. 4 and on the strength of those measures he wanted this Court to hold that he had not been guilty of committing any corrupt practice. It has to be mentioned that the respondent No. 1 has not admitted the publication of such pamphlets but it was rightly pointed out by Sri K. Lahiri that if not a single pamphlet had been distributed as contended where lay the necessity for respondent No. 1 to issue the correction statement. I have recorded distinct findings above that pamphlets like Ex. 4 had been circulated, that the distribution of pamphlets like Ex. E is not established, and that as such the respondent No. 1 had committed corrupt practice of the nature mentioned in Clause (4) of Section 123. The legal point that arises in the context of the Courts conclusions and the stand of respondent No. 1 is whether it is legally open to a candidate guilty of committing corrupt practice to wipe out the same by any measures may be in the nature of penitence. I think the reply to the question posed must be an emphatic "no". What constitutes a corrupt practice is elaborately set out in Section 123, and what consequences follow the commission of a corrupt practice are outlined in S. 100. I think the reply to the question posed must be an emphatic "no". What constitutes a corrupt practice is elaborately set out in Section 123, and what consequences follow the commission of a corrupt practice are outlined in S. 100. There is no provision in the Act excepting the one mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 100 which is not attracted in the case permitting a person guilty of commission of corrupt practice to get over it or to deliterate its consequences, by any measures taken by him howsoever extensive or well-meant they may be. If the commission of corrupt practice is established, it works as a boomerang, leaving no alternative to the perpetrator of the election excess to get out of the legal consequences that flow from its commission. If the perpetrator exults on being declared elected, his mirth and triumph are fleeting, and they evanesce when the Court takes notice of this excess at the instance of a person competent to knock at its door. His return being void, nothing can put life into it. It is a case of still-birth for which, as at present there is no antidote. 36. I may now briefly examine the evidence relevant to Daggal Bazar and Songsak Bazar where the respondent No. 1 is said to have distributed dummy ballot papers on 5th and 6th March respectively while addressing the people there. I would like to point out that after my firm finding that the respondent No. l had distributed dummy papers like Ex. 4 at Bollonggiri on the 25th February and he had thereby committed corrupt practice mentioned in Clause (4) of Section 123, the other two incidents lose their importance. They would, at the best, provide instances of repetition of the corrupt practice indulged in by respondent No. 1 at Bollonggiri, and it was not disputed at the Bar that commission of corrupt practice for bare once would be fatal to the return of the respondent No. 1. Further, the alleged circulation of the correction statement Ex. E brings out that dummies containing wrong symbol of the petitioner had actually been circulated. Further, the alleged circulation of the correction statement Ex. E brings out that dummies containing wrong symbol of the petitioner had actually been circulated. The English translation of that statement given in Annexure B of the written statement reads as under :- "Friends, The mistaken printing of the symbols of each of the candidates contesting from 46-Songsak (ST) Assembly Constituency with names and symbols of each of the fellow contesting candidates were not meant to mislead or to confuse the voters or the people nor should these be taken as intended to belittle the candidates but it so happened because of a slight printing error in the press and as soon as it was found out these were cancelled at the earliest possible opportunity and now correct dummy papers are printed. 1. Specification :- The correct symbol at serial No. 3 should have been "leaves." Moreover, a question put to the petitioner during cross-examination also lends itself to an admission on behalf of respondent No. 1 that distribution of pamphlets like Ex. 4 had actually been made. The nature of the question would be evident from the reply given by the petitioner which reads: "It is incorrect that respondent No. 1 had widely distributed in Songsak constituency the correction statement relevant to dummy ballot papers originally distributed by him of which Ex. 4 is a copy." 37. In respect of the Daggal Bazar incident we have the testimony of Singring Sangma P. W. 7. Pipin Sangma P. W. 9 and Gamal Singh Sangma P. W. 10. Singring Sangma testified that Elwin Sangma met him in Daggal Bazar about three to four days before the poll date and gave him the leaflet marked X containing the symbols of Bird, Boat and flower. The witness affirmed further that Elwin Sangma said while distributing such leaflets that they were Government papers and he requested the people to cast their votes in his favour. Since, the witness said the pamphlet marked X did not have the symbol of two leaves he enquired from Elwin Sangma what accounted for the absence of that symbol. Elwin Sangma told him in reply that the symbol of two leaves had been cancelled by the Government. The witness took Elwin Sangma at his word and so he believed that Projengton Momin was no longer a candidate. Elwin Sangma told him in reply that the symbol of two leaves had been cancelled by the Government. The witness took Elwin Sangma at his word and so he believed that Projengton Momin was no longer a candidate. Pipin Sangma also affirmed that "Elwin Sangma met me at Daggal Bazar when he made over the pamphlet marked Y to me." As that pamphlet did not bear the symbol of Projengton Momin, the witness questioned Elwin Sangma in that respect and the latter told him that Projengtons symbol had been cancelled by the Government. This witness too took Elwin Sangma at his word and consequently believed that Projengton Momin had ceased to be a candidate. Likewise, Gamal Singh Sangma swore that when he met Elwin Sangma in Daggal Bazar the latter gave him the pamphlet marked Z and since that pamphlet did not contain the symbol of two leaves he felt inquisitive and Elwin Sangma told him in reply to his query that the symbol of Projengton Momin had been cancelled by the Government. Putting faith in the words of Elwin Sangma, the witness decided, as he affirms, not to cast his vote for "there was no candidate left in the field whom I considered worth my vote." This set of three witnesses also happened to depose that prior to the distribution of pamphlets at Daggal Bazar by Elwin Sangma the election petitioner had visited their respective villages and apprised them that his symbol was two leaves. 38. The documents marked X, Y and Z are, it was admitted by A. M. Sangma R. W. 2 and K. Thomas R. W. 3, out of the lot of 500 like Ex. 4 got printed by the former from the press of the latter for the election purposes of respondent No. 1. The counsel for respondent No. 1 objected to their being exhibited on the score that sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 of Order 7 of the Civil Procedure Code states that where the plaintiff relies on documents other than those upon which he bases the suit, as evidence in support of his claim, and whether such documents are in his possession or power or not, he shall enter such documents in a list added or annexed to the plaint and that no such list in respect of these three documents had been furnished by the petitioner. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 18 of the same Order mentions consequences that ensue for non-compliance with sub-rule (2) of Rule 14. It is stated therein, inter alia, that a document which ought to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint, and which is not entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. It is well settled that the policy underlying Rule 18 is to exclude evidence the genuineness of which may be suspected and the existence of which at the date of filing of the suit be doubtful. However, it is equally well settled that the Court has wide discretion in the matter of production of documents which were not entered in the list as required by Rule 14 provided their genuineness is beyond dispute. Since the three documents in question are admitted by the two witnesses of the respondent himself, namely. A. M. Sangma and K. Thomas, and since the respondent did not affirm while in the witness box that they were forged or fabricated. I see no adequate justification for not exhibiting them. They shall respectively, I direct, bear the Exhibit Nos. 41, 42 and 43. Sri N. M. Lahiri was very candid, and consequently fair, in conceding that his client had failed to prove how documents like Ex. 4. Ex. 35. Exts. 39 to 41 and Ex. P. W. 6/1 had gone into others hands. If the counsel of respondent No. 1 is unable to explain the production of such documents by the witnesses of the petitioner and if the statements of the petitioners witnesses are immune from any infirmity, then I have no alternative but to take the statements of those witnesses as representing the truth. Therefore the distribution of the pamphlets like Ex. 4 and consequently their publication at Daggal Bazar on 5th March is proved beyond doubt. That conclusion is reinforced by the fact that respondent No. 1 admitted in his Court statement that he had addressed a meeting at Daggal Bazar on 5th March. 39. Respecting the Songsak Bazar occurrence we have only the statement of P. W. 6 Gojan Marak. After a close scrutiny of his statement in the background of the averments of the petitioner himself I am left with the impression that the dummy paper Ex. 39. Respecting the Songsak Bazar occurrence we have only the statement of P. W. 6 Gojan Marak. After a close scrutiny of his statement in the background of the averments of the petitioner himself I am left with the impression that the dummy paper Ex. P. W. 6/1 produced by Gojan Marak had not been collected by himself from Elwin Sangma in Songsak Bazar, but it was brought on the file of this Court by the petitioner through the witness. In his examination-in-chief the petitioner said that he learnt on 7-3-72 from Gojan Marak, Willingson Sangma and Witterson Marak that the respondent No. 1 had made a speech at Songsak Bazar on 6-3-72 and had distributed ballot papers like Ex. 4. However during his cross-examination he came out with the statement that it were Willingson Sangma, Jangnal Marak and Witterson Marak who told him on 7th March about the distribution of dummy ballot papers by respondent No. 1 on 6th March in Songsak Bazar. The names of Jangnal Marak and Gojan Marak are not common in the two statements while Witterson was not examined and Willingson Sangma P. W. 8 did not affirm that he had given the details of the Songsak Bazar incident to the election petitioner. Jangnal Marak P. W. 4 went to the length of stating that he did not meet the petitioner after 25-2-72. Therefore the stand of the election petitioner respecting this incident sounds hollow. According to the petitioner himself he got information about the distribution of dummy ballot papers on 6th March on the next day, viz, 7th but Gojan Marak denies that he had met Projengton Momin on the next day of the distribution of pamphlets like Ex. P. W. 6/1. If the witness did not meet Projengton Momin on the 7th March and Projengton says that he got the information from the witness on that date then either one or both of them are guilty of perjury. However one member of the blaze dated 6th March remains alive. Even if Gojan Marak had not collected the document produced by him from the respondent No. 1 at Songsak Bazar, nor it had come to his hand from any person other than the election petitioner, the fact remains that the document Ex. P. W. 6/1 which undeniably is one out of the 500 pamphlets like Ex. Even if Gojan Marak had not collected the document produced by him from the respondent No. 1 at Songsak Bazar, nor it had come to his hand from any person other than the election petitioner, the fact remains that the document Ex. P. W. 6/1 which undeniably is one out of the 500 pamphlets like Ex. 4 printed for the election purposes of respondent No. 1 had gone into the hands of others and plainly this could have happened if the respondent No. 1 had distributed the same. It has to be mentioned that the respondent No. 1 admitted in the witness box that he had addressed a meeting at Songsak Bazar on 7th March. 40. An interesting feature about the Songsak Bazar incident is that the two witnesses examined by the respondent No. 1. R. W. 6 Gatiram and R. W. 11 Spunath Marak, affirmed only this much that the respondent No. 1 had not distributed pamphlets like Ex. 4 on that occasion, but neither of them said that the respondent No. 1 had distributed pamphlets like Ex. E as affirmed by the latter. If no distribution of phamplets like Ex. E had taken place on 6th March at Songsak Bazar and yet the distribution of pamphlets is admitted, it would be legitimate to presume that the distribution was of pamphlets like Ex 4. It is not the case of either party that the respondent No. 1 had distributed pamphlets other than like those marked Exts. 4 and E, and if the respondent No. 1 has failed to prove the distribution of Ex. E the petitioners case that Ex. 4 pamphlets were distributed on 6-3-72 stands reinforced. 41. To sum up, the petitioner has succeeded in establishing that the respondent No. 1 had distributed pamphlets like Ex. 4 on 25th February at Bollonggiri and on 5th March at Daggal Bazar. Therefore, the respondent No. 1 is clearly proved to be guilty of the corrupt practice mentioned in Clause (4) of Sec. 123. 41. To sum up, the petitioner has succeeded in establishing that the respondent No. 1 had distributed pamphlets like Ex. 4 on 25th February at Bollonggiri and on 5th March at Daggal Bazar. Therefore, the respondent No. 1 is clearly proved to be guilty of the corrupt practice mentioned in Clause (4) of Sec. 123. I conclude the discussion of issue No. 2 by only inviting attention to an observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Guruji Shrihari v. Vithalrao, AIR 1970 SC 1841 , where it was said that so far as the last limb of Section 123 (4) is concerned, the emphasis is not so much on the intention of the publisher but on the probable effect on the election of the candidate against whom those statements are directed. I have held earlier, and I repeat here, that the status enjoyed by respondent No. 1 in the constituency and the association of Garo National Council of which he is the President with the ruling A. P. H. L. C. could have combinedly damaged grievously the election prospects of Projengton Momin on the publication of documents like Ex. 4 inasmuch as he was almost an unknown entity in the constituency the non-recognised political party, namely, the Hill State Peoples Democratic Party, which had sponsored him has not much following in the constituency, and the constituency concerned is in a highly backward region of the country. For all these reasons I hold that the petitioner has succeeded in proving the issue No. 2. Issue No. 3: 42. This issue was not pressed on behalf of the election petitioner for he failed to establish the ingredients of S. 101 of the Act in terms of which alone he could have claimed the declaration that he had been duly elected. Issue No. 4: 43. The counsel for respondent No. 1 failed to carry conviction with me, save on one point, that the election petition is either vague or is lacking in clear and precise statements of material facts. The ultimate stand of Sri. N. M. Lahiri in respect of this issue was that the evidence of the petitioner to the effect that the respondent No. 1 had declared, at various meetings addressed by him, that dummy papers like Ex. 4 were Government papers is inadmissible in evidence because no allegation to that effect had been adopted in the election petition. N. M. Lahiri in respect of this issue was that the evidence of the petitioner to the effect that the respondent No. 1 had declared, at various meetings addressed by him, that dummy papers like Ex. 4 were Government papers is inadmissible in evidence because no allegation to that effect had been adopted in the election petition. I agree that it is so. The reason is that a party cannot be permitted to lead evidence respecting a fact amounting to corrupt practice and not pleaded by him. Therefore, I rule out the mentioned part of the petitioners evidence and subject to that decide the issue against the respondent No. 1. 44. As a consequence of my findings on issues Nos. 1 and 2 I declare the election of respondent No. 1 Shri Elwin Sangma from the 45-Songsak (ST) Assembly Constituency, Meghalaya Legislative Assembly, to be void on the finding that he has been guilty of committing at the election the corrupt practice described in Clause (4) of S. 123 of the Act. The particulars of that corrupt practice are that Sri Elwin Sangma published a statement containing two false facts, namely, that the name of the election petitioner is Projenthon Momin as against his actual name Projengton Momin and that the election symbol of the latter was Boat and not two leaves, which was officially allotted to him, that he believed that the said two facts were false and he also did not believe the same to be true, that those false facts are in relation to the candidature of the petitioner, and that the publication of the statement containing false facts was reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the petitioners election. I order that the respondent No. 1 shall pay the costs of this election petition to Projengton Momin. I assess the Advocates fee at Rs. 250/- Petition allowed.